| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Stakeholder Pensions
6. Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): What discussions his Department has held with representatives of pension funds about the Government's proposed stakeholder pensions. [88029]
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): Ministers and officials have benefited from numerous meetings with representatives of the pensions industry, including those from personal pension and occupational pension funds. Pension fund representatives are receiving our consultation documents on stakeholder pension schemes and will help us to get the detail right.
Mr. Wilkinson: Would it not have been wiser to wait until the Green Paper consultation period had ended before initiating legislation? Is it not clear that both the Government's required top limit of 1 per cent. on annual fees and the low level of contributions--down to 10 per cent. a month--will squeeze life offices and pension funds that are already suffering severely under the Labour Government? Is not the axing of 4,000 jobs by the Pru a foretaste of things to come unless the Government listen and change their mind?
Mr. Timms: We consulted widely on the framework for stakeholder pensions contained in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill before the Green Paper was published. I listen with interest to the hon. Gentleman's appeals on behalf of the insurance industry. It is our ambition that every employee in Britain should, for the first time, have access to a good-value, dependable funded pension.
We are driving a hard bargain on behalf of scheme members, and we are absolutely right to do so. The Government and the industry need to pull out all the stops to persuade millions of people that it is worth their while to save for their retirement. We shall not do that if charges are excessive, as they have too often been for personal pensions. The financial services industry is perfectly capable of producing the good value that we need. Our job is to ensure that good value is delivered for stakeholder pensions.
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead):
I congratulate the Government on the extensive consultation on their welfare reform programme, and I welcome the extension to the consultation announced yesterday. However, there appears to be a contradiction between a stakeholder pension policy that relies on voluntary saving, and the introduction of a minimum earnings guarantee, which will make it impossible for many workers to save enough to be better off than they would be under the guarantee. Will the review announced yesterday consider that matter?
Mr. Timms:
I do not believe that there is any contradiction. As formulated, the state second pension will take people above the minimum income guarantee if they have saved and contributed throughout their lives. If, instead, they are in a stakeholder pension, it, too, will contribute.
On the point about compulsion, the problem is that many people cannot afford to save. Already, 4.6 per cent. of national insurance goes towards their pension, and for low-paid people extra compulsion is simply not on. That is why the state second pension is being designed to provide a real incentive for voluntary extra saving, and that is what I believe our scheme will achieve.
Mr. Michael Trend (Windsor):
Following the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), let me say that
Mr. Timms:
I can confirm that we shall drive a hard bargain on behalf of scheme members. We are in consultation, and we shall take account of everything that we hear in response to the proposal. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to correct a misapprehension under which the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), is labouring with regard to the consultation process. I welcome the hon. Member for Havant to his new position, and I accept that it is a tough brief to get on top of, but I informed the hon. Gentleman and the House last Wednesday that we published two consultation documents last month and we plan to publish four more this month. The hon. Gentleman issued a rather bizarre press release under the heading "Conservative Party News", in which he said:
Mr. Terry Rooney (Bradford, North):
Has any pension fund provider or any life assurance company opposed the principles of stakeholder pensions?
Mr. Timms:
No, they have not. They have warmly welcomed them. As my right hon. Friend said, there has been an almost universal welcome for the principles which we have laid down and which are contained in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. It is important that we now work with the industry and everyone else with an interest in this matter to get the details right.
7. Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes):
What estimate he has made of the cost in social security benefits of the waiting times experienced by patients for orthopaedic (a) consultations and (b) operations. [88031]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley):
Spending on social security benefits is affected by very many factors, and it is not possible to isolate the benefit cost of waiting for orthopaedic treatment.
Mr. Steen:
Will the Minister explain to the House why 25-year-old Jason Ganney of Buckfastleigh will be on state benefits until October 2001, as he has been told that that is the earliest date on which he can have a knee operation? He injured his knee while playing rugger for the Buckfastleigh Ramblers against the Exeter Saracens. He is a skilled young man. He is married and his wife is expecting a child, but he cannot look after her and has to stay on state benefits because the national health service cannot give him a date before October 2001 for a minor knee operation. Is that not disgraceful?
Mr. Bayley:
I have seen the correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Health,
The national health service inherited from the previous Government a terrible legacy on waiting lists. The Secretary of State for Health said that it would take a 10-year programme to rebuild the national health service. However, there has been substantial progress already. An additional £417 million was provided for waiting list initiatives last year, and another £320 million this year. The number of people on waiting lists is considerably lower nationally, and lower by 4,600 in Devon, which is a 14 per cent. reduction. The Secretary of State for Health will continue to press for a reduction in waiting times for all treatments.
8. Helen Jones (Warrington, North):
What steps his Department is taking to improve social security appeals procedures. [88032]
11. Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham):
What steps he is taking to shorten the waiting times for appeals for incapacity benefit and disability living allowance claimants who have had their benefits stopped. [88036]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle):
As we announced on 23 June, we are improving procedures for making decisions and handling appeals. These changes will help our clients, including those whose incapacity benefit or disability living allowance has been stopped. The Independent Tribunal Service has already taken action to shorten the waiting times for appeals, and is now making significant inroads into its backlog of cases.
Helen Jones:
I thank my hon. Friend for her reply.
Although I have raised the matter in the House before, many constituents are still contacting me, almost in despair over the time that they are having to wait for their appeals to be heard. Does my hon. Friend not agree that that is an unacceptable burden to impose on people who are already in a very vulnerable position? Can she assure us that she will continue to monitor the situation, to ensure that the mechanism we introduced to improve appeals tribunals is delivered and that people are given decisions as speedily as possible?
Angela Eagle:
My hon. Friend makes a case for speeding up reform that cannot be questioned. I could point out that, again, the problem is due to the legacy of the Conservative party. There are backlogs of seven months. That is why we changed the system in the Social Security Act 1998, as a result of which new decision-making and appeals procedures are now being introduced. The chief executive of the new Appeals Agency has been set tough targets.
In February there was a backlog of 70,000 cases, or 50 per cent. of the case load. By the end of May, that backlog had been reduced to 34,000, or 30 per cent.
of the case load. As I have said, significant inroads are being made, but we are not complacent about the task that faces us.
Mr. Efford:
I, too, thank my hon. Friend for her answer; but does she share my concern about the number of claimants whose benefits are being stopped as a result of inadequate information given to adjudicators by medical examiners, and about the impact that that is having on the backlog? What steps can she take to improve and monitor the actions of medical examiners, to ensure that they perform better in the future?
Angela Eagle:
There are many reasons why tribunal cases may be adjourned, or tribunals may not be able to reach a decision. We are trying to deal with all those reasons. Sometimes bad administration is to blame, but, by means of the new decision-making and appeals processes, we are monitoring the standard of work closely. Reports will be made to Ministers on how that is going. I hope that a significant improvement can be made in all these areas, but especially in administration.
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry):
Does the Minister accept that people with disabilities are especially vulnerable in respect of appeals, and delays in the proper payment of benefit? Those people are extremely worried. Although the Minister has given figures in an attempt to claim that there has been some improvement, that is not the way in which many of my constituents see the position.
Does the Minister also accept that, even if the appeals situation improves--as we all hope that it will--a further round of difficulties will arise from Government proposals to means-test incapacity benefit? Those proposals are likely to add further to the complexity of the system and to the number of appeals and difficulties, and to lead to a general lack of fairness in the treatment of people with disabilities.
Angela Eagle:
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench--I do not think that I have had the pleasure of doing so before--but I cannot agree with what he has said.
"That brings the total number of such documents to a staggering 10".
We shall have published six documents, not 10--two plus four equals six, not 10. That remains the position.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |