| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Pensions
3. Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South): What steps he is taking to improve the public's knowledge of pensions and saving for retirement. [107188]
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We shall be introducing new pension forecasts giving both state and private pension details. For the first time, individuals who work will have a clear statement of their current and projected pension rights. We hope to be able to provide that information for everyone by 2002, and this year it has been piloted in several large companies.
We have already greatly improved the general pension information available with award-winning pension leaflets, based on the "Monopoly" game, which are used at exhibitions and in advertisements in the press. We shall continue to do all we can to improve people's knowledge of pensions and to encourage individuals to make adequate provision for their retirement.
Mr. Cunningham:
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that young people, who are often unaware that it is important for them to join a pension scheme, do join a pension scheme? What will he do to encourage them to do
Mr. Rooker:
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The whole House will agree that it is not easy to encourage young people to think about pensions. However, when from 2002 everybody gets an annual statement of their pension entitlements--similar to a P60--and theysee what is being accrued in their state, company, occupational or stakeholder pension, they will start to ask questions in a way that they did not before. It is likely that more young people will start to make better provision for their pension arrangements.
Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford):
Obviously, the more information people have about their pensions, the better. In that context, all pensioners know that they will get a measly 75p increase in April. How does that square with the fact that the council tax in Chelmsford will increase by £1.31 a week, which will mean a 56p a week loss for pensioners before taking into account the increase in the rate of inflation since September, the increase in rents way above the rate of inflation and other income problems that pensioners face? The Chancellor seems to have about £7 billion to £8 billion spare next year, so why cannot the pensioners have a decent increase and share in the nation's prosperity?
Mr. Rooker:
The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the 75p increase is tied to someone living on the basic state pension of £66.75. Average pensioner net incomes in 1997-98 for single people were £132, and for couples £252. To compare the 75p increase with the council tax increase is totally and utterly misleading.
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston):
As well as improving the public's knowledge of pensions, will my right hon. Friend ensure that pension advisers who advise members of the public and firms are also brought up to speed? Will he carefully consider the ombudsman's decisions on the collapse of H. H. Robertson's, a firm in my constituency, when they are published and ensure that lessons about the weaknesses in the current legislation are learned and that pension advisers take their share of responsibility for the collapse?
Mr. Rooker:
I do not know the particular circumstances of that firm, but any report from the pensions ombudsman that highlights a loophole in the protection of pensioners, future and present, will be examined seriously by the Government.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire):
Many people will get a shock when they receive their personal statements and realise what they will be entitled to when they retire. Will the Minister use the opportunity afforded by the statements to give an up-to-date running total of what is in the national insurance fund? Will he confirm that, if the statements were sent out this week, the recipients would learn that the fund had a £16,000 million surplus, but many of them will receive an increase of only 75p in April?
Mr. Rooker:
If we did that, we would have to send out a volume the size of a telephone directory explaining that
Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Beckenham):
Will the Minister confirm that the information that he has just promised for 2002 was indeed the information that the Green Paper on pensions promised for April 1999? Will he confirm that the delay is because of the decision about widows' inheritance of the state earnings-related pension scheme? Are we to conclude that there will not be a decision until about 2002, or can we expect it to be earlier?
Mr. Rooker:
I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood what I said. We expect to get the pension forecasting service to everybody in the system up and running by 2002, perhaps even by late 2001. It has been piloted with tens of thousands of employees in seven or eight large companies this year. Indeed, a pilot of the pilot has already started. This scheme is new--it has never before been attempted to combine state and private pension forecasts for everyone on an annual basis.
4. Mr. Chris Pond (Gravesham):
What is his estimate of the total savings to date to his Department as a result of the new deal for lone parents; and what forecasts he has made of future savings. [107189]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle):
The independent evaluation of the programme's prototype phase is due to be published at the end of this month and will include a full cost-benefit analysis. The full national programme is being evaluated separately. It, too, will include a cost-benefit analysis and will be available in spring 2002.
Mr. Pond:
I thank the Minister for that response and look forward to the results of the full evaluation. Is she aware that among the 100,000 lone parents who have benefited from the new deal so far is a young woman in my constituency who, after many years of unemployment, has gained so much in terms of skills and confidence that she is now working at Gravesend jobcentre? The help that the new deal has given her and so many other lone parents is a major factor in helping the Government to fulfil their commitment to halving child poverty in 10 years.
The Minister will not be hurt if I say that the majority of lone parents would love to sever their relationship with her Department. However, is she aware that many are fearful that, if they make the transition from social security into work, there will be a dangerous gap between the receipt of benefits and the arrival of the first pay packet? Can she give any reassurance to those lone parents considering making that transition?
Angela Eagle:
My hon. Friend is right to point to the successes of the new deal for lone parents. On his specific question, the Government have introduced a lone parents benefit run-on from last October. That means that all lone parents moving off benefits into jobs will receive an extra
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York):
Can the Minister confirm that 100,000 people only attended interview; they were not taken off the dependency list? Can she also confirm that there remain 470,000 single parents with children over five who would be eligible? What measures is her Department taking to encourage those people to break the dependency link? They would love to get off benefits and into a stable job, but her Department is singularly failing to encourage them to do so.
Angela Eagle:
First, at least we have a new deal for lone parents and are trying to help them off benefit; the previous Government did nothing but abuse them. I can say that 32,710 lone parents are now in jobs who would not have been in jobs before, and 10,630 are in further education and training. This is difficult: 30 per cent. of lone parents have no qualifications, and 55 per cent. have qualifications under national vocational qualification level 2. Some, perhaps, are not job-ready, and we are doing our best with these programmes to prepare them for the labour market so that they and their children can look forward to a lifetime off benefits rather than the lifetime on benefits that the previous Government left them with.
5. Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
If he will make it his policy to provide winter fuel payments for pensioners on a permanent basis. [107191]
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker):
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in November 1999 that winter fuel payments would be made every year from now on. Additionally, in December, following a European Court of Justice judgment, we announced our intention to extend the scheme to those aged 60 and over, whether or not they are pensioners.
Mr. Winnick:
That is very good news on both counts. Has the £100 winter fuel payment not been of tremendous help to many pensioners, particularly those on low incomes? Does my right hon. Friend recall that, before 1997, no extra money was given unless the weather was freezing for seven consecutive days? Does he agreethat that system, which the Conservative Government defended at every opportunity, was both inadequate and farcical? Will the Opposition perform a U-turn by accepting winter fuel payments if they return to office?
Mr. Rooker:
The exceptional cold weather payment system still applies but the greenhouse effect means that it does not often come into use. The winter fuel payment to pensioner households is all the more valuable for that. We did not, so far as I am aware, inherit any plan or budget from the previous Government for the payment of that benefit.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough):
Will it help pensioners to pay for their fuel or anything else this winter
Mr. Rooker:
This is not the time for a debate on annuities, but one must ask what pensioners who complain that they are being forced to buy annuities at 75 had lived on until then. I accept that annuities are a serious issue, but we must not run away with the idea that it affects the poorest people in this country. Those involved have managed to avoid taking out an annuity until they reached 75, and one must ask what they were living on.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |