House of Commons
Monday 3 April 2000
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
SOCIAL SECURITY
The Secretary of State was asked--
Pensioner Poverty
1. Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West): What progress the Government are making in tackling poverty among pensioners. [115863]
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): As a result of Government policy, all pensioners will be £3 a week better off, and those aged over 75 will be £5 a week better off. On top of that, many will benefit from our tax changes. Because we are committed to tackling pensioner poverty, the poorest pensioners on the minimum income guarantee are £14 a week better off than they were under the previous Government, and those aged over 75 who are on the minimum income guarantee are £16 better off.
Mr. Ross: Can my right hon. Friend tell us how many retired people do not qualify for the full basic state pension--for example, people who were self-employed or many married women--and who therefore do not benefit from any increase? Does he understand how necessary it is that such people take up benefits and the minimum income guarantee?
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is frequently overlooked in discussions of pensions that many people--more than half a million--receive no basic pension because they do not have the required contributions. On top of that, some of the 2.7 million married women have full contributions, but many do not. The point of the minimum income guarantee is to address the problem that we inherited. Far too many pensioners--nearly 1 million single pensioners and 1 million pensioner couples--did not receive enough money to make ends meet. The minimum income guarantee is important to them, and some pensioners will be £16 a week better off because of it. During the final three days of last week, following the announcement of the minimum income guarantee freephone number, more than 11,500 pensioners called to ask for help.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury): What message does the Secretary of State believe that he is sending to the
next generation of pensioners--those people on modest incomes who are scrimping and saving for their retirement? The minimum income guarantee will be available to those who, for whatever reason, do not provide for themselves, but those who do provide for themselves, and achieve small pensions or savings, will find that they have no advantage.
Mr. Darling: I can say two things to such pensioners. First, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced a doubling of capital limits that enable people to qualify for the minimum income guarantee, about which the hon. Gentleman has asked many questions. The capital limits were last raised in 1988--nothing was done about them during the last 10 years of the previous Government. We have doubled the limits, which will help.
Secondly, the pensioner credit, on which we shall consult in a few months, is designed to help pensioners who have not only a small amount of capital, but a modest occupational pension. We are determined to make sure that people who save and build up a pension are rewarded for their thrift, and not, as in the past, penalised for it.
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield):
Does the Minister recall that the previous Labour Government linked pensions to earnings on the basis that the wealth we enjoyed had been built up by people who had retired? Does he recall that the Conservative Government abolished that link, costing pensioners more than £20 a week? Is he aware that millions of pensioners are frustrated, angry and--some of them--bitter that our moral obligation to them has not been met. Means-tested benefits are not the same as benefits as of right.
Mr. Darling:
May I take this opportunity to wish my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) many happy returns of the day? He will look forward to receiving his free television licence in November.
I remember the previous Labour Government, although I was not in the House at the time. It is worth recalling that that Government increased pensions by the better of prices or earnings because inflation in the 1970s sometimes rose by 25 per cent. a year. In fact, the real-terms increase received by pensioners was negligible because of high inflation rates, which my right hon. Friend no doubt remembers well.
If my right hon. Friend considers what has happened over the past 25 years, he will see, in the pensioner income paper that I published last week, that we inherited a situation in which the incomes of better-off pensioners have gone up by 80 per cent. while the poorest pensioners have had increases of only 30 per cent. In the interests of fairness and equity, I should have thought that he would support the Government in doing the right thing by the oldest and poorer pensioners, who have benefited by as much as £16 a week that they would not have had but for this Government.
Of course, we are helping all pensioners--to the tune of about £3 a week this year, and £5 a week for those aged over 75--but it must be right, given what has happened over the past 25 years, to ensure that we help those who lost out so badly during the Tory years.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Beckenham):
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that divorced women form one of the
Mr. Darling:
I would have more sympathy with the hon. Lady if her party had not opposed pension sharing on divorce when it was in government.
Mr. David Willetts (Havant)
indicated dissent.
Mr. Darling:
Well, the hon. Lady did, for the sake of the record. However, I can tell her that the regulations in relation to pension sharing and divorce will come into force in December of this year, as we promised.
3. Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford):
If he will make a statement on the number of pensioners awaiting computation of their full pension entitlement. [115865]
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker):
As I said on 7 February, there were then about 83,000 people still to have their benefits reviewed following the NIRS2 problems. Some 17,000 of these have now been cleared, but the total number outstanding has increased to 88,000 as a result of further reviews produced from NIRS2 for existing awards to be revised and the continuing need to carry out clerical calculations for some new awards. So far, 48,000 claims have been cleared clerically and there are about 13,000 currently awaiting action. However, as I said in February, we still anticipate that all payments will be fully brought up to date before the end of the year.
Mr. St. Aubyn:
We are all holding our breath to see whether the Minister can deliver on that commitment, given that it is now 18 months since the Secretary of State told us that the matter would be cleared up within a matter of weeks. I have a constituent, who wrote to me only this week, who retired as head teacher of a special school last summer and, nine months later, is still waiting to have her pension entitlement sorted out.
Is it not a disgrace that a Government cannot even authorise that the Benefits Agency pay pensioners their projected benefits, which they were told that they could expect when they retired, until such time as the exact figure can be sorted out?
Mr. Rooker:
Conservative Members can say all the hear, hears they like. The hon. Gentleman has raised the matter several times, as have other hon. Members, and he is quite right to do so, but the answer is the same. We are reliant upon a computerised system. That new product was purchased on the cheap by the previous Government. It does not do the job that it was intended to do--hence the delay, and hence so far we have paid out £2.5 million in compensation for late payment of people's pensions.
5. Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley):
How much was spent on benefits for asylum seekers in (a) 1996-97, (b) 1997-98, (c) 1998-99 and (d) 1999-2000 to date. [115867]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley):
The estimated annual expenditure for asylum seekers was approximately £400 million in 1996-97, falling to £305 million in 1997-98 and falling again to £285 million in 1998-99.
A final estimate is not yet available for 1999-2000.
Mr. Evans:
But we know that the figure will be higher. Is it not true that the measures that the Government are taking today, with the launch of a voucher scheme, are just a knee-jerk panic reaction to a situation that has gone completely out of control under the present Government? Is it not true that there has been an influx of bogus asylum seekers into this country, leeching off the British taxpayer and genuine claimants? Is it not true that Britain is now seen as a soft-touch magnet for economic migrants throughout the world, and that the Government need to get a grip on the situation?
It would be far better if, instead of trying to fuel the fire with alternative means such as vouchers, the Government introduced mechanisms now which stopped the tide of economic migrants coming into this country in the first place.
Mr. Bayley:
Those who listen to today's events on "Yesterday in Parliament" will miss the look of shock and surprise on the hon. Gentleman's face when he learned that social security expenditure on asylum seekers has fallen year on year under this Government.
Mr. Evans:
What about the council tax?
Mr. Bayley:
The hon. Gentleman's complaints about the council tax would have more credibility if his party had not opposed every one of the measures that our party has introduced that have had that effect on social security spending.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
My hon. Friend is perfectly right. It is obvious that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was totally surprised by the answer that he received. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although there is no doubt that bogus asylum seekers should be dealt with quickly, the hon. Gentleman expressed quite clearly the racism and xenophobia of many Tory Members who are deliberately whipping up feelings about asylum seekers? The very same Tory Members have never shown the slightest interest in working and retired people in this country.
Mr. Bayley:
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The nub of the problem is that the number of asylum seekers banked up waiting for decisions to be taken on their cases increased under the Conservatives and the time that it took to resolve their cases and to decide whether asylum should be granted lengthened. Our policies are reducing the time that it takes for such decisions to be made. In the latest figures for February this year, there were 6,110 new
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden):
Can the Minister confirm that the figures for expenditure that he has just given do not include support provided by local authorities? Will he also confirm that the majority of those claiming benefit as asylum seekers entered this country claiming to have come here on business, for tourism or to stay with relatives? To do that, they had to convince the visa and immigration authorities that they had the means to support themselves and to return home. What will the Minister do to hold them to their word rather than allow them to be supported by the taxpayer?
Mr. Bayley:
I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman why the Conservative party opposed the £2,000 fine on lorry drivers bringing people into this country. If he is serious about reducing the number of economic migrants coming into the country--
Mr. Lilley:
Answer the question.
Mr. Bayley:
In answer to the question, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he will recall from his time as Secretary of State for Social Security that decisions taken by the Home Office on the administration of immigration and asylum matters meant that people were banked up for months and years while decisions were taken and expenditure was offloaded from the Home Office on to his Department. We are ensuring that expenditure takes place under the control of the Home Office, so that it has incentives for, and gains the benefits of, speeding up the decision-making process.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |