| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
State Pension
14. Mr. David Amess (Southend, West): What recent representations he has received about the level of the state pension. [115877]
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Since January, we have received about 2,000 further letters that mention the level of the state pension, some of which raise other issues as well. We record only the subject of the letter. In addition to letters, we receive representations in this place. Two weeks ago the Government organised a three-hour debate on pensions reform in Westminster Hall, which was attended by one Back Bencher, who happened to be a Labour Member.
Mr. Amess: Is the Minister aware that he is about to receive thousands of letters from senior citizens who regard the 75p increase as an absolute disgrace? Does he remember sitting on the Labour Opposition Benches and castigating the Conservative Government on their treatment of senior citizens? Will he now admit that the Labour Government have misled senior citizens about the state pension? What does he intend to do about giving them back a decent standard of living?
Mr. Rooker: We will tell the truth, for a start. We shall reply to all the letters that we receive, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell his constituents, as other hon. Members do, that in the first three years of this Parliament pensioners as a whole will have received £800 million more, through the winter fuel payments and the minimum income guarantee, than they would have received through the earnings uprating of the basic pension. The policy we are operating is the policy that we were elected on, which was to raise the basic state pension at least in line with earnings--the same policy as the one on which the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats were elected.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley): Obviously we welcome what the Government have done for pensioners to ease their plight following 18 years of neglect. I have talked to many pensioners in my constituency, and their need is for an increase in the basic state pension. Through my right hon. Friend's discussions at No. 11, will he ensure that there is a substantial increase in the state pension in the future?
Mr. Rooker: When I answered the previous question, my mind was concentrating on the minimum income guarantee, which increases in line with earnings. I referred to the basic state pension rising in line with earnings, but I meant prices, as everyone in the House understood--except me. I was carried away with the success of our minimum income guarantee take-up campaign.
People will campaign on the basic state pension, but 20 years ago most people had no second pension. The only fair comparison to make is with total pensioner incomes. Currently, the average for a single person is £132 a week and it is £248 a week for a couple. Net housing costs come out of that. That is double the basic state pension, and is born out of the success of occupational pensions, personal pensions and, above all, the state earnings-related pension scheme introduced by the last Labour Government. We cannot wipe away the pension provision that was legislated for all those years ago, and concentrate, to the exclusion of everything else, on the basic state pension. It is not a fair comparison.
State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
15. Mr. David Rendel (Newbury): When he will publish further details of the inherited SERPS scheme announced on 15 March. [115879]
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his statement to the House on 15 March, once we have developed the details of the scheme for inherited SERPS we shall put them to the House. The National Audit Office and the parliamentary ombudsman will be fully involved in developing the procedures. We want to ensure that we get the scheme right, so that we can deal with the problem we inherited. Later today, the Public Accounts Committee will begin its inquiry into the report.
Mr. Rendel: In his original statement, the Secretary of State said:
- We want to ensure that everyone who has been misled and has lost out gets redress.--[Official Report, 15 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 308.]
Mr. Rooker: There will be a scheme, which will have to be submitted to the House for approval. I cannot say when that will happen: I cannot be certain whether it will be before the summer recess, or in the autumn.
We said at the time that we did not expect the scheme to be up and running until next year. We have delayed the date of the inherited SERPS change until 6 October 2002, 30 months later than would otherwise have obtained. There will then be a massive advertising scheme to get people to apply for their benefit. If people claim and can show that they have been misled by my Department owing to maladministration, they will be included in the scheme.
The scheme will not run for ever.
Mr. Rooker:
I must make that clear: the scheme cannot run for ever. I do not know when and for how long it will run. Subsequently, we shall put to the House regulations that will be properly debated in both Houses. We simply do not have detailed answers to the legitimate questions asked by the hon. Gentleman, but I do not want to give him the impression that the inherited SERPS scheme will be open for the next 30 years, because it will not be.
16. Caroline Flint (Don Valley):
What his Department has done to help reduce the barriers to work faced by lone parents. [115880]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle):
We are tackling the barriers to work for lone parents with a raft of measures, including the new deal for lone parents and the working families tax credit. The Budget announced still more help for lone parents. For example, from April 2001 all lone parents working 16 hours a week or more will receive at least £155. They will receive £214 if they work more than 35 hours.
Caroline Flint:
I welcome the opportunity for lone parents to keep their benefits for four weeks during their transition to work. Will my hon. Friend explain how changes in housing benefit will assist lone parents in that transition? Will she also look into the ending of the top-up allowance pilot? It affects a number of my constituents, some of whom are lone parents. When it ends, they may be back on benefit, especially if they have taken up part-time work.
Angela Eagle:
The housing benefit run-on announced, and made automatic, in the Budget statement will guarantee that anyone who ceases to depend on benefits and takes up work can receive housing benefit for the month in question before receiving his or her first wage. We know that the transition from benefits to work, and the gaps that must be filled, lead many people to believe that they cannot make such a transition. It is therefore important for us to produce welfare-to-work measures to reassure those people that it is possible for them to return to work, and that we will remove the barriers so that they can become independent again.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East):
Does the Minister accept that, according to figures from her own Department, fewer than 6 per cent. of lone parents invited to join the scheme have secured employment as a result? Does she regard that as a success or a failure?
Angela Eagle:
We consider the new deal for lone parents a success. Some 41,000 lone parents are now in work who would not have been if it had not existed.
The hon. Gentleman's party abandoned lone parents. It left them no way of obtaining work, and gave them no extra help. It just lectured them about having children and being on their own. We are offering real help and support for people who want to return to work, as part of our crusade to tackle child poverty. The only way in which we can eliminate child poverty, as the Prime Minister wishes us to do within 20 years, is to help the parents too--and that includes lone parents.
20. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley):
What estimate he has made of the numbers of people entitled to social security benefits who are not claiming them. [115884]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley):
Estimates on take-up of benefits are published annually. While take-up of benefits among some client groups is high, there is a particular and long-standing problem of relatively low take-up of income support among pensioners. We have therefore decided to focus on that group, and, last week, announced details of a take-up campaign which will identify pensioners who may be entitled and encourage them to claim their minimum income guarantee.
Ann Clwyd:
Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to voluntary organisations such as Age
Mr. Bayley:
Yes, we will do that. We will encourage people to claim, because it is their entitlement and their right to do so. We shall have an extremely vigorous campaign, and welcome any support that we receive from voluntary bodies in pursuing that take-up campaign, and in making it more successful than it has been hitherto.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |