| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Pensions
11. Mr. David Crausby (Bolton, North-East): If he will make a statement on his policy on the link between pensions and increases in pay. [99071]
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Our policy, which was set out in the manifesto, is that the basic state pension should be uprated at least in line with prices. The poorest current pensioners will, of course, benefit from the recently announced increase of 4.6 per cent. to the minimum income guarantee. In the longer term, pensioners will benefit from the state second pension, legislation for which we shall shortly introduce. I can also announce that a consultation document on the contracting-out aspects of the state second pension will be published later today. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Mr. Crausby: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The Conservatives broke the link between pensions and pay. I accept that the Government cannot cure overnight the problems associated with 18 years of the previous Government, but does he agree that pensions received by the elderly are not charitable donations from the Government, but are earned as a result of the national insurance contributions that they paid throughout their life, which increased as their wages increased? Is it not morally right that pensions should increase as wages increase?
Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is quite right about national insurance contributions, but let us not beat about the bush. The basic state pension has never provided an adequate income on which to live, whether people have been fully paid up or not. I remind him that in the first three years of this Parliament pensioners as a group have received, via the winter fuel discount, which is not means-tested, and the minimum income guarantee, which is means-tested, £800 million more than they would have received if the basic state pension had been increased in line with earnings.
Mr. David Prior (North Norfolk): Does the Minister agree that his policies will increase the number of pensioners receiving means-tested benefits?
Mr. Rooker: No, I do not accept that.
Minimum Income Guarantee
13. Mr. Vernon Coaker (Gedling): What estimate he has made of the number of pensioners benefiting from the minimum income guarantee. [99074]
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): In May 1999, 1.4 million pensioners were benefiting from the minimum income guarantee.
Mr. Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. That figure means that a huge number of pensioners throughout the country, including in my constituency of Gedling in Nottingham, have benefited from the Government's policy. However, as he is aware, there is a
problem with take-up. Will he investigate whether we can introduce imaginative measures to get pensioners who are not claiming the minimum income guarantee to claim it?
Mr. Rooker: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There is a problem with take-up--which, before anyone says anything, is inevitable with a means-tested benefit. However, there are also problems with take-up of attendance allowance, which is not means-tested. Too many pensioners are missing out. We estimate that take-up is about 40. per cent., so there are opportunities to increase take-up of that allowance. Millions of pensioners receive council tax benefit and housing benefit, as do millions of other people, and no stigma is attached to those benefits. We shall run a Government-sponsored take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee early next year.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): Has the Minister taken any notice of the results of the focus groups that insurance companies have been running on the minimum pension guarantee, and is he not concerned that the message has obviously got across to generations of people whose retirement is some time away that they will gain no advantage from investing and saving for their future if their income is low?
Mr. Rooker: I hate to admit this, but the answer is yes. I have taken account of the focus groups because, along with some of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), I recently attended one of those groups, which was illuminating. The reaction was exactly the same as that of some of my constituents.
Nevertheless, the central issue that emerged was the need to save and prepare for a pension many years in advance, and the thought that, if it is left too late, it becomes more expensive. That has got across to people, as has the point that I made earlier--that anyone who relies solely on the basic state retirement pension and makes no other provision will, as has always been the case, retire in abject poverty.
Household Income
15. Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove): If he will make a statement on the gap between the rich and the poor, as measured by household income. [99077]
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The gap between rich and poor widened dramatically in the 1980s. We are, as a Government, serious about creating a fairer society--an aim that I hope the hon. Lady shares. We want all our citizens to have the opportunities to maximise their potential and we want to create a society in which all can share in the growing prosperity of the nation. The facts on poverty and social exclusion in this country are absolutely shocking; we intend to address them.
Miss Kirkbride: As usual, the hon. Gentleman did not answer the question. Before the election, the Labour party made great play of the fact that the gap between the rich and the poor was widening. That is still true under this Labour Government and it must increasingly be true while state benefits--some people will always rely on state benefits--increase according to inflation and the market
increases salaries by a greater percentage. Is it not one of the great Labour lies that his Government will do anything to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor?
Mr. Rooker: I regret that the hon. Lady takes that approach. It is a fact that we have taken hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, have introduced the working families tax credit so that no one else will ever be better off on benefit than in work--that must make a substantial difference--and are the first Government to produce a poverty audit of this country. In effect, that was an audit of the legacy of the previous Government, for which we are prepared to be accountable year in, year out. Between 1979 and 1995-96, the share of income received by the bottom 20 per cent. of the population went down from 9.8 per cent. to 6.7 per cent. while the share of the top 20 per cent. went up from 35 per cent. to 41 per cent. I do not know how the hon. Lady had the brass neck to ask her question.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Would it not be appropriate for every Tory Member in the Chamber to apologise for the appalling poverty into which so many people--my constituents and others--were forced as a result of Tory policies during their 18 years in government? Does my hon. Friend expect any such apology to be made by any Tory Member from the Front or Back Benches?
Mr. Rooker: I expect it, but I suspect that it will not happen.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): Will the Minister depart for a moment from ploughing through his set text to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride)? She referred to the increasing gap between the rich and the poor under this Government. Is it not a fact that the latest survey of households on below average income shows that the gap between rich and poor is increasing under this Government? Will he nominate--or will he even take a flier at guessing--which year the Government will succeed in closing that gap rather making it wider?
Mr. Rooker: I answered the question that I was asked. I was asked to make a statement on the gap, and, as I said, it is too wide. Although I thought that the hon. Gentleman was bright enough to do so, he cannot take on board the fact that, as everyone knows, for the first two years of this Administration we kept to the spending limits of the previous Government--
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): It was the Government's choice.
Mr. Rooker: Yes, it was our choice. We kept to those spending limits and the policies of the previous Government will permeate for some time to come. There is no doubt about that. Everything--[Interruption.] I am telling the truth. Everything cannot be solved in 32 months.
Customer Service
16. Mr. Hilary Benn (Leeds, Central): If he will make a statement on steps his Department is taking to improve customer service in the social security system. [99078]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The Department is considering how to ease the transition from benefits to work as part of customer services improvements and to improve the administration of benefits to remove barriers to work. Among other things, we are looking at linking rules and run-ons, such as the two-week run-on for lone parents who are on income support and jobseeker's allowance that was recently put into effect and the 12-month linking rule for those on the new deal for disabled people.
Mr. Benn: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. Does she agree that as well as addressing the poverty trap we
need to continue to address the process trap, by which I mean the problems that claimants can experience in moving off benefit and into work and back again, which act as an obstacle to seeking a job?
Angela Eagle: I cannot agree more with my hon. Friend's comments, and I assure him that we are focusing on the path leading from benefits back into work and on what happens when people take part-time or temporary jobs. That is why the new ONE pilots include a better-off calculation to reassure people about whether they will be better off in work. We are considering redesigning the system to ensure that if a job does not work out, people can get back on to benefits with the minimum hassle.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |