| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
State Pension
5. Bob Spink (Castle Point): If he will make a statement on changes in the level of state pension in the last three years. [132058]
The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The basic state pension has risen by £5.30 a week over inflation for single pensioners and by £8.50 a week for couples since 2000—a cash increase of nearly £10 a week for single pensioners and nearly £16 a week for couples. Increases over the last three years have given single pensioners £1.10 a week more than an earnings link would have given them, and £1.75 a week for couples.
Bob Spink : Means-testing has grown like Topsy—from 40 per cent. in 1997 to almost 60 per cent. today, with a Government target to take it to 80 per cent. What
would the Paymaster General say to my constituent, Joan Spey of Age Concern in Castle Point, whose friends and colleagues in Age Concern are very proud people? They deeply resent the intolerable intrusion into their lives that means-testing brings. What would she say to those people?
Dawn Primarolo: The intolerable intrusion is the poverty created for pensioners under the previous Government. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, on the basis of a measure of absolute poverty, more than 1.5 million pensioners have been taken out of poverty since 1997. He also well knows that the fair way forward on pensions must have the basic state pension underpinning people's income in retirement while, at the same time, we target maximum support on the very poorest pensioners. He also knows that the proposals that he has put forward will not help poor pensioners and will not be sustainable. I am sure that Age Concern and his constituents understand those points very well.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington): My right hon. Friend will be aware how grateful pensioners are for the many measures that the Government have taken on their behalf. However, she will also be aware that the problem of trying to address pensioner poverty by means-tested benefits is not just that every single representative pensioners organisation is against means-tested benefits. There is the problem of take-up. She will be aware that, after 10 years of take-up campaigns, substantial numbers of pensioners simply refuse to claim that to which they are entitled. Is she able to tell the House the latest statistics for the number of pensioners entitled to means-tested benefits who do not claim them?
Dawn Primarolo: I know that my hon. Friend follows these matters very closely. She is quite right to suggest that the huge challenge continues to be to make sure that those pensioners entitled to the pension credit or the minimum income guarantee receive that money alongside the fuel allowance and the free television licences. However, I can tell her that more than 2 million pensioners already receive the pension credit, which will give so much more to pensioners, and more than 1 million have contacted the Department. The Pension Service, which is directed particularly to pensioners, will do much to deal with the very points that she has made.
Mr. Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford): The truth is that, despite the Paymaster General's warm words, more and more pensioners rely not on the state pension but on means-tested benefits. As hon. Members on both sides have said, those pensioners deeply resent the intrusion and complexity involved with them. Despite her words and the Chancellor's promise
- "to end the means test for our elderly people",
Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the question that has to be answered is how—
Hon. Members: Answer the question!
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the right hon. Lady answer the question—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—in her own way.
Dawn Primarolo: I will, Mr. Speaker, if I can get more than half a dozen words out.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the first issue with regard to pension policy is how to ensure that those in poverty are raised out of poverty. The pension credit and other measures that have been introduced since 1997 ensure that the poorest third of pensioners are better off. The second set of issues that must be addressed—the issues are being addressed by consultation on the pensions Green Paper—is exactly how we combine ensuring that we target the poorest pensioners by giving the basic state pension as the foundation for retirement and assisting people to save for their retirement. All those matters are being addressed, and the pension credit will further assist that by encouraging people to save while still rewarding them.
Tees Valley
6. Vera Baird (Redcar): What plans he has to direct public investment to the Tees valley sub-region. [132059]
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): The Tees valley sub-region, like all parts of the UK, is benefiting from the increased public investment that the Government are putting in. In addition to national investment, the regional development agency, One NorthEast, is investing £15 million this year and £24 million next year directly in the Tees valley.
Vera Baird : I am grateful for that answer, although my question was clearly not as transparent as it should have been. I wanted to hear a comment about the Lyons inquiry, which favours the dispersal of civil service jobs to the regions on the presumed business case that that would be less expensive than if the jobs were in London. The Chancellor has spoken about dispersing 20,000 jobs in that way, but if the business case shows that more can go, can that number be merely a minimum so that more can follow, and can the Tees valley, with its adaptable work force and the lowest commercial property prices in the UK, go on the list of potential recipients?
John Healey: I pay tribute to how consistently my hon. and learned Friend has pursued that case. I spoke at her regional chamber of commerce in the Tees valley last month and there is great interest in, and commitment to, the Tees valley partnership bid for the relocation of civil service jobs. I confirm that Sir Michael Lyons made it clear that it was not his intention to dictate the public sector functions that should be relocated or where there should be relocation to. I confirm that relocations should be based on business proposals that Departments are preparing as part of the spending review process. I also confirm what my right
hon. Friend the Chancellor has made clear: we are looking at the relocation of at least 20,000 London-based civil service jobs to the regions.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's constituency is quite a distance from the Tees valley.
Euro
7. Mr. George Osborne (Tatton): How many events he has attended as part of the Government's euro information campaign launched in June. [132062]
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, have held a variety of meetings to discuss the euro in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In addition, Treasury officials have held more than 150 meetings with opinion formers in Britain and Europe since the Chancellor's statement on 9 June.
Mr. Osborne : I am glad to see that the Minister now keeps the Chancellor's diary. She will know, as everyone knows, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer won his battle with the Prime Minister and that there will not be a euro referendum before the general election. Does she think that the Chancellor could be more magnanimous in victory and go along with the charade of the roadshow, at least to save the Prime Minister's face?
Ruth Kelly: I feel, perhaps, that I need to reassure the hon. Gentleman, who takes a great interest in these matters. The euro has, indeed, been discussed at every level in the Treasury. I emphasise again that more than 150 meetings have been held throughout Europe and throughout Britain—in every country in Britain.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield): Does my hon. Friend agree that the preparation for the euro is no joking matter? It is a serious enterprise that affects the whole of our economy and our future. Would she comment on the fact not only that we need a euro information campaign throughout the country, but that it would be nice if the official Opposition joined the cross-party group on the euro?
Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have a euro preparations committee, which is open to parties across the House, and there is one political party that refuses to join.
Mr. Osborne: Are you a member?
Ruth Kelly: Of course I am. The Government have the right policy—to prepare and decide. That is what we will do. The Tory policy is to deprive the British people of the opportunity to join, whether or not it is in the national economic interest to do so. They say "No, never," dogmatically. Ours is the commonsense position—prepare and decide.
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden): Can the Minister confirm that if any country that is already a
member of the euro were to apply the five tests that the Chancellor applies and find that the euro was not in its national interest, as would appear to be the case from some of the statistics that he has given, there is absolutely nothing that that country could do about it? In the course of the Minister's education campaign, does she spell out the fact that membership is irrevocable?
Ruth Kelly: We have, of course, emphasised the strategic importance of decisions on the euro, which is why we are committed to a triple lock on the euro decision—a vote in Cabinet, a vote in Parliament and a referendum of the British people. The quality of the analysis that the Treasury undertook in its assessment of the five national economic tests to see whether it is in Britain's national interest to join was widely commended throughout Europe whenever it was presented.
John Cryer (Hornchurch): Can my hon. Friend remind the House of who signed us up to the charter of economic euro-fundamentalism in the first place?
Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is, I think, referring to the Maastricht treaty. It is clear to everyone in the House who signed the Maastricht treaty. [Hon. Members: "We had an opt-out."] We have the correct policy on the euro. If it is in our national British economic interest to join, we shall do so.
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe): I hope that when the Minister next comes to the Dispatch Box, she will answer the question put to her by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). Perhaps she can tell us, too, whether all the internal discussions in the Treasury to which she referred were included in the diary items that she listed in her first response. Is it not the case that the Prime Minister told the House that as part of the roadshow, there have been 60 visits from Foreign Office Ministers, but No. 10 said that none involved him and that none was planned; the Treasury said there were too many events to list but that they had all been low-key, that there was no specific start date and that it could not identify any of them; the Foreign Office said the events had not even started, and the Minister for Europe said that it was never meant to be a literal roadshow—it was all just a figure of speech? Have not these conflicting statements on the roadshow degenerated into total farce, and is it not impossible for the Minister to clear the matter up, whatever she says?
Ruth Kelly: I find it extraordinary that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can talk about the diary commitments of Treasury Ministers, when I have made it plain to the House that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has had meetings with business leaders, industry and unions. He has been discussing the euro, and Treasury officials have had well over 150 meetings across the country and across Europe.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West): Given the indications that, since the introduction of the euro, trade between countries within the eurozone has increased, is it not even more important that British businesses be well informed about the euro and its
consequences for them, if we are to maintain our share of European markets and the jobs in Britain that depend on then?
Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an important point. British trade has increased, which is why the impact on investment, foreign investment, jobs and prosperity are key to our assessment of the five economic tests. It is also why we have a euro information campaign, and why we have set up standing committees not only in England, but in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so that business, industry, the unions and all other key stakeholders in the process will be fully engaged and informed, as necessary.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |