Examination of Witnesses (Questions 341-359)
MR MALCOLM
WICKS MP AND
MS ALEXIS
CLEVELAND
8 DECEMBER 2004
Q341 Chairman: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. Can I call the proceedings to order. We are having
an oral session of evidence at the end of what has been an important
inquiry for the Committee on Pension Credit. We are joined this
morning by the Minister of State for Pensions, Mr Malcolm Wicks,
welcome back to familiar pastures, and with him this morning is
Alexis Cleveland, who is the Chief Executive of the Pension Service.
Thank you both, and thank you for organising our visits and for
the evidence which you have submitted in written form. It is all
very helpful. Malcolm, why do you not start by saying a little
about where we are? We have had the Pension Credit operating for
over a year now. I guess you could say that the introduction,
relative to some other benefits which have been introduced, has
been quite successful in many ways, but there are still some problems
and we will come on to some of those in the technical questions
in a moment. Why do you not set the scene and give your own view
about where we are and where we are headed?
Malcolm Wicks: Chairman, thank
you very much. It is nice to be back under your chairmanship,
albeit on the wrong side of the tracks on this occasion. As you
say, Pension Credit was introduced in October last year so we
have had a year's, or so, experience. Statistically, by the end
of October this year 2.6 million pensioner households were receiving
the Credit, and that is almost 3.2 million individuals. The average
weekly award is just over £41 a week. Two point four million
people are receiving more as a result of Pension Credit. The weekly
gain is approximately £17. We feel that, thanks to the Pension
Service and Alexis Cleveland, we have had a very successful roll-out
of the Pension Credit. I know everyone is looking for failures
in this kind of policy but I am very proud of what the Pension
Service has achieved. We have learned lessons and we have applied
the lessons appropriately. After year one we are now taking stock,
we are looking at a new campaign so that we can further increase
take-up rates. There are some issues there which we are aware
of, so we are pursuing a take-up agenda. I should also just add
that it is still relatively early days for our new Pension Service,
the first time we have had a dedicated service for elders in this
country, operating, as you know, through Pension Centres but also,
critically, with a human face in every constituency, a Local Pension
Service, that has now made one million contacts with elderly people,
either through home visits or at information or advice centres.
Another development now is of Joint Teams working with the local
authorities so that we can better join up the local welfare state
to benefit elderly people, all to help us achieve our target of
tackling pensioner poverty in the United Kingdom.
Chairman: That is very helpful and sets
the scene rather well. Can we spend just a few moments looking
at where the benefit fits into the wider pensions debate with
Adair Turner, and all of that, and looking ahead. I think it would
be helpful to try to understand a little bit more about where
the Government thinks Pension Credit will fit in, looking forward.
Q342 Mr Goodman: The Pensions Policy
Institute told us there was a consensus that there was a need
for reform of the system over time, with most organisations calling
for an enhanced, non-means-tested component and a scaling down
of the means-tested component. Presumably you agree with this,
do you not, because you said recently, it has been much quoted,
that Pension Credit is a short- to medium-term policy?
Malcolm Wicks: I think what we
have got to do is look at different cohorts of individuals, in
terms of pensions. When we came to power in 1997, the previous
administration thought it right that a single person on Income
Support levels should get £69 a week, we thought that was
wrong and unjust. Therefore, we wanted to focus particular help
on that group. They tend to be the very elderly and two-thirds
of them are women. Why? Because they have not got occupational
pension rights, because of caring responsibilities in the past
and because they are less likely to have a full National Insurance
record and a full basic state pension, so we have policies designed
for that group of people. Also we need to think about that elderly
lady's daughter, and indeed the granddaughter. All I would argue
is that our thinking about today's 20 year old, or 25 year old,
and his, or her, pension future, I think, is a different kind
of story from how we treat the grandmother and we are trying to
think that through. I see the pension future for younger people
as being one where, through a combination of state pension and
occupational pensions and all the other savings, they are above
the means-tested level when they retire in the middle decades
of this century. That would be my analysis about the future. That
is why, yes, in terms of its major impact, I do see Pension Credit
as more of a short- to medium-term issue. That is not to say that,
just as there has been ever since the 1948 Act, there will not
be a place for incomes-testing way into this century, but I hope
it will be of diminishing importance.
Q343 Mr Goodman: Clearly, you are part
of this consensus, which brings me to the next question, which
is this. You said, and the Secretary of State has said, in what
seems to be a breath of new thinking, that the problem of abject
pensioner poverty has got to be solved, and when it is solved
then we can really lift up our eyes to think about the future
and the non-means-tested component, possibly a citizen's pension
and all that. I think the big question is, when will we know?
How is the Department going to measure, how are you going to measure,
whether you have solved this problem of abject pensioner poverty?
How are you going to measure it and what is your timescale?
Malcolm Wicks: Of course, we do
have measures, there are different measures, and alongside the
measures we can see that we are moving ahead, in terms of tackling
absolute pensioner poverty and also relative poverty. The Committee
have got the figures, or we can supply the figures. We have been
very, very successful in that respect. Particularly the poorest
third of elderly people are getting now a disproportionate percentage
of the additional resource we are putting in, so while we are
spending £10 billion extra a year on pensions, compared with
a previous Government, Mr Goodman, a great proportion of that
money is going to the poorest. We can measure that, and our objective
is to eradicate poverty, of course it is, that must be our objective.
You do not do it just through income maintenance policies, you
do it through things like the Warm Front policy as well, so it
is a more comprehensive approach that we are taking to this issue.
Q344 Mr Goodman: Yes, but when and how
are you going to know? When you are sitting around with the Secretary
of State, looking at the figures and looking at your measurements,
how soon do you think you are going to be able to say, "Right,
I think we've solved this problem of abject pensioner poverty.
Now is the time to let our citizen's pension proposals maybe take
off the ground"?
Malcolm Wicks: We do not have
one target, or we do not have one date, but I think we have clear
indicators of the direction of travel and the direction of travel
is a very good one. As I say, we have got impressive evidence
on the attack on absolute pensioner poverty, and indeed in terms
of relative poverty as well, so I think this Committee and Parliament
can see and indeed discuss and argue about the progress we are
making in future Parliaments.
Q345 Mr Goodman: You do not have any
timescale at all and it is not before Turner, presumably?
Malcolm Wicks: I do not think
it is before Turner two, no. I think it is a longer-term timescale.
Indeed, just as we have had a debate about what we mean by child
poverty and whether it is just about income or whether it should
be about other aspects, say, educational attainment, I think what
we would like to do in the Department is initiate a debate about
what we mean by pensioner deprivation. Clearly, with an ageing
population, there will be judgments in the future to be made about
extra resources going to health, social care, the Warm Front policy
I have mentioned and pensions, and I think we need a wider debate
about pensioner poverty, how we attack it and how it relates to
something even more important, namely, the well-being of elderly
people in an ageing society.
Q346 Mr Goodman: Do you agree that a
problem with current arrangements is the rate at which entitlement
to Savings Credit is growing, and is there a way to contain this
cost while at the same time continuing to uprate the Guarantee
Credit in line with earnings?
Malcolm Wicks: Can I say, at the
moment, when I look myself critically at where we are, I am genuinely
pleased by what we have done on Pension Credit and, as I say,
I am proud of our public service, the Pension Service. When the
public service occasionally comes in for criticism, I think occasionally
we should recognise achievement, and as Minister I do recognise
achievement there. When I look at it critically, we have been
more successful, I suppose, on the important thing of getting
people on the Guarantee element of Pension Credit. I think the
figures are that when you compare it with MIG take-up in April
2003 we have now got something like 320,000[1]
more households on the guaranteed element. In other words, we
are getting the Pension Credit resource to the poorest group of
elderly people. When you look at take-up figures, we might later,
that is always worth bearing in mind. I think the challenge for
us now is to get more people taking up the Savings Credit element,
a group of elderly people who have not traditionally come into
this part of the benefits system, so I see that as a challenge.
I understand the question. There will be judgments to be made
in the future about the relative index-linking of different components
of Pension Credit, in terms of our strategy over the next few
decades.
Q347 Mr Goodman: It is not a question
about timescale. If reform of this growth rate is needed, would
it not be better to do it sooner rather than later?
Malcolm Wicks: We have given pledges
about index-linking for this spending round, and of course it
will be for future ministers and parliaments to make judgments
about the longer-term scale.
Q348 Mr Goodman: Perhaps understandably,
you are a bit vague about the timescale. Can I put to you why
that might be? A lot of people looking at this from outside, not
just the Opposition political parties but lobby groups and others
who have got an interest in all this, are wondering who is in
charge. On the one hand, we have thoughtful speeches from you
and the Secretary of State about the citizen's pension and all
that. On the other hand, you look at the policy and this great
means-testing machine that continues to grind on. The question
a lot of people are asking is who is actually in charge of the
policy, is it the Department or is it the Treasury, is it the
Secretary of State or is it the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Who
is actually in charge of the ship?
Malcolm Wicks: Could I just say,
Mr Goodman, and through the Chair, that, you talk about the great
means-testing machine, I think it is time in Britain for a rather
grown-up debate about means-testing. The fact of the matter is,
and we have known this for a long time, I have been aware of it
for a long time, that there are advantages and disadvantages to
an income-testing approach, and there are both. I think at the
moment, not in this Committee, of course, it is too erudite, but
outside, we have, in a sense, two sides not really having a dialogue
about this, and I think we do need a slightly more mature debate
about it. You talk about this great means-testing machine, or
whatever your rhetoric was, whereas actually I am rather proud,
quietly, of the fact that whereas under your previous Government
the single elderly person had £69 a week to live on, it is
not for me to justify that, for next year it will be £109.
This great means-testing machine, as you call it polemically,
is delivering money to our elders and our betters and I am rather
proud of that. In terms of who is in charge, the Government is
in charge, and indeed we intend to remain so. It is a collective
responsibility. Of course, our Department is the biggest spender
and therefore our relationships with the Treasury are really very
close on these issues and, perfectly appropriately, our policy
is a matter of interest to the Chancellor, and of course we welcome
that interest.
Q349 Andrew Selous: Can I take you back
to the line of questioning that Paul Goodman was advancing earlier
on about when you are going to clarify your future thinking. You
said it will be post Turner two, but is not this really going
to cause problems for the Turner Commission unless the Government
give some indication as to how it would like future pensions policy
to run out in future? How are financial advisers, how are people
trying to make plans now about their long-term future, going to
be able to take those sensible decisions if even when the Turner
Report comes out it is still unclear what Government thinking
is for the long term?
Malcolm Wicks: Excuse me, when
I think about the challenges facing us as a Government, in terms
of righting injustices and righting wrongs, the concerns of financial
advisers are not top of my agenda and other people come higher.
Q350 Andrew Selous: Can I come back on
that. We took evidence from Adair Turner and some of his colleagues
on the Commission. They said that was actually a very important
part of future pension planning because financial advisers talk
to people about their long-term pension planning decisions. When
your Government came to power you wanted to have 60% of pension
provision through the private sector. I do not know if you have
dropped that commitment but I think many independent commentators
will say actually this is quite a critical component of people's
long-term financial planning for a secure old age?
Malcolm Wicks: Let us remind ourselves
of what the Turner analysis is. I think the strength of the Turner
analysis is the long time perspective, because he tells us, with
a very good evidence base, that these issues were bubbling up
in the 1980s, there was a kind of fools' paradise, to use his
term, because of booming stock markets. He also reminds us that
at the moment when people are retiring they are retiring on higher
incomes, on average, than the previous cohort. He goes on to say
that unless action is taken over the next few years there is going
to be a real problem in, say, two decades' time, so his focus
is very much on those coming up to the middle decades of this
century. We established the Turner Commission to advise on these
issues and I quite accept that the judgments to be made about
the future of occupational pensions, voluntary or compulsory,
interface very much with judgments to be made about state pensions,
of course I recognise that. I hope they will forgive me, despite
them not being top of my list, financial advisers, yes, have to
look at these issues, although I do think it is slightly far-fetched
to suggest that when you might be advising, say, the 30 year old,
with somehow a career stretching before them, hopefully a good
one, that eligibility for the then, whatever it will be called,
Pension Credit is a key issue. I think that is naive, quite frankly.
Q351 Chairman: I understand perfectly
the way you characterised the answer to that last question but
I think that everybody who is looking at this agenda recognises
that Adair Turner's Report does provide us with an opportunity,
and when he comes up with the recommendations it is important
to try, I think you would agree, to establish as wide a consensus
around his recommendations as we can. It seems to me, and this
is actually a reformulation of Andrew Selous' question, that the
extent of means-testing which currently is in the policy could
be one of the biggest stumbling-blocks to achieving that
consensus. The question really is, and you are a strong defender
and you are sounding very passionate, and rightly so, about the
achievement you have made in terms of dealing with pensioner poverty
up till now, to what extent are you prepared to concede that cashing
in the extent of means-testing might be worth doing if actually
it secures a cross-party consensus that sees us through to 2030,
2050, in the way that Adair Turner is suggesting? Independent
financial advisers are not giving it a lot of thought either,
but actually the long-term policy is very important for the United
Kingdom.
Malcolm Wicks: It is important
and the introduction of the Savings Credit really is quite interesting
because, on the one hand, of course, for the first time, we are
saying, in this kind of policy, because it was not there under
National Assistance, it was not there under Supplementary Benefit
or Income Support, we want to reward, recognise, rather than penalise,
those who have modest savings and yet this seems to have unleashed
a concern about a savings incentive. Whereas, under another administration,
so the front bench spokesmen here, they can answer for themselves,
it was a pound-for-pound reduction against the old Income Support.
Was their debate then concerned about savings incentive? There
is something rather bizarre about that. I made my own judgment
clear on this, that I look forward to a future where younger people
today will accumulate savings, occupational pensions and state
pension rights which will mean that when they retire they will
be significantly above any means-tested levels which then exist.
That is our ambition and I feel very passionately about that.
I do not want to see a nation of elders where the great majority,
say, are subject to means-testing. It is not what it is about.
We have got a current situation, particularly facing women, and
we are taking the right action.
Chairman: We could discuss that for the
rest of the morning, but we have got a lot of ground to cover.
We are going to move on to the position of women and invite Vera
Baird to continue the questioning.
Q352 Vera Baird: Minister, you are very
well aware of the concerns about women, indeed you have referred
to them a number of times. The benefit that women have accrued
from Pension Credit is clear, but it has always been a two-sided
argument because it is on account of women as they get to pensionable
age being poorer than men are. Of course, the Secretary of State
has referred to women's pensions as, in a sense, a national scandal,
and what he was talking about there and what I want to ask you
a few questions about is that only a small proportion of women
in retirement have a basic state pension at its fullest level.
I think somewhere between 14% and 17% have a basic state pension,
a full one, in their own right, and about 50% have a full one
and the difference in the two figures is it is widows, really,
is it not, who substitute their husbands' NI record? The Turner
Commission identified certain, what it called, cliff edges in
the state pension system which impede women, whose labour market
participation is interrupted by caring, from accruing basic state
pensions. In particular, they talked about the 10 year rule, about
the impact of the lower earnings limit and about an inflexibility
of the women having responsibilities protection and suggested
that if they were changed then that could have an important impact
on the adequacy of pensions, particularly for lower-paid women.
I am sure you are well aware of all of those difficulties in the
system. Are you considering addressing any of those changes? If
so, how long would they take to feed through into realising better
pension provision for women? Could they be altered retrospectively?
Malcolm Wicks: I very much welcome
the fact that there is now a kind of new debate taking place about
the future of state pensions, and my Secretary of State has very
much led that debate. I welcome that. I am looking at it objectively
and part of the debate will be between those people who argue
for, what I think they often call it, a citizen's pension, or
a universal pension, which, based on some kind of residency test,
basically will go to elderly people, regardless of income and
regardless of any contribution record, and that has many strengths.
Against that there will be those, I think, who could argue for
a kind of renaissance of the social insurance principle, because
contributions are important, because it relates back to citizenship
and rights and duties. I do not think that any of us would say
that the National Insurance scheme we have now, with all these
different nuances to it, often adversely affecting women and,
in the past, carers, is the kind of modernised social insurance
system you would want. Frankly, I think that is where there should
now be an interesting debate. Also, of course, it relates to things
like the future of state second pensions, and some may well argue
that you can move towards a different regime for a basic pension,
or universal pension, while maintaining a contribution code for
an earnings-related pension and indeed other benefits entitlement.
That is where I see the issue. The only other thing I would add,
Ms Baird, through the Chair, is that I think we need to look at
timescale on this. At the moment, the criticism, rightly, is that
too few women retire with a full National Insurance contribution
record, for reasons we understand. I think, when you look ahead
a decade or two, because of Home Responsibilities Protection,
because women today have fewer children and because they are more
likely to return to the labour market more quickly than their
predecessors after having had their baby, then actually what you
see is that the tiny percentages now of people on a full basic
state pension starts to change over the next two decades. You
can see the way in which things like Home Responsibilities Payments
will make an impact on the pensions, to use that example
again, as it were, the granddaughters rather than the grandmothers
who are already retired. Indeed, it might be, Chairman, that I
could try to share some of that evidence with the Committee which
I have looked at recently in my Department.
Chairman: I am sure that will be helpful.
Thank you.
Q353 Vera Baird: It is absolutely clear,
what I think the Turner Commission said, that there is convergence
between men and women over a couple of decades, with men actually
doing worse and women doing better. Nonetheless, if there are
structural defects in the pension system, either of the kind we
have already canvassed, about HRP, which is not a weekly credit
but is a system which means that a woman does not have to work
for 39 years to get her full basic state pension for every year
she is on Home Responsibilities Protection, she works a year less,
but if you break through the lower earnings limit, if you do not
have qualification for HRP for a full year you simply lose it,
they are very inflexible, these structural changes. The question
is, because the PPI is very clear and I am very clear, so let
me put this to you, that although women will start to converge
they will never catch up with men as long as they take primary
care responsibilities, because HRP is too inflexible, because
all of the other problems we have talked about will not allow
them actually to catch up, do you change these problems for women
in the structure of the pension system, or do you say indeed "That's
very complicated, it'll take a long time to feed through and we
have to look for a different method"?
Malcolm Wicks: That is the issue,
I think. As I say, I think where the debate should be, because
I think we need a proper debate about this, I do not think there
is a monopoly of wisdom on either side, is between whether we
go for the universal pension, regardless of any contribution record
but a residency test going on, which will then cut through a lot
of these issues and these issues will not arise, or whether, if
one feels the contributory principle still has some strengths
associated with it, what would a social insurance system look
like, fit for purpose, given people's life patterns and life cycles
in the 21st century, men and women? You would have to address
these issues. These is still a sense in which, despite major advances,
and let us not dismiss the advances, in terms of the Home Responsibilities
Protection, National Insurance reflects the Beveridge view of
the 1940s. There is a quote I cannot quote accurately because
it is not entirely in my head, but basically Beveridge is saying
that on marriage women take on a new status, they are dependent
upon their husbands, they perform vital, unpaid tasks in return
for that dependency, etc., that is almost a quote from Beveridge.
Clearly, some of that sexist view about the modern family and
the role of men and women, in a sense, still is somewhat reflected
in our National Insurance system, despite, and I emphasise this,
the radical moves we have made, in terms of recognising that when
you have children and when you are caring for elders you should
be credited into the system.
Q354 Vera Baird: I think that is a very
important recognition. How important in your view is the contributory
nature of the current system?
Malcolm Wicks: As I say, I think
that is where the debate is and I think one of the judgments about
the contributory principle would be whether in the future it should
underpin, as it does at the moment, the basic state pension, or
whether if you moved towards the idea of a universal pension it
could become the major underpinning for any earnings relation
you have in the system. I think all these things are big issues.
Frankly, there are advantages and disadvantages to both, in my
judgment, and we need to discuss them. It should be a public debate,
I think, Chairman, but obviously the Government, while taking
part in that debate and having some private discussions about
it, will need to make a judgment about that. I think probably
we will want to make that judgment in association with the complementary
debate that is going on about the future of occupational pensions,
which we have asked Adair Turner and his colleagues to look at
for us.
Q355 Vera Baird: Do you have a timescale
by which you intend to come to that judgment?
Malcolm Wicks: No, in the sense
I cannot give you a date, and who knows what will happen next
year. There could be very important things happening next year,
we will take on the Presidency of G8, for example, is what I had
in mind there. I think, clearly, after the Turner analysis, alongside
that, the Government will need to make some judgments about state
and occupational pensions and how they interface with one another.
Q356 Vera Baird: Could I ask you about
what is a big point for some women, a small point in the context
of what we have been saying. Savings Credit is introduced to recognise
the importance of rewarding people for saving but, of course,
it applies only to savings above the basic state pension, so all
of those women who do not have a full basic state pension still
lose, pound for pound, all of their savings, if they have any.
Are there any plans to change that? We have got a costing, I think,
from your Department that to reward those with less than a full
basic state pension for saving it would cost about half a billion
pounds next year. Is that something you are looking at doing in
the short term, irrespective of the major decisions?
Malcolm Wicks: I think our view
has been that we have to deliver to that particularly vulnerable
group of elderly people a guaranteed income, which next year will
be £109 for single people and £167 a week for a couple.
I think that has been our major effort and it is where the Pension
Service has done remarkably well. As I say, I think the figure,
compared with April last year, is that an extra 320,000 people
are now getting the guaranteed level, a real impact on their wretched
poverty, and I think that is where our impact has been. I understand
the issue about Savings Credit. Frankly, there are a number of
things we could do to improve the mechanics of Pension Credit,
and there are issues we may get on to, I do not know, about the
impact on Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, for example.
There are a number of changes you can make and most of them cost
quite significant amounts of money and there is always that difficulty
and always that reality, of course, and half a billion pounds
is quite a lot of cash.
Q357 Vera Baird: However, if the principle
is that people should be rewarded for saving, why are not women
in that category?
Malcolm Wicks: That is the argument
we are putting forward and I recognise the strength of the argument,
but also I recognise the other side of the balance-sheet, sadly.
Q358 Rob Marris: You have mentioned twice
one possibility, of moving to a citizen's pension coupled with
some kind of earnings-related scheme, which I suggest to you would
disadvantage women, who tend to earn less. Do I take it, from
that, that the Government is considering the possibility of reviving
SERPS?
Malcolm Wicks: No, I do not think
you can take that. The SERPS had many strengths but actually it
had some weaknesses, it was not the most redistributive mechanism,
although I recognise that many people in skilled trades are now
going to consider amounts of SERPS. We think that the state second
pension, which as you know is the successor to Barbara Castle's
SERPS, has its own strengths. The way in which carers are credited
in, if a previous administration recognised those caring for children,
I am proud of the fact that our administrations recognised what
demographically is becoming something as important, namely the
care of elders and we have credited in that group of people. The
state second pension, I think, is particularly important for women.
There are a lot of wide issues here and there are three or four
big subjects you need to discuss together almost, and one of them,
of course, is the future of the earnings-related component of
state pensions through S2P, or state second pension.
Q359 Mr Dismore: I would like to talk
about take-up, starting with the Guarantee Credit. You have got
80% claiming Guarantee Credit, which means obviously that 20%
are not claiming. What do you know about the 20% who are not claiming?
Malcolm Wicks: I think my colleague,
Alexis Cleveland, might want to add to this. We are getting better
evidence now, it is not hard and, I do not think at the moment,
statistically robust evidence, but I hope it will improve, by
the way, and we can share it with the Committee, about different
barriers to non-take-up. If I can list just some of them, it is
not just about the Guarantee, by the way, some of it is about
the other elements as well. There is uncertainty about eligibility
among some people, 20% believing savings would exclude them, for
example, from one group of evidence we have. I know it was not
your question but the savings side we need to emphasise. Interestingly
enough, and this might puzzle some people but I can only report
what we are told by elderly people, some say they will not claim
because they feel they can manage, financially they are okay,
they tell us. I still want them to get the Pension Credit, by
the way, but that is actually what they are reporting to us. There
is the worry still, yes, among some about disclosing information
to strangers and we need to try to overcome that problem. Some
people think the size of any gain may not be worth the effort.
I think the evidence emerging now, and it has always been the
case with means-tested benefits, is that those gaining least,
maybe the odd £5 a week, say, are least likely to apply,
whereas those gaining most, say £50, seem to be at a much
higher take-up rate than even the 80%. We are looking at all these
factors, but I think, Mr Dismore, you are right to imply that
if we think it is about 80% claiming the Guarantee element there
is a challenge out there for us with the rest. Can I say, Chairman,
through you, that there is the usual health warning on this, that
because our data on entitlement is based on the Family Resources
Survey, date of 2002-03 projected forward to 2004-05, as this
Committee recognises, being based on a sample, there are always
margins of error. Whenever we talk about estimates of entitlement,
and I have got an estimate here, that we think 3.85 million pensioner
households were entitled to Pension Credit, this is always give
or take 100,000, maybe 200,000 on either side. Mr Dismore, we
talk about 80%, it could be more getting it, but it could be fewer,
so there is always that element.
1 This refers to 320,000 additional guarantee cases
(or households). There are just over 400,000 individuals within
those households which may include a small number of partners
under the age of 60. Back
|
