Post Office Card Account

Steve Webb Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this debate, which I know will be welcomed by people up and down the country who rely on post office services in their local community and value the Post Office card account. As she said, this debate is a chance for the Minister to alleviate some of the concerns felt by sub-postmasters and postmistresses and their customers. Consensus is building on the importance of guaranteeing Royal Mail business for the Post Office. I hope that the Government will take note.

Two key issues are at stake. The first is ensuring access to pensions and benefits, especially for vulnerable people and those in rural communities. The second is ensuring that the post office network as a business is viable and vibrant in the long term. The importance of both those issues rings true in my constituency, where temporary closures include the Hawksworth Wood post office, which has been closed for nearly a year, despite Government promises that there would be no more post office closures. Since the closure, local residents have had to travel to other areas for the post office services that they value, either tackling a long, steep hill or paying for a bus to another part of the city. The closure has been devastating to the community served by the post office. It has been particularly hard on older people and more vulnerable people, as many hon. Members have said, because the face-to-face service that they are used to is extremely valuable.

I am sure that many hon. Members have experienced similar closures in their constituencies and know at first hand the difficulties that they create. Currently, 424 post offices are temporarily closed, 417 of which have been closed for a prolonged period. It is vital that we strive to keep post offices open and help them adapt to changing demands from their customers and, particularly, to protect the vulnerable. Post offices are at the heart of many of our communities, and we need to make it easier for them to survive. The business generated by the Post Office card account can help them to do so.

Labour did not get everything right on post offices, but POCA in the post office network was a proud achievement. POCA was introduced by the Labour Government to improve financial inclusion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said. That is particularly important in deprived and remote areas. I am proud of Labour’s decision to introduce POCA and the decision in 2008 not to allow it to leave the post office network, which would have diverted business away from the Post Office and jeopardised the viability of many of our local post offices.

About 4 million Department for Work and Pensions benefit and account payments were made through POCA in 2010, to a group of customers who rely on a simple service to receive their pensions and benefits. Many of them are elderly: 55% are pensioners. POCA is a core aspect of Post Office business and a key driver of footfall, but it is also designed to promote basic financial inclusion. Unlike most financial products—I say this as someone who used to work in financial services—POCA has huge support among the people who use it. When the POCA contract was on the agenda in 2006, as has been said, it generated 4 million signatures in support of keeping it in the post office network. I believe that that is the largest ever peacetime petition.

A Help the Aged survey of its members also found that they were overwhelmingly in favour of the service. Help the Aged’s report highlighted the importance of post offices, particularly to older people who rely on POCA, and POCA’s popularity in rural areas where no local bank is easily accessible. That is also an issue in some of the most deprived urban areas.

The Post Office card account has several key advantages for its customers. Some 71% of people without access to a bank account depend on POCA to receive payments. POCA customers are often people who cannot or do not want to access bank accounts; 30% have no other bank account. According to Age UK, someone from an unbanked household is 23 times more likely to use a POCA than someone from a household with access to bank accounts. POCA is also the only facility for receiving benefits or pensions open to people who have been declared bankrupt. Another good feature is that the facility offers no risk of getting into debt. POCA also offers a crucial facility for people with mobility problems. Almost 10% of Post Office card account holders have a second card that can be given to a carer to draw cash on their behalf, a facility not available through high-street banks.

POCA was introduced as part of a wide-ranging approach to financial inclusion as a simple facility for people who could not or did not wish to use a bank account. However, POCA alone is not enough to ensure that older, vulnerable and hard-to-reach customers are financially included. To do so, the Government could work to identify links with credit unions and consider carefully what steps are needed to increase the accounts’ functionality in the interests of post offices and their customers. Like other hon. Members, I urge the Government to increase POCA’s functionality and consider whether direct debits could be introduced. Even now, people with a Post Office card account but no bank account do not get the direct debit service that helps save money and time on utility bills and other payments, a service that most of us take for granted.

There are, of course, risks involved in introducing direct debit functionality. The Treasury financial inclusion taskforce has documented the excess charges often incurred by new users of bank accounts, and they must be taken into account, as average losses are £140 a year and charges are focused on the poorest households. Consumer Focus also has concerns, but none the less supports a more flexible POCA account, and its research indicates that POCA users do too.

The coalition agreement said:

“We will give Post Office card account holders the chance to benefit from direct debit discounts and ensure that social tariffs offer access to the best prices available.”

In answers to parliamentary questions, the DWP has also said that research is being conducted on the subject. What steps have been taken to ensure that that promise is delivered?

Members are keen to ensure that POCA lasts beyond 2015 and that we have some certainty about the future, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli said. The year 2015 may seem like a long way off, but POCA customers and sub-postmasters—like many Liberal Democrat MPs, if I may say so—look to 2015 with some trepidation.

When exploring options for increased functionality, it is important to consider that the Post Office has unprecedented access to the consumers whom credit unions are best able to support. Credit unions do an immense amount of good in our communities. The Leeds and Bramley credit unions have a tangible impact on the lives of my constituents, too many of whom, lacking access to the services that credit unions offer, are driven into the arms of loan sharks. However, credit unions in my constituency lack a shop front and a high-street presence. The post office network could help change that.

Despite sending a mixed message with the financial inclusion fund, the Government have supported credit unions and could take a serious step to support them by linking them with the Post Office when considering the Post Office card accounts. Will the Minister update us on what practical measures the Government are taking to support that aim? Hon. Members support credit unions as an important source of affordable finance within our communities and welcome the opportunity to increase footfall in our post offices.

We must make it easier for post offices to survive. POCA is one of the services that ensures the viability of post offices. About 20% of total visits to post offices, or 6.5 million visits a week, are made to access POCA payments. POCA brings in a significant portion of income for sub-postmasters up and down the country. The National Federation of SubPostmasters has estimated that it provides 10% of sub-postmasters’ net pay. In rural and deprived areas such as Truro and Falmouth, Argyll and Leeds West, that proportion jumps significantly: it is about 12% in deprived urban areas, for example. Indeed, 15% of sub-postmasters earn £400 or more a month from POCA transactions. Nationally, POCA brings in about £195 million a year.

POCA customers ensure vital footfall and additional income to ensure that post offices remain at the heart of our communities, but a Government supposedly committed to preserving the footfall have already failed one test by handing the green giro contract to PayPoint. Now 250,000 people who would previously have gone to post offices to collect their green giros will no longer do so. That is a negative step that could damage our post offices and reduce the services available to customers.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

The hon. Lady will be aware, as has been said, that the previous Government initiated a competitive tender and set criteria for bidding. All of it was undertaken according to strict European Union competition rules. If one of the two bidders was substantially cheaper than the other, does she think that the Government should have gone with the higher bidder?

[Rachel Reeves]

As the Minister knows, that decision would have been outside my domain, but we should consider the Labour Government’s decision in 2008 to award the Post Office card account to the Post Office rather than continuing with the tender. That is an example of what this Government could have done if they had chosen to do so, but they did not.

In evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs for its report on postal services, the general secretary of the Communication Workers Union, Billy Hayes, described the decision to remove green giros from the Post Office, at a time when the Government were committed to increasing the use of the post office network, as being

“about as joined-up as spaghetti”.

This is a hit to the footfall in post offices, and I urge the Government to ensure that POCA remains a Post Office account.

With the POCA contract subject to competition tendering requirements, and considering the fact that only 4,000 of approximately 12,000 post offices are viable independent of the shops in which they operate, the stakes for the future POCA contract could not be higher. Moreover, with Government commitments to the post bank seemingly in the long grass, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli has said, and with little tangible progress towards making the Post Office the front office for government, what assurances can the Minister give us that POCA will be part of securing the commitment to maintaining post office services?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

Good morning, Mr Hollobone. I join the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this important debate. I am delighted that, although this is the final day before the Whit recess, we have a good turnout and that, as has been said, we have heard perspectives from rural and urban England, rural Scotland and Wales—indeed, from around the United Kingdom.

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Steve Webb]

Before the hon. Gentleman seeks to intervene, I should say that, when I said the United Kingdom, I thought that I was including Northern Ireland.

There are a lot of common threads. Any community-minded constituency MP will echo much of what has been said this morning. My own constituency is a mixture of market towns and villages, most of which, notwithstanding the series of cuts over the past year, either have sub-post offices or, in some instances, have reopened them as community ventures—community shops, co-operatives and so on. I think that we all share that commitment to the post office network.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) is absolutely right to say that, although money is tight, the Government should prioritise spending on the post office network. I encourage him to think about which Government Department identified £1.34 billion for the post office network, and about the other spending issues that that Department faced that raised some political issues. He will recall that there were other calls on the Department’s money, yet it prioritised the post office network, because we are about not just words, but deeds in relation to that. To be clear, in return for that £1.34 billion, Post Office Ltd must maintain a network of at least 11,500 branches and continue to adhere to the strict access criteria that mean that 99% of the population live within three miles of a post office.

[Nia Griffith]

Does the Minister agree that, under the previous Labour Government, it was £150 million per year and that that went up to £180 million per year in the last year in which we were responsible for setting the subsidy? That is half of what the present Government are giving to the post office network, and it was sufficient to keep open those 11,500 post offices. Why on earth has such a large amount of money been given to the Post Office when it would be far better to create the streams of business that make post offices viable and sustainable for good, so that they do not need that type of subsidy? I find it very difficult to understand why doubling the subsidy is the best way forward when making things viable would really be the best way forward.

[Steve Webb]

I could not have written that question better myself. Why is it necessary to double the subsidy to keep the post office network going on a viable basis? Because so little was done over the past 13 years to make the post office network sustainable. That is precisely why we have had to put temporary subsidy in while we get the Post Office back on its feet.

I shall quote from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills document, “Securing the Post Office Network in the Digital Age.” On the very point that the hon. Lady raises, it states:

“Senior management at Post Office Ltd… estimate that without action and modernisation”—

how much of that happened?—

“keeping the network operating at its current size would result in the annual subsidy required from taxpayers rising from £150 million this year to £400 million by 2016—and would carry on climbing.”

That is the legacy. That is what would have happened had we done nothing. I sense, Mr Hollobone, that you are not a great PowerPoint fan, but it is at such moments I wish we could have a screen and slides because I would simply refer hon. Members to chart 3 of that document.

I will point that document in the direction of Opposition Members because it shows that the long-term gradual decline in the post office network is partly because of demographic trends—sub-postmasters retiring and not being replaced—and partly because, during the 13 years of a Labour Government, the number of post offices has fallen off a cliff. During the two closure programmes between 2003 and 2009, 5,000 branches were closed. People have stood in this place and in this Chamber for the past 13 years pleading loyalty to the post office network, yet those were the people who carried out two massive closure programmes.

[Nia Griffith]

Does the Minister not agree that the fundamental reason for the Post Office’s loss of business is the complete revolution in how we correspond with each other? Personal letters were of immense importance 20 years ago, but the growth of the internet and so on is clearly the main factor in the reduction in the amount of mail business going through post offices. That is the be-all and end-all and the real reason for the existence of many post offices, in addition to what Government business they can do.

[Steve Webb]

The reasons for the decline of the post office network are many and varied. When I go to my local village post office, I am told that eBay is keeping it going. The fact that people buy postage for parcels and so on brings a whole range of different customers into the post office network. One of the biggest trends, which was accelerated by the previous Government through direct payments, was people being paid via their bank accounts, rather than by traditional giros at post offices. That was one of the single biggest changes that accelerated the demise of the post office network. Opposition Members ought to take just a tiny bit of responsibility for the trends that we have seen.

On the Post Office card account specifically, the perspective of POCA users has been missing from the debate. The Post Office has recently published some startling research that it undertook on what POCA holders wanted from the account. The Post Office talked to 930 people and asked the following about the POCA:

“is there anything you would change about it, for instance any additional services you would like it to provide?”

Some 80% of respondents said “nothing.” I will return to that significant point. Some 80% of respondents did not want any changes to the account and they valued POCA for its particular characteristics, which we should think carefully about changing. The next most popular answer to that question had a 4% response rate. I shall read down the list of things people would change about POCA, which have a response rate of between 4% to 2%:

“deposit/cash cheques into it; more cashpoints; use any ATM; comments relating to PO service in general; more flexible like a debit card; interest on account balance; online account access.”

Hon. Members will have noticed that direct debit is not on that list. Some of these issues are counter-intuitive. I will not say that I like nothing better than to go online to use my bank account—which, I should just add, I access at the post office—but the folk who use POCA value it for what it is. As a number of hon. Members have said, we need to ensure that the people who have POCAs can benefit from things such as direct debit. However, that may not imply sticking things on to POCA.

Why might it be a good thing to provide access to those services but not to do so through changing the POCA? It is striking that many hon. Members have said that 30% of people with a POCA do not have another bank account. However, I tend to think of it the other way around. Some 70% of people with a POCA have a bank account or some other sort of account. So why do they have two? If they have a bank account with direct debits and all the rest of it, why do they bother having a POCA? Because people like to budget in different ways and they like a simple account that cannot go overdrawn.

Some of the evidence on charges is startling and worth repeating. I have been known occasionally to go overdrawn without planning to and I am shocked when I see the charges. The evidence of what happens shows that most people do not simply face one charge in a year. Once things have gone wrong, the charge is debited. People are then more overdrawn, they perhaps do not notice it and so another charge goes on. Just to give a feel of the situation, in 2008, out of 12.6 million active bank accounts, about a quarter incurred at least one penalty charge and the average charge was £205. Of that 2008 sample, a quarter of people had one charge, 15% had two charges and 39% had at least six charges.

Hon. Members can start to see why such an overdraft facility—there might also be a situation where someone had a POCA that could not go overdrawn but a direct debit bounced and somebody somewhere had to pay a charge for that—is not necessarily what people are asking for. People do not want to pay more because they are on a low income, so we need to find ways of giving them access to the best prices. However, grafting the ability to use direct debit on to an account that people like because of its simplicity may not necessarily be the best answer.

I absolutely stand by our coalition agreement commitment. The coalition programme for Government includes a pledge to give POCA holders the chance to benefit from direct debit discounts, but that should not necessarily be done by grafting direct debit on to POCA. We have listened to what the account holders are saying to us and our impression is, yes, people want the best prices they can have, but not necessarily by taking a product they value and turning it into something else.

That brings me on to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth made about the fully transactional account. One of the problems with the fully transactional POCA is that it would be so different from the product that was originally tendered, we would have to retender. The postcards will probably go to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), but I have a feeling we might be going through it all over again. The comment rightly made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) was that there is uncertainty about the future. There always is. If we said that we need a full transactional POCA, so we are going to retender for it, I suspect that there would be riots on the streets of Kilmarnock.

We do not want more disruption and uncertainty. What we want—and as a Government what we are trying to do—is to work in partnership with the Post Office far more. Rather than those involved with running post offices being people to whom we do something, they should be in here as people we do something with. That is a profoundly different approach. The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) talked about joined-up government and different Departments not damaging the Post Office. The Department that springs to mind is the Department for Transport. I renew my car tax each year at my village post office because, having talked to the sub-postmistress, I know it is one of the biggest transaction charges it gets. The Department for Transport would rather I did not do so. It sends me letters that say, “Do it online—you don’t have to go to your post office.” One year, it had a prize draw—or a raffle or lottery—in which I could win a free car.

The fact that Departments are not working in a co-ordinated way on the Post Office is not new. I work closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The three of us have discussed financial inclusion issues, particularly credit unions. The post office network and credit unions could work together. There are exciting possibilities on that. One of the challenges is that, although credit unions are often very good and strong in a localised way, there are some very small credit unions and, in large parts of the country, if we asked someone on the high street where their nearest credit union is, they would not know what we were talking about. The potential for linking post offices and credit unions and access is very exciting, but it is also very expensive. That is the trade-off and the challenge.

We do not want credit union accounts with hefty charges because that would defeat the object of the exercise. We are wrestling with how to bring those two things together, but there are real opportunities for the post office network to build closer links with credit unions. In recent years, credit unions have made great progress in bringing affordable, financial services to people who would not otherwise be able to access them. I want credit unions, in partnership with the Post Office, to provide more services more efficiently to more people. That is what we want to see.

I was asked about the Post Office as the front office for Government. A number of Government Departments are looking at ways to do that, and I want to share briefly with the Chamber some measures that the DWP is taking. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) mentioned George Thomson at the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, who wrote to the Secretary of State. I am delighted to say that, in response to that letter, the Secretary of State had a face-to-face meeting with George Thomson. Several points that she read out, and which were on his list, are now being piloted in Government.

For example, a pilot for document verification started last week. The Pension Service, for which I am responsible, is piloting a check-and-send style service. That is for applicants who claim state pension or pension credit, and who are required to submit additional documents in support of their claims, such as birth or marriage certificates. Many people do not like sending their marriage or birth certificate in the post, so why not go into a post office and let post office staff check the documents, as they do when people renew their car tax? Post office staff could say, “Yes, that is fine; I have seen it. I am authorised to say that.” That would be quicker, and would give the Post Office revenue and footfall—everybody would be happy. That is not a—I do not think the word “piddling” is parliamentary—little pilot. Some 106 post office branches in the north-east of England are involved—a big pilot. It started last week and will run for three months in the Seaham pension centre catchment area. It will include a mix of Crown branches in urban, urban deprived and rural locations.

That is one concrete example; let me give the Chamber another. Later this year, we will be looking at a national insurance number pilot, which will investigate whether applications from what we call low-risk groups—EU citizens in states that are already members of the EU, not including the accession countries—could be directed to the Post Office for the evidence-gathering interview to get a national insurance number. Although the Post Office currently carries out document checking for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Identity and Passport Service, the DWP requires something qualitatively different. We are working closely with the Post Office to see if we can have an efficient but secure service, and hope to go live with the project later this year.

We want business in post offices, but we do not want dirty great queues. In other words, if I am queuing up to buy a stamp, I do not want someone in front of me trying to verify a national insurance number. We have to try to think of what post offices are good and efficient at, and harness that without disrupting the core business of the post office. That is why we are conducting these pilots.

The hon. Member for Llanelli mentioned signing on. In rural areas, getting to a jobcentre can be quite a trek, so why not sign on at the post office? At the moment, I was surprised to learn that customers in rural areas, intriguingly, sign on by post. The pilot will test whether there are benefits in requiring customers to attend and sign on in a local post office instead. We will evaluate that approach across a wide geographical spread and range of labour markets. We have identified test locations in Essex and in the highlands and islands—a range of areas.

[Cathy Jamieson]

That is very positive. Does the Minister agree that there are potential lessons for local authorities? Will he undertake to ensure that the outcomes of pilots are conveyed directly to local authorities, including in Scotland, as they may wish to look at doing something similar, particularly the check-and-send style service?

[Steve Webb]

I am very happy to undertake to do that. Those are some examples of what the DWP is doing. Other Government Departments are also looking at things, including our friends in the Department for Communities and Local Government and in the devolved Assemblies and Parliament. We want to see everybody working together, alongside and with the Post Office, rather than simply taking bits of business away.

The issue of the green giro was, properly, raised. I was intrigued by the hon. Member for Leeds West. Having quoted Billy Hayes, she then said that, having issued competitive tender for a second time, we should have ripped it up and just given it to the Post Office anyway. I do not think that that was the intention of the previous Government when they issued the tender. It would raise one or two issues about tendering if, every time the Government issued a tender with the Post Office in it, they panicked half way through and then just gave it to the Post Office anyway. That might undermine the concept of tendering, not just with the Post Office but across Government as a whole. Indeed, I have a suspicion that if we kept doing that we would probably end up subject to legal challenges too, which might cost a good deal more than the money we spent on the contract.

It is worth putting the issue in context. I take the point that there are variations between post offices, but the green giro, on average, delivers a fiver a week to the average sub-postmaster, just to give a sense of scale—a fiver a week, and falling. The number of people with these cheques and green giros is falling. It is therefore worth retaining a bit of scale. They are important, and my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) is right to mention the importance of rural access. I can assure him that, before the contract was awarded, I stood in my office with a map of the United Kingdom with dots on it, marking out the PayPoint network and the Post Office network. I was pleasantly surprised by the rural extent of the PayPoint network, but I take his point about north Argyll and the islands. I hope that PayPoint reads Hansard and does something about that. I can tell his constituents, through him, that my hon. Friend has been a pain in my side on this issue, and properly so. He has represented those concerns very strongly.

My hon. Friend asked specifically about disabled people. I stress that all the outlets that can be counted for the tender have to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The new service, the replacement for the cheque, is specifically designed to be simple for that group of clients. There is no need to sign and there is no need for a PIN—it is only necessary to present a card. It is designed to be analogous. In a sense, it is converting a piece of paper to a plastic card. Beyond that, it is essentially the same process designed for the same people. Access was very important to us.

We covered a wide range of issues in the debate. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun mention her visit to the Pollok credit union. That is a positive example of a credit union and post office working together.

I was interested in the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester in an intervention. He pointed out the difference we now see with the post office network. The Post Office has had the promise of a subsidy to undertake to maintain the network at the 11,500 level, so when there is a closure of a post office, effort is now going in to replace it. Rather than the gradual attrition that has gone on, frankly, for decades, there is now a Government in place who are committed to protecting the network. That is a sea change in attitude, and one that post offices will very much welcome.

A question was asked about the tender process. Clearly, such processes are done under strict rules. We are required, under the EU, to be specific about what we are tendering for, and to include both cost and qualitative factors. We can take account of access—that was part of the consideration. I have no reason to think that that process was not properly undertaken, but if the hon. Member for Leeds West has further evidence on that she is welcome to send it to me.

My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute mentioned the issue of what happens when a village or a community does not have PayPoint access. One thing that the Post Office can do—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth mentioned this—is to see this as an opportunity to offer customers a Post Office card account, or to remind them that there are approximately 30 different sorts of accounts that can be accessed at post offices. Hitherto, when people turned up with a green giro, there was no incentive to say, “Why not have a Post Office card account?” Now that there is, I hope that many of his constituents will do so.

We have heard about the excellent work of post office staff, with their friendly, familiar approach and knowledge of people. An interesting mix of people receive green giros. It is not necessarily overwhelmingly people who struggle with signatures or plastic. Often they are young unemployed people, whose financial situation is a bit chaotic. The mix is diverse. Many community post offices will be able to provide a facility for the people my hon. Friend is rightly concerned about, so that they can access their money at the post office through a POCA, with the help and support that post office staff so often give. I place on the record my appreciation, and the Government’s appreciation, of the sub-postmasters up and down the land, who are very often the heart and soul of our community.

What I want as a Government Minister, instead of warm words while presiding over a halving of the post office network, is to put the money in to ensure that post offices are there, and to give them that breathing space to modernise the network. Ultimately, that has to be the key. Rather than presiding over declining business, and Departments across Government withdrawing a bit here and a bit there to save some money, let us look forward. Let us look at new services of the sort being piloted by the DWP. Let us look at modernising the premises. There are some exciting ideas. I will not go into detail, but there is the idea of a “post office local”, whereby the rather intimidating screens will come down and post offices will be much more friendly and welcoming.

The post office network has huge potential. It is worth remembering that it is still the biggest retail network in the country, notwithstanding everything that has gone on. My commitment, as a member of this Government, is to ensure that we are not passive bystanders watching the network decline, but that we are active participants encouraging and supporting the Post Office, and making sure that it has the bright future that everyone in this House wants to see.

Defined Contribution Pension Schemes

Steve Webb Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I am pleased to be able to publish today new guidance to help those involved in offering a default investment option for people who are automatically enrolled into defined contribution pension schemes.

The pensions landscape is changing. Automatic enrolment into workplace pensions will see millions of individuals newly saving for their retirements. Many of these people will not choose to make an active investment choice. It is likely that, from 2012, automatic enrolment into default options will be the norm. Therefore, it is important that suitable default options are available.

The guidance sets out the Government’s expectations on how default options should be designed, governed, communicated and reviewed. It is intended to provide useful information that will support good decision making and help protect members’ interests.

I would like to thank all those groups who have been engaged on this issue and responded to our consultations.

The guidance will be placed in the Library, and be made available later today on the Department’s website.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/pensions-reform/workplace-pension-reforms/guidance

State Pension Age (Women)

Steve Webb Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Reeves]

I could not agree more. That is a big issue and one that I will address later. For a number of reasons, this group of women are particularly ill-equipped to deal with the changes that the Government are trying to force upon them.

I want to pick up on a couple of points raised by the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). The proposals go against the coalition agreement, which states:

“The parties agree to…hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women.”

These changes bring forward the equalisation of the state pension age to 2018, which is not mentioned in the coalition agreement, and they raise the state pension age for women to 66 in 2018—two years earlier than promised in the agreement.

Although there is increasing pressure on the Liberal Democrats to stick with the coalition agreement, there is no obligation on the Minister to support this breach or for coalition MPs to vote for it. No one in the country voted for this at the general election a year ago, and it is not what coalition MPs signed up to when they made their promises in the rose garden. We have heard a great deal from Liberal Democrat Members today. I hope that that means that people who are approaching retirement can feel that their MPs will not support these proposals.

To reiterate points that have already been made, 2.6 million women and 2.3 million men will have to wait longer for their state pension than they previously had been told. Some 500,000 women will have a delay of a year before they get their pensions and about 300,000 women will have a delay of 18 months or more. Unfortunately, 33,000 women who were born between early March and early April 1954 will have to wait another two years before they receive their state pension. I have been lobbied by a huge number of women on these issues, not least by my own mother who was born on 30 March 1954. She very much hopes that the Minister will be listening to every word that I say today.

There is fewer than five years’ notice before these changes take effect. The Turner report says that people should be given at least 15 years’ notice, and the Pensions Policy Institute believes that these changes do not give enough notice. Women need longer to prepare for changes in the state pension age because they tend to become part-time workers sooner than men of the same age.

As of April 2011, the basic state pension is worth £102.15 a week. Pension credit is worth £137.35 a week. Those women who are seeing a delay in their state pension age of two years face a loss of pension income of more than £10,000. For those in receipt of pension credit, that loss is closer to £15,000. That does not take into account the passported benefits that come along with a pension.

Longevity is increasing and Members from all parts of the House welcome that, but we cannot move the goalposts every time an actuary changes his forecast. Six months before the election, the Minister himself said:

“Pension policy needs to be stable and predictable years ahead, not made up on the back of a cigarette packet.”

I agree with the Minister. Although his words are still on his website, he is now making policy up on the back of that cigarette packet and it is hitting women particularly hard. Indeed, the recently published Green Paper on the flat rate pension consults on reasoned mechanisms for increasing the state pension age, which is a recognition of the unfairness that is being imposed on women by the Pensions Bill, which is just about to come to the House. That Green Paper does not include consultation on arbitrary changes with five years’ notice. The reason that it does not consult on those types of changes is because the Minister, his Department and the Government know that they are unfair. So why is he forcing them upon women who are 56 or 57 years old?

My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central talked about the savings of women who are 56 or 57. There is something particularly perverse about targeting that specific group, because those women who are 56 or 57 now have average pension savings of £9,100, compared to the average pension savings of men of the same age of £52,800. At retirement, pension savings of £9,100 work out at £564 a year or £11 a week. The reasons for the difference in the average pension savings of men and women are varied, but the key point is that these women I am talking about are not in a financial position to absorb the changes being proposed at such short notice.

These women have earned far less during their lives than men of the same age. In 1980, the gender pay gap was 28.5%. When these women were in their 20s, they were earning on average almost 30% less than men of the same age. The gender pay gap has been closing since 1980 and it is now about 16%, but the point is that these women have suffered inequality throughout their working lives. They now face a double whammy and are paying the price for getting us there too quickly.

In addition, a lot of these women have worked part-time at some point in their life, particularly when they were bringing up children. In fact, many of them are also working part-time now, to help to care for elderly parents or grandchildren. As other Members have said already, these women are the big society. They are doing the caring work that we value as much as their work in the workplace. Of course, many of them have also had interrupted careers and have not paid full national insurance contributions. The Minister’s own Department estimates that women are entitled to receive £30 less in their basic state pension than men. All those points show that these women are more reliant on the state pension than their male equivalents, first because they have much lower private occupational pension savings and secondly because they are in not such a good position as men to increase their savings in the next five years.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

The hon. Lady quite properly raises the issue of the big society by talking about volunteering, caring and so on. Under our proposals, the equalisation at the age of 66 will be in 2020. Under Labour proposals, it would be in 2026. In 2026, every single point that she has just made would also be true, would it not?

[Rachel Reeves]

The point is that these women will have time to prepare for changes if they happen in 2026. Changes in 2026 were legislated for in 2008, which meant that the people we are talking about today had 18 years’ notice of any changes. That is very different from the changes that the Government are introducing because they will start in 2016, giving people just five years’ notice. That is the point that Members are making today. We are not saying that we do not think that there should be any changes to the state pension age, because with increasing longevity it is right that people should work longer, but it is not right to move the goalposts and leave people so little time to prepare for changes.

As I said earlier, the loss of pension income for someone who has to wait two more years for their state pension is about £10,000, or it can be up to £15,000 if they are on pension credit. It is not feasible that that group of people can make up that difference in a five-year period, yet that is what the Minister is asking them to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing this debate, and I very much welcome the fact that so many Members from both sides of the House have attended. I agree that the matters we are debating are important, and the hon. Lady has made her points in a measured and thoughtful way. I will try to respond to each of those points in turn, and also to some of the other contributions that have been made.

I shall start with what appears to be an element of consensus, although the more one looks at it the less of a consensus it seems. It has been welcomed that people are living longer, and there is an acceptance that state pension ages need to rise, and as far as I can see that is about the limit of the consensus. The current schedule for raising the state pension age, which is to 66 in the mid-2020s, 67 in the mid-2030s and 68 in the mid 2040s, is incredibly slow relative to the improvements in life expectancy that we are seeing. The Turner commission, which has been mentioned, said that one could look at a principle for raising the state pension age, for example fixing the proportion of life spent in retirement, but the schedule that we have inherited does not deliver on that. We need, therefore, to look at more rapid increases in the state pension age to 66, 67 and 68.

It has been implied that what we are doing is somehow extreme, but if we think back to 1990, for example—before the Pensions Act 1995, which increased the state pension age from 60 to 65—the typical woman retiring at the age of 60 would get a pension for 24 years. Even with our plans, in 2020 the typical 66-year-old woman will get a pension for 24 years. That context is important, because the improvement in life expectancy to which we are responding is astonishing. It is not just that we are all living a bit longer and life will carry on as before. Life will not carry on as before, not for the Government, society, the health service or the pension system. We are moving into a totally different world, to which very gradual incremental change will not respond sufficiently. The previous Government did not grasp that fact, and simply pushed it off into the middle distance.

[Rachel Reeves]

Is there any evidence that 56 and 57-year-old women’s longevity is going up particularly fast compared with everyone else’s? If not, why is the Minister disproportionately affecting that group of women?

[Steve Webb]

We had to take a judgment about not affecting people who were within a few years of retirement, those who were 58, 59 or so and were set to get their pensions in their early 60s. We took the view that change for them would be too soon, which is why nothing at all changes before 2016. However, having gone past that initial point, the crucial group—the one-month cohort, which a number of Members have mentioned—will, assuming that the Bill gets Royal Assent this summer, get six years and eight months’ notice of the change. I accept that notice, which has been mentioned by several Members, is the key issue.

[Dr Whiteford]

The issue is not only the pace of change. It is the context of a lifetime of low pay and inequality faced by many women, and the old-age problems that are a cumulative effect of that. The Government had an opportunity here to tackle women’s inequality in old age, but so far they have, instead, arbitrarily targeted women born in 1954.

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the position of women in the pension system. Assuming that some of the pension reform proposals in the Green Paper that we published last month go ahead, for example the single flat-rate decent state pension, the group of women most affected by this change would be the first group of women to benefit, and potentially very substantially. At the moment, women draw a state pension of £40 a week, on average, less than men, but under the single-tier pension proposal, which I have been very involved in introducing, many women would be the main beneficiaries.

Various Members have raised the important issue of women whose pension rights have been hampered by time spent bringing up children or caring for relatives, and under the single-tier pension proposal a year spent at home with children or a relative will be worth just as much to a state pension as a year spent running a FTSE 100 company. So much do I take the view—in government as I did in opposition—that the work that men and women do, whether paid work or bringing up a family, is of equal value, that for the first time we are proposing that that be manifest in the pension system, and that will be transformative, particularly for women.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will the Minister agree to publish figures? I am interested in what effect the single-tier pension will have on women, and I am finding it difficult to work out how many women will be affected by the abolition of the state second pension and the cost of their different contributions. I am unaware of any figures working out how many women and men will be affected by the change respectively. I am not as sanguine as he is that all women will benefit. There are many women whose contributions to the state second pension are important to their retirement.

[Steve Webb]

On how the proposed single-tier pension will work, it is a Green Paper with options, so the sort of detailed figures for which the hon. Lady asks will be produced when we have identified which of the two options we will go for and refined the proposition. That information will be made available when the proposition is refined further.

To clarify, at the moment, many women in the age cohort that we have been discussing will have spent time at home with their children before the state second pension was introduced. Whereas the state second pension offers protection for time at home with children, the state earnings-related pension scheme did not. That set of women is approaching pension age. People have accused me of moving the goalposts. I am indeed moving the goalposts for those women, but in their direction. They will draw a state pension—yes, later, but for an average of more than 20 years. Compared with when we first started debating the changes in state pension age last summer, that is a significant difference.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

If the Minister is so confident that the changes that he is introducing will be so beneficial, have not the Government failed to communicate that fact? Throughout the election campaign, I met women on the doorstep who were angry about what he describes as the changing of the goalposts, because they felt that it was against their interests, not in favour of them.

[Steve Webb]

I accept entirely that although what we propose is a lot simpler in a sense than what came before, that is not massively well understood because pensions are so complex. As we refine the proposition, we will have a lot of communicating to do. However, it stands to reason, for example, that paying a flat-rate state pension rather than an earnings-related one will, on average, benefit women. It must, because women earn less on average. Crediting years at home with kids towards the full pension, not just the basic pension, will and must benefit women on average. There can be no doubt that the options presented in the Green Paper would substantially benefit women, on average, out of the overall pensions budget. I look forward to the hon. Lady’s help in communicating that to her constituents.

[Nick Smith]

Given that the Minister is confirming that the Government are determined to ram through the proposals, what important measures will he take to raise awareness of the measures with that group of women so that they can plan for their retirement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, and for his self-restraint in making a brief and thoughtful contribution in order to allow others to speak. He is right that we need to make people aware of the changes. Our dilemma is that none of this is law yet. We must tell people that it may happen, but we cannot say on Government websites, “These are the new rules,” because Parliament has not approved them yet. The current website describes the current legislative position, as we are required to do, and then it says, “However, important changes are being discussed in Parliament. Click here if you want to find out what is being proposed.” As soon as the changes go through—this summer, or whenever—we will, of course, publicise them. We routinely write to people before they reach state pension age, and in a time of change we do it more.

I agree entirely that we need to communicate. One frustration of mine is that I get letters saying, “You’ve put my pension age up by six years.” Anyone who is going from 64 to 66 had their state pension age raised from 60 to 64 some 15 years ago, but they did not notice, because when they were 42 or so, they were not interested in pensions. That is our challenge. People close to pension age are interested in pensions and follow such matters; younger people turn off as soon as they hear “pensions”. Communicating to people further ahead is a challenge.

[Angela Smith]

I thank the Minister for giving way again; he is being generous. Surely the fact is that if the pension generally will improve, as he says, it will improve for everybody. I was born in 1961—I am not afraid to admit it—and my retirement age is still 66 under the proposals, as it was before the election. I will benefit from the more generous pension that he plans to offer, but women born between 1953 and 1960 are still being singled out, in that they will have to wait longer than they planned before getting that more generous pension. They will still lose out, and they are still being discriminated against.

[Steve Webb]

I suspect that the hon. Lady will not benefit from our proposals, as I imagine that she would have received a full basic state pension anyway, whereas the proposals will help some women who would not have received it. By being employed here, she is also contracted out of SERPS, resulting in a deduction from the £140. I do not actually think that she would benefit.

I do not dispute for a second that that set of women will be affected by the changes, but the pension that they will get under our proposals will be significantly better on average than that received, for example, by women who retired a few years earlier. We can do all sorts of comparisons between this group and that group. Some things will be better for some and some will be worse. What I am saying is that several hon. Members have said, “You used to campaign for women’s pensions, but you don’t care any more,” but I have spent all my time as a Minister working on proposals that will benefit women pensioners specifically.

[Alison McGovern]

Will the Minister answer a specific point? He made it clear that the reason why he felt compelled to introduce further changes was that what he inherited did not meet the terms of the Turner review. The Turner review advised allowing people 15 years to plan for changes, but women in our constituencies have had much less time than that—barely five years—to plan. That is not fair. Will he explain why his Government are doing that to women in our constituencies?

[Steve Webb]

The things that Turner recommended are not consistent with each other. We cannot, for example, have a consistent percentage of income during life in retirement and give 15 years’ notice at the same time, because longevity is increasing much faster than that. Something somewhere has to give.

One point that has been missing during this debate—the only time that it was mentioned was when an hon. Member quoted me from last week’s debate—is that if we delay till 2020, as the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) proposed, we will have to find £10 billion. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) raised an important point, and he is analytically correct: that does not help us in the comprehensive spending review period or help the long-term structural deficit, because the age would have been 66 anyway. However, it does do one thing: it takes £30 billion—or rather, £10 billion; the whole change amounts to £30 billion, but the difference between the two of us is £10 billion—off the national debt. As he knows, servicing the national debt is one of the most crippling things that this Government must do. That is why such difficult decisions must be made.

Our changes will take £30 billion off the national debt. I do not know what the interest rate on the national debt is, but let us say 5% for the sake of round numbers. That is just to make the numbers add up; I do not suppose for a minute that it is 5%. That is £1.5 billion extra every year to spend on services or whatever rather than on the national debt. I think that that would be the hon. Lady’s preferred solution.

[Julie Elliott]

In those calculations, has the Minister taken into account the number of women who will end up on benefits to cover the shortfall during the time when they had planned for a pension, as in the examples that I quoted?

[Steve Webb]

Yes, we have. All our costings make assumptions about the proportion of people who would find themselves on benefits. Hon. Members have asked what people will live on between 64 and 66. Clearly, there will be a range of responses. Some people will go on working longer. Seven out of 10 people in the cohort that we are discussing—those born in 1953 and 1954—are in work at the moment.

Several people raised the important issue of different socio-economic groups. Across the socio-economic scale, life expectancies are rising. We cannot use the fact that there are differences between different groups—as there have been probably for ever, and certainly for the past century—as an argument for doing nothing. That argument would apply under the proposals of the hon. Member for Leeds West. If we raised the age a year to 66 in 2020, it would have exactly the same impact on the different socio-economic groups. Her proposal would have exactly the same impact on the numbers of carers and volunteers aged 64 to 66. Many of the points made by hon. Members in this debate about the impact on that age group would apply exactly, only four years later, or six years later under her proposals. We need to make a distinction between things that will be inevitable as the state pension age rises and the consequences of doing it more rapidly, which has been the focus of this debate.

Members have asked about caring responsibilities. We might not have expected this, but it is striking that the number of women within this age cohort who say that they have caring responsibilities is falling, partly because of social and demographic change. In 1993, of the women who are now in the 55 to 59-year-old age cohort, 15% had caring responsibilities, but, in 2010, the figure halved to 7.1%. Again, that suggests significant changes and that people are living longer and working longer. I suspect that caring responsibilities are being taken on, but that that is happening later in life than it would have previously.

[Teresa Pearce]

Does the Minister agree that it is possible that the percentage of those with caring responsibilities is falling because they already have to work longer to get their pension? It is not because their lifestyles have changed or because they are different types of people, whether older or younger. The fact is that they cannot take on that responsibility, because they already have to work well into their 60s.

[Steve Webb]

That does not apply to the figures I quoted, which relate to the difference between 1993 and 2010. All of the women in 1993 had a state pension age of 60, but all of the women whom I was talking about are under 60—they are currently in their late 50s. A diminishing proportion of the women about whom we have been talking have caring responsibilities, although that may change.

The issue of moving the goalposts has been mentioned and I think that one Member said that we are happy to change the pension age at the last minute. We have set out in our Green Paper a consultation on how we should do this beyond 66 in the longer term. In other words, what is the right balance between notice, keeping up with longevity, and fairness for those who have to pay national insurance for the increased longevity? There is a dilemma. Ideally, we would give people huge amounts of notice.

[Angela Smith]

That is what we did.

[Steve Webb]

That is not what the previous Government did. We would love to be able to say to people who are 40 or 45 years old, “This will be your pension age.” However, if we said that to 45-year-olds, who have another 20 years or more before they retire, and another 20 to 25 years of life in retirement, we would be locking in what we know about longevity now for pensions that we will still be paying in 50 years’ time. That is just not viable.

[Alison McGovern]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

In a moment. The pace of improvement in longevity is breathtaking. Between 2004 and 2008—the longevity projections of 2004 are, I think, what the previous Government’s legislation was based on, and those of 2008 are what we have now—life expectancy at pension age increased by well over a year in just four years. It is almost like a runaway train. We can always say, “Let’s wait another decade,” but one of the problems is that there is a trade-off, because, as I have said, what has been missing from this debate is the people who have to pay.

Delaying for 10 years, which is what I think the hon. Member for Leeds West is suggesting, does not mean a free lunch. It would mean a £10 billion national insurance hit on today’s workers and today’s firms. If she were wearing another hat, the hon. Lady would be saying, “The recovery is fragile and we need to do more for jobs and to boost the economy,” but what she is saying is that we should levy another £10 billion of national insurance on today’s workers, including low-paid women who do not have much pension, and today’s firms, which may have to lay off people who will not then be able to build up decent pensions. There will be no free lunch if we delay.

[Rachel Reeves]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

There is a queue. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Wirral South first.

[Alison McGovern]

If, as figures last week suggested, the Government fail to meet their own target to balance the books over the course of this Parliament and we still have a deficit for which the Government have not planned in 2015-16, will we have more pensions Bills to push people’s pensions further back in order to incorporate what the Minister has said about being fair to those who are paying now?

[Steve Webb]

We have made it clear that the age-66 changes are in the present Pensions Bill, which will be legislated for long before the end of this Parliament. We are also consulting in the Green Paper on a systematic mechanism for going beyond 66 that takes account of all the factors that we have talked about. That will try to strike a balance between notice, which is important, and fairness for those who bear the cost of increased longevity. The intention—this is something that no previous Government have done—is for the further changes to do it in a more systematic way. The 60 to 65 equalisation was a response to a legal case. The previous Government’s plans for 66, 67 and 68 were not ad hoc exactly, but there was no mechanism in place to respond to subsequent improvement in longevity. What we are trying to do as part of our reforms, which we are consulting on at the moment, is give people the certainty that future Governments will not just pass a law and change things, but that there will be a structure in place and that they will know how it is going to be.

[Angela Smith]

I was on the Committee for the Bill that became the Pensions Act 2008, which, as the Minister has said, set out the changes recommended by the Turner report. He says that the approach that he wants to introduce is systematic, but does it not mean a constant shifting of the goalposts that will leave most people, however much notice they are given, with a constantly changing picture of when they should expect to retire?

[Steve Webb]

I hope that the hon. Lady will respond to our consultation on the right process. She raises the important issue of how we strike a balance. The fact is that one in six of us alive today will live to be not 88, but 100, and that figure is increasing all the time. How do we strike a balance between that and giving people notice? We could have a principle of always giving people x years’ notice, which would mean that it would not matter if longevity improved dramatically after that point. That is part of what we are consulting on and there are trade-offs. I hope that the hon. Lady will respond to that.

We are moving into a world in which pension ages will not be the rock-solid certainty that they have been in the past, because they cannot be. The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who has left the Chamber, said that this is like someone starting a job but having their contract changed halfway through. On that basis, people start paying national insurance at 16, have a guaranteed pension age for the next 50-odd years, and have another 20-odd years after they start drawing a pension. Therefore, the second that they are in the system at 16, nothing can change until 70. That is economic madness. There has to be some adjustment, but I accept that it has to be done in a measured way, which is why we are consulting on an appropriate mechanism.

[Rachel Reeves]

I fear that, at this rate, the Minister will start sending pensioners back to work if they live too long. Returning to the review, would it not have been better to have done it and find out what the right trade-off is before increasing the state pension age for 57-year-old women with such little notice?

The Minister says that Labour is saying that we have to find another £10 billion or £30 billion for these changes. This is about cutting spending—the Government are cutting £30 billion of spending. I do not want additional spending. First, Labour wants to halve the budget deficit in this Parliament. Secondly, our proposals would cut £20 billion-worth of spending, so we are not asking for additional spending. I would like that put on the record.

[Steve Webb]

Unless there is some free money to be had somewhere, delaying for 10 years must cost somebody something. It is fantasy economics to think that we can get 10 billion quid from somewhere. The hon. Lady must agree that that £10 billion would have to be paid by today’s workers and today’s firms. It has to come from somewhere—perhaps the hon. Lady thinks that it could be magicked from the air—and there is a trade-off between today’s workers and today’s pensioners.

Time is short, so I will conclude my response to the debate. I welcome and recognise the point that, ideally, we would give people more notice than we have. I fully accept that. The difficulty is that delay, which is always the easy option, has a huge impact on the state of the nation’s finances and on our response to a world in which people are living substantially longer. Our goal is to strike a fair balance. I will certainly reflect further on the contributions of my hon. Friends and other Members. As has been said, throughout my career I have campaigned for a fairer pensions system for women. I believe that some of the proposals that we are talking about for the next generation of retiring women will make a huge difference to their quality of life. Some of the points that have been put on the record today have been made forcefully and effectively.

Funeral Payments

Steve Webb Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) on securing this debate and on raising these difficult and important issues in a measured, succinct and sensitive way.

People sometimes say, “What’s the point of these Adjournment debates?”, because there is no vote at the end of them, or, “Does anything ever change?” One thing that these debates do is, quite properly, require Ministers to focus on the issue that has been brought before the House. In response to this debate being called, I have looked at my hon. Friend’s constituent’s website. As he well knows, her tragic circumstances and the death of her son five years ago led her to campaign on these issues. She has her own website, which I have looked at today. I pay tribute to her for the way in which she has sought to turn her tragic circumstances into something more positive, so that others do not have the same difficult experiences that she did in dealing, as I understand it, not just with funeral grants and the DWP, but with a range of other public bodies and organisations. The way Ms Evans has pursued the issues over the following years is enormously to her credit. I hope that I can offer my hon. Friend some reassurance this evening that that campaigning has led to changes, and that the situation that someone who has been bereaved now encounters is a good deal better than it was five years ago. Clearly there is always room for improvement—we will continue to look at that—but we have made changes even this month in response to the points that his constituent has raised with us, which I will set out more in due course.

It might be worth briefly putting on record some background to how the social fund funeral payments system works, because it is not always well understood. Essentially, the system is designed for those on a low income. The presumption is not that the state will pay for funerals for all people—or indeed pay for the full costs of funerals—but that it will make a significant contribution for people in receipt of income-related benefits and tax credits. The idea is to provide a contribution towards the cost of a simple, respectful, low-cost funeral. The payment is in two parts. We, the DWP, will pay in full the costs of a cremation or burial, including the purchase of a grave with exclusive burial rights. That is a point to which I will return, because I know that it was important in Ms Evans’s son’s case, and it is something that might not have occurred to any of us unless we were faced with that situation. I can well imagine that it must have been very difficult to discover some time after she had buried her son that she did not have exclusive burial rights. I fully accept that we must ensure that that situation does not arise again.

The scheme meets those costs in full, which can vary quite considerably between different parts of the country. In addition, we will make a maximum payment of up to £700 for other costs, such as the coffin, church and the funeral director’s fees, if appropriate. I will return to whether one has to have a funeral director—which one does not—and to making people aware of that fact and how we will take this forward. Over the months, I have received a number of letters from hon. Members who have been contacted by funeral directors in their constituencies who have made the point—entirely accurately—that £700 does not cover the full cost of a funeral. We accept that; we do not dispute it. The typical total amount that we are paying is about £1,200, which includes the other costs plus up to £700.

There is a presumption that many people will take out funeral plan insurance, because they want to ensure that they are covered and do not want to leave a financial burden for their heirs. If that has not happened, many families will meet the costs themselves, but we also need to ensure that a safety net is in place. We also want to ensure that there is additional provision for those people for whom the £700 cap is a barrier. We are therefore taking powers in the Welfare Reform Bill that is now going through the Commons that will, for the first time, bring funeral costs within the scope of the budgeting loans system. I raised this matter before Christmas in a meeting with the National Association of Funeral Directors, and with the all-party parliamentary group on funerals and bereavement. They very much welcomed the change, saying that it was a further provision that would help to ensure that people who were very short of money at a difficult time would have sources of finance available to help them to meet the costs of a decent burial and to ensure that funeral directors’ proper costs were reimbursed through the individuals. The measures will therefore be welcomed. We also need to ensure that the way in which we respond to people is correct and helpful, and that it makes life easy for them at this difficult time.

I shall go through the questions that my hon. Friend has raised and try to give him what information I can. I shall also tell him what we have changed as a result of his constituent’s campaigning. He asked for a factual breakdown of the numbers of people who received financial support towards exclusive burial rights. Unfortunately, the way in which the information is held does not allow us to provide such a breakdown, as I think I have already indicated to his constituent in writing. I can confirm, however, that in the last full financial year, 2009-10, there were 39,000 funeral payments at a total cost of £47 million. We cannot give a more detailed breakdown, because of the way in which the information that my hon. Friend has requested is stored.

The information and guidance that goes to relatives is at the heart of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. In Ms Evans’s case, the information that came to her from the funeral director was incomplete, for whatever reason, and led to her making choices that, had she been fully informed, she would have made differently. I have made some inquiries into where the right information should come from, and the key is the fact that, on becoming bereaved, the family or its representatives will register the death. That is the point at which we aim to ensure that people get the relevant information. We will not have to rely on funeral directors to provide it. Indeed, there might not be a funeral director involved. The Government as a whole want to ensure that the information gets through to people at the point at which they register the death.

This is already being rolled out more or less nationwide, and we will continue to develop this “tell us once” service. The idea is to allow customers to report a birth or a death to multiple central and local government departments, agencies and services just once. This will help to reduce some of the complexity for customers at this particularly difficult time. The service is currently offered on a face-to-face basis by a number of local authorities, and we expect it to become a national service covering about 90% of local authorities by the end of this year. The remaining authorities will, in many cases, be remote ones for which this might not represent the right mix of services, but it will be pretty much a national service by the end of the year.

The idea is that a person can have a face-to-face session with someone from the local authority, or, if they are a DWP customer, as many people are, they can have a telephone session with someone from the Department. That one conversation will enable us to end benefits that no longer need to be paid, as well as triggering the possibility of applying for other benefits, including bereavement benefits and funeral payments. That is the crucial point. In the phone conversation with our bereavement service, for example, all the questions about what is covered and what payments are available can be answered. Our member of staff will have the latest information.

My hon. Friend has mentioned the technical information relating to what is covered and what is not, and we will have all that information to hand. In fact, the bereaved person will not have to fill in a form at all. They will be able to give all the information over the phone, which will constitute a claim that can be progressed pretty quickly. Speed is obviously of the essence, because people need to feel confident that, if they are eligible, the payment will be made. We want to do anything we can to remove delay or anxiety at this difficult time.

The “tell us once” process is being rolled out, as I say, across the country. To clarify, with the informant’s consent, information about the deceased, a surviving spouse or partner and the people dealing with the estate can be shared with up to 24 different benefits and services. It is going out far and wide. At the moment, 43 local authorities offer a service, and I believe my hon. Friend’s local authority, the Milton Keynes unitary authority, is due to offer its “tell us once” service from July this year. That will be an important step in the right direction.

My hon. Friend raised the issue of forms and paperwork. I can tell him that this month, in response to some of the points that his constituent raised with us, we have made a number of changes to the claim form for the funeral grant. Let me briefly run through them, as she would be interested to know what those changes are.

There are two documents. The first is a note sheet that accompanies the funeral payment application, and we have made three changes to it. On page 6 of the form, we have added a bullet point that says people can send

“evidence of the costs incurred if the funeral arrangements were made without using a funeral director”.

That is one of Ms Evans’s points—that people do not always realise that they do not have to use one and do not always realise that they can get their costs reimbursed if they have not used one. We have made it explicit that evidence of costs can be provided if a funeral director has not been used.

On page 7, we say, and it is worth reading into the record:

“Although most people use a funeral director to make the necessary arrangements, you may have chosen to make the…arrangements without using a funeral director. A funeral payment can be made whether or not you have used a funeral director. If you have arranged the funeral independently, you will have to provide evidence of the costs you have incurred.”

Anyone reading the notes will get the message quite quickly that they have choices and can choose how they want to proceed.

The third change we made to the explanatory notes is in the bullet point list of what can be included in the funeral payment. The second bullet point refers to

“the cost of opening a new grave and burial costs”,

and we have now added

“including any exclusive right of burial fee”.

That deals with Ms Evans’s point that she did not get the money because she did not claim it at the time because she did not incur it at the time because she did not realise the distinction. We hope that if we can get that information out at the start, the figure of about £300 or so, which my hon. Friend mentioned, would be covered in full and not be subject to the cap. We make that explicit in the notes to the form.

As to the form itself, we have made a couple of changes. On page 15, we inserted a new question:

“Have you used a funeral director to arrange the funeral?”;

and on page 20, the wording about making a payment has been amended to cover payments to claimants

“if you have not used a funeral director”.

I hope that those incremental changes—I know that Ms Evans has corresponded with my officials and others about this for some considerable time—will help. The forms are changed up to twice a year—we try not constantly to change them—and the April change has just taken place. It incorporates the important points that my hon. Friend’s constituent raised.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I believe that the figure of 45 or 46 local authorities was mentioned. Is it the Minister’s intention to give this information out to all local authorities across the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland? Does he also intend to ensure that the explanation given by the local authority is based on this information so that authorities can explain to people exactly what they have to do? I think that the explanation is important.

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful for that question. I will clarify the point about the scope. The idea is that local authorities would respond in a way that is tailored to their local circumstances. That is why some local authorities will adopt a particular local response, perhaps if their area is strongly rural. We also think it important, however, to give people the possibility of a face-to-face encounter. I will get back to the hon. Gentleman about whether the scope will be extended to include Northern Ireland. I am certainly aware that we are talking about the whole of Great Britain, but I will write to him about the applicability to Northern Ireland. The idea is that local authority folk can, to use the jargon, “wrap around” other support services at this important time. The DWP is concerned with bereavement payments and funeral payments, but obviously people may want or need a host of other services at the time of a bereavement. We want to ensure that local authorities can provide all the support that people need through a single point of contact. That can be done face to face, but we will also deal with specific DWP issues through the bereavement service.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Alice Barker Trust, and we are grateful for its input. It has worked closely with Ms Evans on the wording of the forms. We will certainly continue to consider its suggestions, although I do not want to give the impression that all the existing literature is rubbish. We carry out surveys and ask people what they think of the literature that they were given. We have, for instance, asked people—at an appropriate time—what they thought of a leaflet called “What to do after a death”, of which many Members will have heard. We found that 97% of people considered the leaflet to be very or quite helpful in answering their questions, and 95% agreed that it was easy to find the information that they wanted in it. There is good material out there, but I accept that more can always be done.

My hon. Friend asked about the way in which information was communicated to his constituent. Obviously I cannot comment in detail on what happened five years ago, but it is clear that the £300 was not paid because it was not claimed, and it was not claimed because exclusive right of burial was not part of the funeral. I hope that I have explained how we will try to ensure that people understand that they can claim the full amount, and that the unfortunate thing that happened to Ms Evans will not happen again.

Let me say something about funeral payment law. We provide general information, and, as my hon. Friend said, SB16 contains encyclopaedic guidance to the social fund as a whole, but we also provide leaflets which, inevitably, cannot be exhaustive. We have tried to strike a balance. Although a leaflet that covers every possible combination of circumstances is very useful, it may be off-putting for people who do not receive the key messages that they need. On the Directgov website we have tried to provide a wide range of information on what to do following a death, including arranging a funeral and registering a death. The site also lists organisations that offer help and advice following a bereavement. My hon. Friend mentioned the big society. We want to “signpost” people towards the many charities and voluntary organisations that provide effective support for people at this difficult time.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

If local authorities are to be involved, might it be suggested that the electoral register should be altered automatically? On Saturday I knocked on a door and found someone who had lost her husband three or four months earlier. She was still receiving letters addressed to her husband, because she had completely forgotten to let the district council know that he had passed away. Altering the register automatically would save a great deal of distress to people like that lady.

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is right. I think that we have all encountered such examples when canvassing because the electoral register is out of date. We may have written letters to deceased people, and perhaps caused distress to relatives. The “tell us once” system would deal with that. I do not think that local authority electoral services are explicitly part of the process, but I will convey what my hon. Friend has said to our right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who I believe oversees electoral matters.

We have come a long way. The Department’s bereavement service was fully rolled out in March 2011, and we have recently surveyed customers who have used it. They have ranked it

“above many other well known organisations that customers have to deal with when reporting a death”.

One customer said:

“I ...was surprised that a Public Service was that good and sympathetic and the staff were well trained. It really made a difference to something I was dreading. I was treated like a human being”.

Another said:

“I was impressed that it was all done in one call, it was also a huge sigh of relief for me”.

Let me give one final quote:

“We spoke about help with funeral costs and she completed the form there and then for me. I couldn’t have done this on my own.”

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South for raising this set of issues. They are clearly vital and all our constituents will face them at one point or another in their lives. Ms Evans faced a very difficult and tragic situation five years ago, which was not helped by her dealings with the Department for Work and Pensions or other Government bodies. I pay tribute to her for taking the issues forward in such a constructive way, and I hope I have reassured my hon. Friend that we have listened and responded.

Question put and agreed to.

State Pension Reform

Steve Webb Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a short statement about state pensions. The coalition has already taken steps to support current pensioners by reintroducing the earnings link for the basic state pension. Indeed, we went one step further with our triple guarantee, which will mean that a pensioner retiring today can expect to receive about £15,000 more in basic pension over the life of their retirement. However, the pensioners of tomorrow face a new landscape. With longevity continuing to increase, future pensioners can expect to work for longer and they may not have the same levels of housing equity. They are less likely to have the certainty of a final salary pension and from 2012 we will introduce a new system of automatic enrolment into workplace pensions.

Today, the Government are publishing a consultation document, which looks at whether the existing pensions system is suitable for meeting the challenges of the future. This Green Paper marks the next step in the coalition’s plan to create a system that is fair and simple for pensioners and that rewards those people who do the right thing and take responsibility for their future. It is right that we ask people to take responsibility for their retirement by saving over the course of their working lives, but it is also right that the Government should play their part by ensuring that we support those who make the right choices for their future and those of their families.

If we want to encourage pension saving, the key is getting the state pension system right. The current system has been in a sort of permanent evolution for decades, which means that planning for retirement is fiendishly complex. The Green Paper sets out two options for reform, neither of which involves spending more money on future pensioners than has already been forecast through the existing system. The key is to spend the money we have better. The objective is clear: to move to a simple, contributory state pension system that provides flat-rate support above the level of the means-tested guarantee credit, which would be easy to understand, efficient to deliver and provide a firm foundation for further saving.

The first option involves bringing forward existing reforms so that the state pension would evolve into a two-tier, flat rate system more quickly. The second, more radical, option is to move to a single-tier state pension. Both options are for future pensioners; pensioners who have already reached state pension age by the date of reform would not be affected, so no existing recipient of state pension would see their income reduced. For future pensioners, we would also continue to honour the contributions that people have built up to the date of reform. The option of a single-tier state pension would be a marked improvement on the current system, which is dogged by complexity and confusion. During the transition, many would receive their single-tier pension from a combination of their state and contracted-out scheme, as happens now, which means that they would receive less than the currently estimated £140 directly from their state pension.

Let me give hon. Members an idea of just how confusing the present UK pension system is for the average person. The Pensions Commission has described it as one of the most complex in the world and a departmental survey on attitudes to pensions found that barely one in four people agreed that

“they knew enough about pensions to decide with confidence about how to save for retirement.”

Worse still, few people have a clear idea of what their state pension will be worth when they retire. Critically, the current system actually discourages some people from putting anything aside; the mass reliance on means-tested benefits leaves people unsure whether they will benefit from the savings they make. Automatic enrolment into workplace pensions with employer contributions are due to start from next year, so we need to give people more clarity and certainty about what they will get from the state, thereby giving them a firm foundation for decisions about saving to fund their retirement.

For women, the low-paid and the self-employed, the state pension system can produce unfair outcomes. As a result, people in those broad groups are far more likely to have poorer state pensions, which we will address. Under a single-tier state pension, for example, the self-employed would be able to build up as good a state pension as anyone else. They stand to gain around £1.40 a week of state pension for every year of national insurance contributions that they make, up to a maximum of 30 years. That could provide them with a state pension of around £140 a week, instead of the current rate of £97. Currently, less than 50% of women in their late 40s or early 50s are expected to get £140 a week from state pension income in retirement. Our proposals would address that. We are clear that reform on this scale could take many years to deliver, but the prize—providing clarity to savers and all those planning for their retirement —is a real one.

There are two other, related issues. The Government recognise that means-tested benefits play an important role in targeting support where it is needed most and provide an essential safety net for the most vulnerable. However, means-tested benefits add to complexity and can be a real disincentive to saving for many people. Therefore, in addition to consulting on the two state pension options that I have briefly mentioned, the Green Paper seeks views on whether the current system of means-tested support would best meet the needs of future pensioners. On the state pension age, as life expectancy projections continue to be revised upwards, we also have a responsibility to ensure that the pensions system is sustainable and that the costs of increasing longevity are shared fairly between the generations. Therefore, as well as reforms to the state pension, we are consulting on the most appropriate mechanism for determining future changes to the state pension age.

As the coalition addresses those issues, I shall be seeking as many views and contributions to the debate as possible. We shall be asking all interested parties—hon. Members, employers, pension providers, members of the public and specialists—to work with us to ensure that we deliver the state pension system that the people of this country deserve. If we want future generations to take responsibility for their retirement, we need to deliver a simpler and fairer state pension system that acts as a foundation for people to build up to a decent income in retirement. Fairer, simpler systems that reward people who do the right thing and take personal responsibility for themselves and their families—these are precisely the same themes that run through the welfare reforms being implemented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, from the universal credit to the Work programme.

With the Welfare Reform Bill we have set out how the coalition will transform working-age benefits to make work pay and tackle the root causes of poverty and welfare dependency, but we also need people to save for their retirement. We need automatic enrolment and employer contributions to work. With today’s Green Paper we are setting out how we plan to transform the pensions system and create a simple, decent state pension that is easy to understand and efficient to administer. We need to ensure that saving for the future pays. I am proud to be part of this bold, reforming agenda. Today’s Green Paper is a step on the road to a radical reform of the state pension system, and I commend this paper to the House.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement—half an hour before he got to his feet. Given that the pensions Minister and the Secretary of State chose to announce the most positive elements of the Green Paper to the media over the weekend, I cannot help feeling that I am the only person who still has not seen it. Today we have heard proposals that include a universal flat-rate pension and further increases in the state pension age. Although in principle the move to a more simplified system is welcome, it raises a number of important questions.

The Labour Government recognised the importance of pension reform. Labour made great inroads, particularly in lifting more than 1 million pensioners out of poverty and in recognising the vital role that people—mainly women—play as carers. The Labour Government reduced the number of years needed to qualify for a basic state pension to 30, helping women, while more generous credits for carers have ensured that more people are now entitled to a higher level of the state second pension. Labour also introduced automatic enrolment, helping the up to 8 million people who previously did not put money aside for their pensions to save. Although we welcome the fact that the Government are continuing with automatic enrolment, we disagree with the watering down of some of those proposals.

Previous changes to the state pension mean that, based on new accrual rates and assuming 30 years of national insurance contributions or caring credits, a low-paid woman or someone in a caring role would be entitled to a basic state pension of £102.15 a week, plus £43.50 in the state second pension, totalling £145.65 a week, or more if she had 40 years of contributions. The figure of £140 a week that the Minister set out must be seen in that context. Pensioners and families must assess the proposals carefully to ensure that they are not worse off than they would have been under Labour’s plans. Can the Minister give some reassurances about the other benefits that pensioners receive, including free TV licences, prescriptions, eye tests, support with council tax, bus passes, the winter fuel allowance and cold weather payments? In the Budget we saw a cut in the winter fuel allowance, despite rising energy prices and two successive cold winters. Will the Minister explain how he will account for those benefits in the new system, or say whether we will see further cuts, by stealth or otherwise?

I have a few brief questions about affordability and fairness. The Chancellor announced in his Budget that the reforms would cost no more than the current system, yet the Pensions Policy Institute estimates that a flat-rate pension at a guaranteed credit level will cost almost 1% of GDP after 13 years. That must imply that although some will be better off under the Government’s plans, some will also be worse off. The Minister has spoken eloquently about the potential winners, but the distributional impacts are critical, so will he confirm who will be worse off under the new proposed system?

On fairness, the Minister has said that accrued rights will be protected. Forgive me for being a bit sceptical, but he said the same about the switch in uprating from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. However, in this instance I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Can he guarantee that someone in their 50s who has worked all their life on average earnings and has never contracted out of the state second pension will still be entitled to a more generous state pension than someone who has not paid in? If not, does he think it fair that those contracting out and getting defined benefit pensions in retirement could receive the same state pension as their counterparts who have paid full national insurance contributions throughout their careers? If those who have paid in get more than £140, will the change really be cost-neutral? If some will get less than £140 based on lower contributions, will the Minister ensure that no one falls below the guaranteed credit level? In what way can that be called a flat-rate pension?

The Government’s proposals could have serious implications for the future of defined benefit schemes, because they will end the rebate for those on DB schemes. Given the importance of occupational savings for retirement income, as the Minister said, what are his estimates of the generosity of DB schemes—and, indeed, their overall survival—given the changes? The changes in contracting-out touch on a wider point. The post-world war welfare state is based on the contributory principle. We welcome the news that any new flat-rate system will keep contributions at their core, and that anyone with 30 years’ national insurance contributions will be entitled to the newly formulated pension. However, given the Chancellor’s announcement that the Government intend to merge tax and national insurance, will the Minister explain how the contributory principle will work in practice if that merger takes place? Will he also give a reassurance that taxes will not go up for pensioners, who of course do not pay national insurance?

The other, less briefed elements of today’s Green Paper include the automatic mechanism for increasing the state pension age to make future increases fair and smooth, with time for people to plan. The move comes too late for the 500,000 women who will have to wait a year longer before they receive their state pension and the 33,000 women who will have to wait exactly two years before receiving their state pension. Does the Minister now recognise that the accelerated timetable for the state pension age for women in their 50s does not spread the cost fairly or, with just five years’ notice, leave enough time to prepare?

To conclude, the Green Paper does nothing for today’s pensioners, because a flat-rate pension will be for only new pensioners. Today’s pensioners are suffering at the hands of this Government, with an increase in VAT to 20%, which sees pensioners worse off by £200 a year, low savings rates and a £100 cut in the winter fuel allowance. Although a flat-rate pension of £140 sounds good in theory, the Chancellor says that there is no new money, so who will lose out? It is quite likely to be families on average earnings, or just a bit more, who have worked hard and brought up a family, paying their full national insurance contributions. Some people will be worse off under the reforms, yet the Government want to talk about only the winners. In the final chapter of the review, the Government suggested that a crude formula could be used for uprating the state pension age. They have already hit women in their late 50s with a two-year increase in their state pension age; now they want to use a formula that pays no attention to health in later life, so we will all be waiting longer and longer to get our pensions.

We welcome the intent behind today’s Green Paper. We want a more progressive and less complicated system, but I am yet to be convinced that today’s Green Paper will achieve that.

[Steve Webb]

I did write the hon. Lady’s words down—in principle, she welcomed the Green Paper, so I am grateful for her warm comments about our proposals. She asked a number of specific questions, and I shall try to respond to them.

The hon. Lady seemed to imply that women would get £145 anyway, so wondered why we needed to do anything. That, however, is decades away. Equality between men and women in the state pension system is decades away, and we think that is too slow. Many women who did their child rearing in the ’80s and ’90s got no state second pension protection because it did not exist at that time. They will be retiring over the coming years and we are now bringing forward that protection for them. We do not want to wait 20 years for equality.

The hon. Lady asked an important question about passported benefits and we will need to consider the implications of these changes for those benefits. She had the cheek to suggest that the winter fuel payment had been cut in comparison with what she would have provided if she were in office. She will be well aware that we are sticking precisely to the budgets that her right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, wrote. He will know perfectly well how much he put aside for the winter fuel payments, and we are doing exactly what he planned.

The hon. Lady asked about the Pensions Policy Institute and its estimate that a £140 flat-rate pension would cost 1% of gross domestic product. What she may have misunderstood from the report is that the question it asked was what it would cost if that amount were paid to everybody. That is where its figure came from. We are saying that we will create this for new pensioners, because new pensioners face a new world in which they will work longer, retire later and have fewer final salary pension schemes, so we need a system that is fit for them.

The hon. Lady sought reassurance on two points and the answer is yes to both of them. We will honour past service and we will make an adjustment, as I said in my statement, for contracted-out periods.

The hon. Lady asked about the future of final salary pension schemes after 13 years of decline under Labour. She will be pleased to know that the National Association of Pension Funds—the trade body for company pensions —welcomes these reforms and supports them, but we are in dialogue with those operating large final salary pension schemes to discuss how these changes will impact on them and how we can work with them to move towards the sort of simpler scheme that they and we want to see.

The hon. Lady asked about merging what the Chancellor referred to as the operation of the tax and national insurance system, which is certainly at an exploratory stage, but he has made it clear that pensions will be protected under these changes and that the contributory principle will remain.

Finally, the hon. Lady asked about the mechanism for raising the state pension age. She referred to a crude formula, but there are options in the Green Paper. One is to have an automatic mechanism for raising the pension age as longevity increases; the other is to adopt a more nuanced approach to take account of a range of factors. We would welcome feedback on that.

Overall, I think the hon. Lady welcomed our proposals, particularly the fact that they will benefit women and self-employed people and will lead to a fairer system. She said that she wanted to see a fairer system; in office, the Labour Government never delivered one, but through this Green Paper, we will.

[Mr Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

In welcoming the statement and the Green Paper, I congratulate the Minister on achieving a long-held ambition in the pensions world of creating much more certainty and transparency about the state pension system so as to encourage saving in the longer term, as well as on helping the more vulnerable groups he mentioned, such as women, who will get help that much earlier. Will he say more about the time scale? He talked about the long distance we still have to go before achieving justice for women, so what improvement will these changes bring and what is the Minister’s time scale?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who brings his great knowledge of these issues to the House and to the Select Committee of which he is a member. As he says, we need a simpler system. He will appreciate that these things take time; we will need to consult and then respond. In due course, we hope to legislate to re-programme the computers and so forth. As the Chancellor said, we are talking about some years to implement the reforms, but we are clearly keen to move forward as fast as we possibly can.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

I was listening hard to the Minister’s reply to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), and I noticed that he provided no examples, in response to her request, of those who would be worse off as a result of these changes. There must be some losers. Presumably, they will include the group who enjoy pension credit now, but have not paid enough contributions to justify the new flat-rate pension. What will happen to that group? As for women, surely if they have not made the contributions, they will not be any better off than they are now.

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the Select Committee Chair for her questions. To be clear on the role of pension credit, we envisage that there will have to be a safety net under any system, and the Green Paper provides for consultation about what exactly that might look like. There will still be a guaranteed credit type system—a floor below which people cannot fall. In a single-tier pension world, the savings credit would no longer be necessary for new pensioners. In other words, the savings credit was invented by the previous Government to deal with the fact that 100% marginal tax rates were paid on any saving. Because we are not doing that any more, we will not need the savings credit for new pensioners, which helps to pay for the reform. It is less means-testing, more universal pension.

The hon. Lady rightly mentions the position of women and my point is that women under the current system, who often did their child rearing before the state second pension was introduced, have no protection at all, whereas they have basic pension protection. Under a single-tier world, they get protection at the full rate, so they will benefit from the reforms we are introducing.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

My hon. Friend the Pensions Minister has not only this very month introduced the link between pensions and earnings, for which pensioners have been calling for years, but now makes a clear bid to be the most popular Pensions Minister for decades, in announcing the option of the citizens pension for which he and I have campaigned for ever. It is clearly fairer, simpler and particularly helpful to women and the self-employed. I urge my hon. Friend to be as bold and reforming as he suggests option 2 would allow. I urge him to go fully through the consultation process, but when midsummer’s day arrives—the last day of the consultation—I urge him to go for the single tier state pension so that this Government’s legacy for pensioners will be as radical in this century as the legacy of Lloyd George and Beveridge was for pensioners in the last.

[Steve Webb]

My right hon. Friend puts me on the spot, but I am glad to respond positively. I have noted his comments down as being the first response to my consultation, making it 1-0 for the single-tier option—I will keep score as we go. He is right that the restoration of the earnings link after 30 years of breaking it is an historic event, although it has been rather overshadowed by other events in the world. We think someone retiring this year will, over the years, get an extra £15,000 in basic state pension through the restoration of the link. That is a real firm foundation for today’s pensioners as well as reform for tomorrow’s. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend in respect of the liberal heritage and to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor for their encouragement for the proposal to move forward.

[Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)]

It is humbling to follow a question from a “for ever” Member of Parliament.

May I ask about the mechanism for determining future changes to state pension age? Could this mechanism please allow for occupational and social class differences in terms of life expectancy? If we look at men who work in what are called routine occupations, such as van drivers, cleaners and labourers, we see that almost a fifth of them—19%, I believe—die before they receive the state pension at 65. If we keep raising the state pension age without allowing for those people who have been working since they were 15 or 16, we will certainly bring insensitivity into the system.

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who brings great knowledge of these issues to the House. He raises a vital point. Although it is true that life expectancy across the social classes has been improving, which is entirely to be welcomed, there are still very significant differences. One suggested option in the Green Paper is that the review mechanism should take account of a wide range of factors of the very sort that he mentioned. It is possible to have a too formulaic or automatic approach, but the right hon. Gentleman will have noted that the Chancellor referred in the Budget to a “more automatic” approach, taking systematic account of increases in life expectancy, but potentially of other factors such as those that he mentioned.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

In welcoming the Green Paper and particularly the emphasis it places on removing means-testing as a deterrent to saving, will the Minister confirm how he intends to treat caring responsibilities and their role in contributing towards the build-up of a pension?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I know of the expertise she brings to the Select Committee on these issues. We propose that bringing up the next generation or caring for an elderly relative will be valued by society just as much as a high-paid job. A year will be a year will be a year. If someone is contributing to society in that way or in paid work or in other ways, it will bring them one thirtieth of a single state pension. We think that is a big step in the right direction, which will be widely welcomed around the House.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

We welcome the Green Paper and the consultation that will ensue. We agree that moving away from means-testing and complexity towards a universal flat-rate pension is greatly to be welcomed. The Minister says that this will not entail spending any more money. Given that so many pensioners today do not claim all the means-tested benefits to which they are entitled—this is a big factor in these reforms and should again be welcomed—does it not mean that more money will need to be spent to make up for the fact that people do not claim? If so, will the Minister guarantee that that money will be provided?

[Steve Webb]

The right hon. Gentleman has made an important point, namely that under the current system many people are entitled to top-ups and do not claim them, whereas pretty much everyone claims the state pension. The new system will guarantee that a great many people will live clear of the poverty line for the first time. As the right hon. Gentleman says, a price tag is attached, and we have factored that into our costings. Although the prospective state pensions of the very highest earners will be lower than they would otherwise have been, many lower earners and people who would not otherwise have taken up their entitlement to pension credit will be in a better position, and we consider that to be a fairer system overall.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

What the Minister has announced will be enormously welcome in my constituency. I know from correspondence with my constituents that they will be particularly interested in the raising of the state pension age, because they want a degree of certainty about when they can expect to retire. I urge the Minister to provide that certainty as rapidly as possible.

[Steve Webb]

As my hon. Friend says, people want certainty about the future. We have said that we must move rapidly in respect of those reaching the age of 66. However, the new mechanism is designed not just to make changes more automatic, but to provide notice periods. Young people will not have that certainty, because life expectancy is always changing, but as people approach the state pension age, we want to be able to give them more certainty. That is part of our plans.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

It is difficult to think of any statement that could be more important than one that commits a Government to paying a state pension above means-tested assistance level. The importance of this statement—which I welcome—stems from the fact that the income of many pensioners is below that level. Even if we take into account those who do not claim means-tested help, a large price tag will be attached to this reform. Will the Minister consider the contribution made by taxpayers through pension tax relief, which favours the wealthy over those who earn least, as one way of financing it?

[Steve Webb]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the proposed system. It will be financed on a cost-neutral basis within the system: we will spend less money on means-testing and, for instance, savings credit, we will withdraw some of the very small payments that we currently make to people who do not even live in this country, and we will remove some of the highest accruals for the highest earners. We therefore do not need to involve tax relief. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have refined the previous Government’s plans, so tax relief will be less concentrated on the highest earners, but we have no further plans to change tax relief.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

It is always an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who invariably speaks a great deal of common sense on these issues.

I thank the Minister for publishing the Green Paper, which, along with the introduction of universal credit, constitutes a seminal reform. We in the Government parties are sending the message that it always pays to work and it always pays to save. We are taking radical steps in regard to the choices that we give pensioners on annuities; may I ask the Minister to continue that work? After all, we are talking about the individual savings of pensioners who have worked all their lives.

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a clear link between the major reforms that the Department is introducing for people of working age and those that it is introducing for those who will reach pension age in the future. “It pays to work” and “it pays to save” must be the right combination.

My hon. Friend asked about pensioners’ savings. In a world in which we will enrol people in workplace savings, we need them to be confident that they will be better off when they save, and that is one of the specific purposes of the reforms. If my hon. Friend wishes to raise any further points, I will certainly respond to them.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Given that the introduction of a single-tier pension will be available only to new pensioners, will the safety nets to which the Minister referred in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) include all the existing passported benefits, and will claimants still have to go through a means-tested system in order to obtain them?

[Steve Webb]

We are not changing the system for current pensioners at all. It will continue as previously budgeted. As for new pensioners, we need to think what paying a pension above the guarantee credit implies for passported benefits, and what sort of system we need. I should be interested to hear people’s ideas, because the issue is important. Hitherto, we have simply assumed that pension credit means poverty and that we must therefore make all the extra payments. We may need a more sophisticated system now, but the role of passported benefits is important, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising it.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for providing us with the rationale behind it. As he will know, people will want to establish whether the single tier really does offer the platform for fairness and adequacy that he has described. They will want clarity and confidence.

The Minister mentioned the need for people to save money for their pensions. What consideration have he and Treasury Ministers given to their ability to afford that, given the hits that they are taking as a result of the withdrawal of some child benefit, the entry of more people into the 40% tax bracket, and the huge challenge posed by tuition fees?

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point about people’s ability to afford to save. One of the key aspects of automatic enrolment is the fact that an employee’s contribution will trigger an employer contribution of nearly as much, plus tax relief. If an employee contributes 4% of his salary, the employer’s contribution will raise that to 8%, so this is a very affordable form of saving. Of course we want to ensure that people who make such sacrifices in order to save will be better off as a result, and our reforms will make that outcome far more likely than it is at present.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Plaid Cymru has long campaigned for a living pension, and we welcome the Government’s single tier proposals. The current system does not ensure an adequate income for all pensioners. As Jackie Ashley wrote in today’s Guardian,

“On this issue of complexity Labour in power got it wrong, and should admit it.”

However, does the Minister accept that on the accelerated equalisation of state pension age, the Government are in some danger of getting it badly wrong for about half a million women in their late 50s? What assurances can he give about that?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expressing support for the proposal of the single tier on behalf of the Welsh nationalists. As for the issue of state pension ages, the Green Paper involves moves beyond the pension age of 66. The issue raised by the hon. Gentleman will be dealt with in the Pensions Bill, which will be presented to this House shortly, but, beyond that, we are trying to establish a more automatic mechanism that takes account of changes in life expectancy and, perhaps, of other factors as well, such as notice periods—which is, I think, the issue that he has raised—in a more systematic way than we or other Governments have done so far.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There is some good stuff in what the Minister has said, but every week my office—and, probably, the office of every other Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom—receives queries about small works pensions. Although they amount to a pittance, they remove people’s eligibility for benefits. Will the Minister assure us that such people will not be disadvantaged?

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. A small occupational pension can make the difference between living in poverty and living with a bit of dignity. Hitherto, given the low state pension of £97 a week, the first £35 or so of company pension has tended to offset £35 of guarantee credit, so people have been no better off. Then the savings credit has come along and given them a bit back, and it is all fiendishly complicated. The beauty of the single tier is that people are above the guarantee credit level from pound one, so the works pension is theirs to keep on top. There is still a housing benefit system and so on, but in principle the works pension will be worth more than it is under the current system.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I give the Minister a final opportunity to tell us who the losers will be from his plans for flat-rate pensions?

[Steve Webb]

I will have another go. We have made it clear that we are not spending more money overall, that there are significant gainers among women, the low paid and the self-employed, and that therefore, inevitably, some people who would have received higher state pensions under the current system will receive flat-rate pensions. Because the current system is earnings-related, the highest earners will tend to receive lower state pensions under this system. The Labour party used to support that sort of thing.

State Pension Reform

Steve Webb Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I am today publishing the consultation document, “A State Pension for the 21st century” (Cm 8053), which looks at whether the existing pensions system is suitable for meeting the challenges of the future. We want to create a simple, decent state pension, that is easy to understand and efficient to administer, which gives people more clarity and certainty about what they will get from the state, thereby giving them a firm foundation for decisions about saving to fund their retirement.

A copy of the consultation document will be available on the Department’s website at: www.dwp.gov.uk/state-pension-21st-century, later today. Copies will also be available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office later today.

We look forward to hearing the views of the many groups and individuals who will have an interest.

Social Fund Allocations

Steve Webb Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I am pleased to announce that the gross discretionary Social Fund Budget for 2011-12 will be £732 million.

With the net funding available, I have been able to allocate a gross national Social Fund Loans Budget of £590 million and a national Community Care Grants Budget of £141 million from l April 2011.

To provide help to Jobcentre Plus budgets facing unexpected and unplanned expenditure I will retain centrally £1 million as a contingency reserve.

I will allocate a gross national Social Fund Loans Budget in line with the provisions in the Welfare Reform Act 2007. The aim is to control and manage the national allocation whilst providing consistency of outcomes for budgeting loan applicants wherever they live. All loans budget expenditure will be made from the gross national loans budget of £590 million.

The Community Care Grant annual allocations to social fund budget areas are provisional and will be subject to in year adjustment once the current review of the funding allocation methodology has been completed. The overall national budget will remain at £141 million. The purpose of the review is to determine a fairer distribution of resources between areas and to move to the optimal funding position for the new locally based service from 2013.

Details of individual Community Care Grant allocations will be placed in the House Libraries.

Background note about the discretionary Social Fund Budget

The discretionary social fund budget is cash limited. Funding for Community Care Grants is allocated to each budget area for management by Jobcentre Plus Social Fund Benefit Delivery Centres on 1 April each year. The gross discretionary social fund budget allocated for 2011-12 is £732 million. This is made up of:

Draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions, Rebates and Minimum Contributions) Order 2011

Steve Webb Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Steve Webb]

The process is neutral: as the rebate falls, so too does the promise that has to be matched. Schemes could, if they wanted to—this is a substantive point—reduce their accrual rates within the scheme.

[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 21 March 2011, c. 8.]

Letter of correction from Steve Webb:

I made the above statement in my response to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves).

The correct response should have been:

[Steve Webb]

When the rebate rate is reduced in 2012, the reference scheme test for contracted-out salary-related schemes—Defined Benefit—will remain the same, so it is schemes that offer benefits that are more generous than the reference scheme test that could choose to adjust their benefits in order to take account of a reduction in the rebate.

Amendment of the Law

Steve Webb Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

But the challenge from this Budget is that there are simply not enough winners, because the bills for sending people to the dole queue rather than back to work are now going through the roof. Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that more than £2.5 billion in extra dole bills does not constitute a wise use of public money. If only the Chancellor would do more to get people back to work, the squeeze on working families would not be anywhere near as hard.

Finally, we must ask what the Budget means for some of the most vulnerable people in our country—the people who are in need of help from the wider community, and those who need extra support in order to live a full life in one of the world’s biggest economies. I know that, like me, the Secretary of State believes that a country as rich as Britain should have high, not low, standards of civilisation and compassion—but the Chancellor is pressing ahead with measures that will deny thousands of people their independence. The question that the House must ask is: what is the Secretary of State doing to stop it?

The right hon. Gentleman told the House yesterday that after his review of DLA had been completed the mobility component for people in care homes would still exist, but he still cannot explain why the Chancellor announced that he was taking £400 million more out of the mobility component than previously planned. The Budget confirmed that he would press ahead with his abolition of DLA. I repeat that we support the right kind of reform of DLA, but no matter how he tries to dress it up, he is taking £2.9 billion out of a well-targeted benefit, and he himself is saying that 170,000 fewer people will receive the benefit by the end of the Parliament. That is £8,500 per family. With figures like that, surely he can understand why so many people with disabilities up and down the country are so worried.

Finally, it was confirmed in the Budget that the Government are pressing ahead with their plans to limit employment and support allowance to just one year. The Secretary of State has a chance to fix that in Committee on the Bill, but the Budget confirmed an ambition to save £3.5 billion from people on ESA. However, he knows as well as I do that many people do not recover from cancer in under 12 months, and he also knows that cancer charities up and down the country are now asking him to think again.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Byrne]

No, because I want to make an important point to the House. The Minister’s Department knows that three quarters of cancer patients still need ESA after one year. The message from the charities to the Front-Bench team was blunt. They say:

“this proposal, rather than creating an incentive to work, will lead to many cancer patients losing their ESA simply because they have not recovered quickly enough.”

Will the Minister confirm that he will withdraw this terrible measure?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He tried to frighten disabled people by saying the average DLA loss was £8,500 per year. Does he think that figure is right?

[Mr Byrne]

Well, the Minister will know as well as I do how much he is cutting from DLA, and he knows as well as I do how many people he anticipates will receive the benefit in the future. He can do the maths as well as I can. The obligation is on him to come clean and be straight with people with disabilities. What will the reform of DLA mean for them? Will he drop this measure from his Bill?

This afternoon we have heard a pretty poor defence of a Budget that puts more people out of work, fails to deliver on ambitions for our young people, and hits families harder than ever to pay the bills of economic failure. Worse still, it begins to endanger the contract of a proud and civilised country with the people who need help most. This is not a big society; it is a society in which the bonds that tie us together are weaker and weaker. This is not a Budget that is working; it is a Budget that is hurting—and the Chancellor should think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Many of the people affected by last week’s Budget were in attendance in Hyde park on Saturday. Some 500,000, I believe, were there, marching against the Government’s cuts. It was a privilege and an honour to stand shoulder to shoulder, along with many Labour colleagues, with so many people in the UK—nurses, doctors, teachers, policemen, prison officers, council workers and trade unionists, among many others, including many people representing local charities, community groups or professional organisations. It was an absolute credit to the TUC and Brendan Barber that they organised such an historic event. Those 500,000 people gave a clear message to the Con-Dems about last week’s Budget and the cuts agenda, which is going too far, too fast. The Budget again hit the less well-off, not the more affluent people in this country—not the millionaires on the Government Benches.

I want to focus on two issues. The first is the Chancellor’s announcement last week about the carbon tax—or the carbon floor price. It could have a devastating impact on Rio Tinto Alcan, which is the biggest private sector employer in my constituency; in fact, it is the largest in Northumberland, employing 600 people and probably serving more than 1,000 people indirectly in the community. Alcan has put £100 million into the local economy, which is something that we greatly need. However, last week’s introduction of the carbon floor price, in addition to the EU’s emissions trading scheme, means that nearly a third of Alcan’s running costs are due to legislation. It simply cannot sustain that. I am concerned that if we do not look at that, Alcan—a huge employer—might consider closing the plant. The Budget announcement certainly threatens the progress of what has been a tremendous employer. I would ask the Government to rethink their policy on the carbon floor price; and if possible, I would like to discuss that with the Ministers concerned.

Last week’s forecast showed that growth figures had been cut, with inflation up, borrowing up, unemployment up and youth unemployment up to record levels. Again, that is extremely concerning. They say that the devil is in the detail. I would refer to the Deputy Prime Minister, who has established a record in betraying the young people of our country. Perhaps he should have read the Red Book, as probably we all did. If he does, he will realise that the coalition Government did not announce from the Dispatch Box last week that they were reducing winter fuel payments to pensioners. It is an absolute disgrace that no one had the guts to stand at that Dispatch Box to tell the House and explain to the country that the Government were reducing winter fuel payments to people aged between 70 and 80. That is another broken pledge—another broken promise—from a broken man who is completely out of his depth.

[Steve Webb]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Lavery]

No.

Quite frankly, the Deputy Prime Minister is controlled like a sycophant—a political Buzz Lightyear—by the very hands of the Prime Minister himself.

The other issue is the significant changes to the Health and Safety Executive and the Lord Young review—which was implemented last week in the detail of the Budget—which will cause huge problems for workplace inspections across the country. That is a great concern, because many people are still being killed in the UK or contracting illnesses or diseases as a result of working in industry. Again, I would like that reviewed. We should be proud of our health and safety culture—Opposition Members certainly are, but I am not so sure about Government Members.

Last week’s Budget did nothing for the hard-working people of this country—some people describe them as the squeezed middle. There has been an attack on pensions, pay and conditions, rights in the workplace and health and safety. No wonder 500,000 marched so proudly against the cuts and the Budget on Saturday. The coalition Government would do well to listen to those people, rather than the inane ramblings of Batty Boris, the Mayor of London.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Webb Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

We recognise the importance of giving people notice so that they can prepare, which is why the timetable for the state pension age changes will not begin to affect people who are due to retire until after 2016. However, life expectancy has increased dramatically. We believe that the timetable in the Pensions Bill provides the best balance between the impact on individuals and fairness to the taxpayer, who will fund the cost of that increased longevity.

[Mr Sanders]

I think that we all accept what the Minister has said, but it remains the case that a very small group of women who just happen to have been born at a particular time are affected. It cannot be beyond the scope of Government to do something for that group, who at present are being more disadvantaged than anyone else simply because of the time at which they were born.

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend has raised an important point, but of course as soon as we do something for that particular cohort, another of people born a month earlier or later will say “That’s not fair”, and before we know it we will have delayed the change until 2020 at a cost of £10 billion. Although my hon. Friend asked his question in a characteristically beguiling way, I must tell him that there is no simple way of dealing with that one group.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that it is increasingly difficult for women over the age of 50 to obtain employment. Given the later pension age that the Government are introducing and the changes in employment and support allowance, women who find it impossible to obtain jobs may find themselves with no financial support at all.

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Lady has raised an important point about the financial support available to the group concerned. In fact, about 70% of them are in paid employment, and that section of the labour market is doing better than other sections. We reckon that three in five of these women have built up occupational pension rights on which they will be able to draw before they reach the age of 66, and both ESA and JSA will be available in certain circumstances. A combination of sources of income will be available to them.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

In his statement last Wednesday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that he was hoping for

“a new, more automatic mechanism for future increases in the state pension age based on regular, independent reviews of longevity.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 961.]

With longevity increasing by about a year every year, that brought to my mind the vision of a cohort of people who might never actually reach pension age. Will the Pensions Minister comment?

[Steve Webb]

Tempted though I am, we do not propose to abolish retirement. What my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said was that we need to take account in a more automatic way. I do not recognise the improvement of one year per year, although it is rising very rapidly. The key is that we need to do things with proper notice and make sure people have successful longer working lives and therefore build up bigger pensions when they come to draw them.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I could not agree more with the points made by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders), because the Government’s proposals mean 500,000 women will have to wait for more than a year longer before they receive their state pension, while 33,000 women will have to wait for exactly two years longer. With 10,000 signatures now on a petition calling for a rethink, and full-page letters in today’s Times and Telegraph asking the Government to think again, will the Minister now accept that the strength of opposition both in this House and outside is too great for the Government not to think again?

[Steve Webb]

I am surprised the shadow pensions Minister chose not to raise the issue of the state pension reform announced by the Chancellor in the Budget statement, which will be of particular benefit to this group of women. Many of the women who are aged about 57 spent considerable amounts of time out of work bringing up children, and we will reform the state pension system so that they get a proper pension for the first time.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

5. What recent progress has been made on implementing the recommendations of the Harrington review of work capability assessment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

18. What recent progress his Department has made in reducing pensioner poverty.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

We have restored the earnings link for the state pension and given a triple guarantee that the pension will rise by the highest of earnings, prices or 2.5%. We will pay the winter fuel payment in 2011-12 exactly as budgeted for by the previous Government. We have made permanent the increase in the cold weather payment from £8.50 to £25 a week.

[Mr Evennett]

I welcome the approach the Government are taking on this very important matter. What estimate has the Minister made, however, of the impact of the single-tier pension proposals on future levels of pensioner poverty?

[Steve Webb]

We will shortly publish a Green Paper with a range of options for state pension reform. As my hon. Friend says, one of those is a single flat-rate pension. One of its great advantages is that whereas many pensioners do not claim their means-tested benefits and therefore live in poverty, everyone claims their pension.

[Jesse Norman]

Like many Members, I welcome the single-tier pension. Will the Minister help us consider whether there could be an interesting interaction between that and a lifetime savings account, whereby people can take money in and out of an ISA-style savings account?

[Steve Webb]

Although policy on the tax treatment of savings is a matter for our friends in the Treasury, it is absolutely the case that the single tier provides a firm foundation for saving. Whereas under the current system, every pound one saves results in the clawback of means-tested benefits, a decent single pension will get one clear of means-testing to a far greater extent.

[Stuart Andrew]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that thanks to the re-linking of the basic state pension with earnings, the typical person retiring this year can look forward to receiving an extra £15,000?

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although earnings are temporarily depressed, this is a policy for the long term, as many pensioners will draw a state pension for 20 or 25 years. He is absolutely right to say that the typical person retiring this year will have an enhanced state pension of about £15,000 through the restoration of the earnings link.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Even with the Government’s reforms, the restoration of the link and so on, the basic state pension will still be below the official poverty level, and way below comparable basic state pensions on the continent. What are the Government going to do to address the problem?

[Steve Webb]

We have a twin-track strategy that does right by today’s pensioners and that puts in place reform for tomorrow’s. For today’s pensioners, as well as restoring the earnings link we are looking at measures to make sure that people claim the means-tested benefits to which they are entitled, but we will also be consulting on a much firmer foundation of state pension for the future so that we guarantee that more people do not have to retire into poverty, as too many people have had to in the past.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

On Radio Sheffield last week, the Deputy Prime Minister did not seem aware of the Government’s decision on the winter fuel allowance which means that pensioners will receive up to £100 less this year. Were the Minister and his team aware of the changes, and can he confirm that winter fuel allowance payments to pensioners will be up to £100 lower this year?

[Steve Webb]

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out that the budget for winter fuel payments is exactly as budgeted for by the previous Government. The winter fuel payment increases that were, mysteriously, for two years before the election and one year after—I cannot think why—were always temporary. However, what we have not done is cut the cold weather payment, which the hon. Lady’s party had planned to do.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

What made the Government think they could get away with reducing the winter fuel payment by £100 by smuggling it through and not mentioning it in the Budget statement? If they think that they have got away with it and that pensioners have not noticed, they should have been in my constituency at the weekend.

[Steve Webb]

Well, the right hon. Gentleman must not have been paying attention last year when the Chancellor announced in his comprehensive spending review that the winter fuel payment would be exactly as budgeted for by the previous Labour Government. Perhaps he was not listening.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

13. What assessment he has made of the potential effects on pensioners of the uprating of pensions using the consumer prices index.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

The net effect of the triple guarantee for the basic state pension—the figure we gave a moment ago—and CPI for the additional pension is estimated to be a lifetime gain of around £10,000 for the average person reaching retirement in 2011. The impact on private sector occupational pension schemes will vary from scheme to scheme.

[Paul Uppal]

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the triple guarantee will ensure that pensioners will receive a decent offering from the state in their retirement?

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend correctly points out that for the past 30 years the value of the state pension has been falling and falling relative to the living standards of the working population. We are proud to have put a halt to that.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Will pensioners be worse off or better off should income tax and national insurance be combined?

[Steve Webb]

Obviously, this idea is at a very preparatory stage, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that pensioners will not simply face an increase in overall tax as would be the case if the two tax rates were simply added together. The idea is in its very early stages, a lot of preparatory and consultative work is going on, and I am sure that the Chancellor is entirely mindful of the points that the hon. Lady raises.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

15. What assessment he has made of the potential effects on women of his proposals on pensions.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Chancellor announced in the Budget that the Government will shortly consult on various options, including one for a simpler state pension. In looking at these options one of our key priorities will be to consider how we deliver improved outcomes for women. Under proposals for a single-tier pension we would expect many women to benefit and we will publish more details of our proposals shortly.

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the Minister for that reply, and I warmly welcome the single-tier pension, which bears a striking similarity to the citizen’s pension on which he and I have campaigned. May I bring him back to the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) about the injustice faced by women born in 1953 and 1954, which he said there was no simple way of dealing with? The Minister is widely respected for his great expertise on the intricacies of the pension system, so even if there is not a simple way of dealing with the problem, may I urge him to look hard to find a complicated way of tackling it?

[Steve Webb]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. The issue, unfortunately, having dealt with the one-month cohort about whom I understand there is particular feeling, is that it is not only that group who face an increase of more than a year. When one looks at the neighbouring months, an obvious way of dealing with the problem is by delaying until 2020, but if we did that, we would soon rack up a £10 billion bill. That is the sort of difficult trade-off we have had to face.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

16. What progress his Department has made on delivering new enterprise allowance support in Merseyside.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

T5. In his earlier response, the Minister implied that levels of winter fuel payment under Labour were based on the electoral timetable. In fact, the UK has the highest level of excess winter deaths, according to National Energy Action. Can he explain why pensioners in my constituency will be receiving less this winter than last?

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

For the first seven or eight years in which the winter fuel payment existed, it was set at exactly £200. For three years only, it was temporarily increased, and the budgeted amount was set to reduce this coming winter. Last year—the hon. Lady may not be aware of this—we ensured that poor pensioners got an £80 electricity rebate. This winter, subject to regulations going through the House, we plan that over 1 million poor pensioners will be entitled to a £120 electricity rebate—real help for people who need it.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

T6. Next week, pensions get linked to earnings for the first time since Mrs Thatcher abolished the link in the 1980s. I do not think that pensioners have yet got all the good news messages that they should be getting from this Government. Can Ministers assure us, and pensioners, about what those messages are? Can they then make sure that every pensioner and pensioners’ organisation understands the range of good things from which they have already benefited thanks to Ministers in this Government?

[Steve Webb]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I spend a good deal of my time going out around the country talking to pensioners’ groups. I shall be talking to one such group in Birmingham on Wednesday, and I will tell them that restoring the earnings link for the first time in 30 years will provide a firm foundation and dignity for pensioners. That is long overdue.

[Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

T8. Under new welfare rules, jobseekers will be required to undertake mandatory work activity placements such as stacking shelves for 30 hours a week for at least four weeks, and if they do not comply, their jobseeker’s allowance could be withheld. Can the Secretary of State tell me what safeguards are going to be put in place to prevent exploitation and whether sanctions will be placed on Work programme providers if it is found to be occurring?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

T10. I have been approached by a number of constituents who are private landlords, who are concerned that they have not received payments that have been made to their tenants. What measures are the Government considering to alleviate that problem?

[Steve Webb]

We recognise that payments do not always get through to landlords. There is a provision that allows direct payment when there are eight weeks of arrears, and we have added a provision under our new rules so that direct payment can be made to a landlord when it will secure or maintain a tenancy.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

I was contacted last week by a constituent who is in her 50s, has advanced multiple sclerosis and lives in a residential home. Her elderly mother has moved into a nursing home on the other side of Aberdeen. The taxi that allows my constituent to visit her mother costs £50 there and back—exactly the amount she gets from the mobility component of disability living allowance. Will the Minister guarantee that my constituent will continue to have access to those funds after the changes to DLA, and that she will not have to go through a reassessment to make sure that she really deserves it?