§ 8. Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)Pursuant to the Green Paper on welfare reform, what calculations her Department made to assess adequate levels of income for those in retirement. [42935]
§ The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field)Although the debate about adequacy is important, the Government's priority is getting additional funds to pensioners. The Government have today published proposals on pension sharing on divorce, which will ensure that many more women will have more adequate pensions when they come to retire than they would otherwise have had.
§ Mr. SwayneMay I turn the Minister's attention to stakeholder pensions? What guarantee can he give to investors in such pensions that they will be able to buy an adequate annuity, given the nature of such instruments, the prices and values of which can fluctuate?
§ Mr. FieldThe aim of stakeholder pensions is to improve—substantially, we hope—on what is currently offered in private personal pensions.
§ Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington)Does my right hon. Friend accept that the least satisfactory way of getting extra income to pensioners is through more means-tested benefits? Pensioners, more than any other section of the community, have great difficulty with claiming such benefits, as they think that it is demeaning. If we rely on such benefits to get money to the poorest pensioners, many of them will lose out and suffer as a consequence.
§ Mr. FieldI totally agree, and that is why the Government have emphasised the importance of reducing value added tax on fuel and have introduced the winter fuel bonus. If I may, I will pose the question back to my hon. Friend: what should the Government do when a million pensioners—the poorest, oldest and frailest—fail to claim income support? Should we not be concerned to ensure that they claim what they are entitled to? We believe that we should be, and we are.
§ Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green)Given the Minister's comments a few seconds ago, and the report last week that said that the Government would not reach the targets necessary to provide income for the poorest people, will he tell us whether the Government can absolutely rule out doing what his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) suggested might be done, and rolling together and means-testing all income for retired pensioners? Will he rule that out until after the next general election?
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is not misleading the House. Would the Minister choose another form of words, as I am sure that he does not mean that?
§ Mr. FieldHe misled me, Madam Speaker, and to ensure that my mind is sorted out, perhaps I could explain the matter to the House.
Last week's report suggested that, if we continued the policies of the previous Administration, we would not reach our targets, and that is why we are undertaking a review and will publish a Green Paper, and why we will make a fundamental change.
§ Mr. Duncan SmithI am asking the Minister a simple question, which he has not answered: will he now take the opportunity absolutely to rule out means-testing the basic state pension by rolling it up with all income for pensioners, so that pensioners can rest at ease?
§ Mr. FieldI am grateful for the fact that the hon. Gentleman has twisted and turned in recent weeks, to enable him to drop the previous Government's commitment on the basic state pension, but the Government's position is clear: we gave a manifesto commitment that we would not means-test the basic state pension during our stewardship.