HC Deb 09 February 2000 vol 344 cc98-104WH

1 pm

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

Today is an auspicious day, because it is the day when I am fully qualified to join the Southwark pensioners action group. I already qualified as a resident of Southwark, but from today onwards, I qualify as a pensioner. It will be a great boost to me to belong to an organisation of which I will be, at least briefly, the youngest member.

The story that we have to tell is a grim one. In spite of all our hopes through the long years of opposition, pensioners as a group have not had a fair deal from the Government. While we were in opposition, we said many times that when Labour came to office, we would concentrate on the poorest pensioners. The credibility of our policies rests on that.

Let me quote what the then Secretary of State for Social Security said after we had been in office for just over a year. She stated in July 1998: There are some pensioners who are even poorer than those on income support. They are some of the very poorest people in Britain. They are the pensioners who are entitled to income support, but are not getting it; those who are slipping through the safety net altogether—the forgotten pensioners. This is not a marginal issue involving just a few slipping through the net. We estimate there are as many as I million of these forgotten pensioners. They are mostly very elderly, and nearly all women. The Secretary of State went on to say: Now we are taking action to bring the guaranteed minimum income to them, too. She promised that, starting from the following April—April 1999— we will be introducing, for the first time, a new national programme of personal advisers for pensioners… Through new technology, we will for the first time use the information that pensioners have already given us throughout their lives… The pensioner will then be contacted by the personal adviser, who, over the telephone or through a visit, will assess their entitlement, and then fill in the forms for them. All that pensioners will have to do is sign, and their extra money will come through the following week."—[Official Report, 17 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 704.] A sophisticated system was supposed to be in place to provide that, but, almost two years later, nothing has happened. The minimum income guarantee is crucial, because it is the Government's alibi for not restoring the link—about which we spoke for many years in opposition—between basic pensions and earnings. With that link, the basic pension would not be £67 from April this year, but £95.

The Government show no inclination to restore the link. Indeed, they have argued that the poorest pensioners would lose by it, but the reverse is true. Pensioners who are not getting income support would have benefited pound for pound from the restoration of that link.

What has happened since 1998? The minimum income guarantee has been introduced, but it amounts to very little. It may just be window-dressing—a change of name. We see that throughout the history of social security since the war. The minimum income guarantee is the old basic state pension, plus income support. That has existed for a long time.

It is disgraceful that those who contributed to their pensions throughout their lives are getting pensions below the level that the Government say is the minimum on which they should live.

We are told that the number involved is now about 700,000. That is the new figure given this week—700,000 who, according to the Government's figures, are losing £18 a week. That is a huge sum. We have pursued the issue through many avenues, to ensure that it is taken up. The next general election is rapidly approaching and we have failed to honour our promises.

Is there money available? Yes, there is ample money in the national insurance fund. There are surpluses described by the Government Actuary as "unneeded surpluses", and that is over and above the £6 billion that is regarded as a working surplus.

Until about a fortnight ago, the surplus was described as £5.9 billion, but, according to the most recent calculations, it is £9 billion over that level and will be increased further if, contrary to what the Minister said in the House on Monday, the Government go ahead and introduce the cut in SERPS that they promised. There is no doubt that the money is available for the changes. Even if the link to earnings were restored for a period of five years, the money is there.

On Monday, the Minister said, referring to take-up: There is an issue about who is being missed out—hence the research. We cannot be certain about the figures. There is a broad spread of figures; they come from the general household survey. A new figure was given by the Minister. He said: Following the Benefits Agency work, we estimate that the figure is a little over 2 million. He continued: Those people will be targeted in three tranches anyway. There will be television and press advertising. We will make an early announcement about the way in which we intend to go forward; we certainly will make the announcement before the end of this month. There will then be a large Government-sponsored take-up campaign, with a telephone national line and television advertising. The work has been done, in the sense that we have seen the scripts and literature, with 'minimum guarantee' on leaflets and drafts. At present there are no posters or leaflets with minimum income guarantee on them. There are no documents, but there will be: we have seen the proofs. To that extent, we are on the verge of being able to launch that campaign. It is important that we get the money to the people who deserve it."—[Official Report, 7 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 77–78.] That statement is disappointing, and there are points in it that we must take up. After two and a half years in office, the Government are planning an advertising campaign, of the same type, presumably, as Governments have run several times over the past 50 years. None has had a lasting effect, for various reasons.

There is no mention of the data-matching or the personal advisers that we were promised two years ago. Unless advisers are available, the scheme will create a little flurry of publicity and then be forgotten. It will not reach the persistent cases who are not claiming the income support to which they are entitled.

Will my hon. Friend tell me in his reply whether the data-matching and the personal advisers have been dropped? With regard to the number of pensioners involved, what on earth does a little over 2 million mean? We previously heard the figure of 700,000. Has it suddenly risen to 2 million? That is alarming, if it is the case. How did it happen? If the Minister was referring to all the people who are currently getting income support, the figure should be higher than that. We need clarification.

The fact that there are no posters or leaflets with "minimum guarantee" on them means that nothing has been done so far to encourage claims, two and a half years into a Labour Government. The number of non-claimants is almost certainly the same now as it was a year ago, despite the introduction of the so-called guarantee.

If the missing pensioners are to be targeted in three tranches, it will take many months before the final tranche is reached. In the meantime, the pensioners who should have been getting extra money from July 1998 have missed out on £1,000, on average. On the basis of all previous law on social security, according to which payment is made on the date of entitlement, attempts will be made to persuade the Government that all the pensioners who miss out—not through their fault, but because of the Government's inaction—should receive the back-pay to which they are entitled. Otherwise that money will go straight back into Treasury funds. That is elementary.

One of the most disappointing aspects of our Government is that they talk about giving money to the people who "deserve" it. That gives the game away. The winter fuel allowance was announced as if it was a gift from the Government. There was even a stunt in which a large cheque was offered, to show that this generous Government were giving money to pensioners. Pensioners do not get money because they are deserving; the Government need to be reminded that pensioners have paid out money throughout their working lives of 40 or 50 years. Their contributions are made in accordance with the rate of inflation. The money is not a gift or a handout, but an entitlement. When the Government speak as though it were a gift, they incur pensioners' anger—and rightly so.

We appreciate that many pensioners do not take pensions because they are disabled or intimidated by the forms. However, the main reason for not taking them up is that some people never lost a day's work and never claimed supplementary benefits, national assistance or income support, and it is a matter of pride to them that they never accepted a state handout; they do not intend to begin now. That is profoundly important. If the money is added to the basic pension, it becomes an entitlement. If it is left as a so-called minimum income guarantee, it becomes a handout, and many people of my generation find claiming it a demeaning experience.

London Labour party members received an extraordinary document from the Prime Minister's office, which states: For pensioners … we have introduced a £100 winter fuel allowance"— that is fine— free TV licences for the over 75s and restored free eye tests for the over 60s. Together with the Guaranteed Minimum Pension"— whatever that is— these measures mean that the poorest pensioners will soon get almost £20 a week more than when we came to office. A letter from the Minister comes to a different conclusion. He cites those changes, but concludes that, as a result of Government measures, pensioner households will be better off by £300 a year, and those over 75, who tend to be the poorest, will be better off by up to £500.

Why has the Prime Minister written to hundreds of people in London and multiplied the figure by two? The Minister's figure is fairly optimistic, but perhaps he can contact the Prime Minister and ensure that he sends a correction to all the people who received the letter to London Labour party members. What is a guaranteed minimum pension? It is another example of the new language. It is neither a pension nor guaranteed; it is the basic pension that pensioners have earned through their contributions, plus a little income support.

I want to give the Minister plenty of time to reply to the debate, but the Prime Minister's letter referred to other Government measures. For example, it states: the poorest pensioners will get almost £20 a week more than when we came to office. If the arithmetic is wrong, perhaps we should be told.

Like other Labour Members, you and I, Mr. Jones, fought the election on a promise in our manifesto to ensure that all pensioners would share fairly in the nation's growing prosperity. Early-day motion 1 and early-day motion 2 have been tabled on the minimum income guarantee. They are regularly signed by 100 Members of Parliament. We have achieved good things for many pensioners, and we have been fairer—I shall not say more generous—than previous Governments. However, the confidence trick continues to be played on pensioners. Many Labour Members feel unhappy and have bravely spoken against the leadership and the policy line. Their views are based on genuine unhappiness in the pensioner community.

It is a shame that pensioners do not take a leaf out of the book of the often well-heeled, rich groups, which persistently and enthusiastically lobby Parliament. The pensioners' lobby is much too polite; pensioners do not often block streets or take action. They do not get the Government's attention.

A deep and continuing injustice is perpetrated against those who built this country; many of them built the party to which you and I belong, Mr. Jones. They are being cheated by a Government who promised them a great deal. The Government should examine events in Britain in the past 12 months, which hold a terrible, unacknowledged lesson for us. A man who was told that he was not fit to be a Labour party candidate not only won an election, but got the biggest majority of any candidate in Scotland. In Wales, people in Llanelli, Islwyn and, of all places, the Rhondda, deserted the party. The same may happen in London. Many of them are elderly. They feel, "We won the election, but we lost our party." The Labour party is losing people who voted Labour before new Labour was invented.

The Government must restore pensioners' confidence and faith. They are our core supporters; they created our Labour party many years ago. We currently put up attractive sums of money—£100—which appears to be a great deal more than £2 a week. That is reminiscent of the tricks played by rotten employers who cheat their workers in their pay packets every week but give them a turkey at Christmas. The Government present skilful propaganda, half-truths and figures that are exaggerated or misrepresented, but, as a Government and as a party, we do not deliver for the mass of pensioners. As for the poorest pensioners, on whom we promised to concentrate, we are cheating them.

1.18 am
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on his 65th birthday today. He is a model Member of Parliament. However, I seriously question some of the language that he used. The Government are not playing any tricks on pensioners. We must be careful not only about the language but about the figures we use.

My hon. Friend has questioned one or two figures. Before I reach the thrust of my remarks, I shall answer his questions about figures. There is no contradiction between the letters that he has received from me and the letter from the Prime Minister. I am happy to provide detailed figures, although I cannot give them at length because there is not time to do so.

I cited the figure of £500, which relates to single pensioners over 80 between April 1998 and April 2000. This includes the winter fuel payment of £ 100 a year, for which my hon. Friend almost said thank you, and the reduction in VAT on fuel, from 8 to 5 per cent. That is only £16 a year, but that money still counts. The minimum income guarantee increase over the Rossi price index represents £293, and the free television licence, which comes into effect later this year, takes the figure to £510. The figure that he gave—I do not have the letter from the Prime Minister in front of me, but I understand that he was quoting—refers to 1997–2000 and older pensioner couples aged over 80. I have taken advice, and I know that the figure must come from there. The comparable figure for 1998–2000 is almost £13. We are not playing around. We consider couples and singles and use different years, whether 1998–2000 or 1997–2000, so figures are bound to change.

Mr. Flynn

Do I understand correctly? Is the Minister saying that £13 a week is almost £20 a week?

Mr. Rooker

No. I am saying that £13 a week applies to 1998–2000 and £20 a week must apply to 1997–2000. One figure applies to two years and the other to three. There is a difference, so the figures are bound to be different. The Government came to power in 1997 and the Prime Minister's figure refers to when we took office. I was referring to 1998–2000, in respect of which the figures are £672 for a couple—almost £13 a week—and £500 for a single person. We are considering couples and singles over two years or three; one has to look at a common figure. All the quoted figures are correct, but they apply to different groups over a different time scale.

My hon. Friend quoted at length what I said on Monday evening In respect of the forthcoming take-up campaign, I want to make it absolutely clear to him on the record that I did not say that 2 million people are missing out. I repeated our broad estimate of between 530,000 and 870,000—the average figure is 700,000—but we do not know their addresses. If we did, we would contact them. The figures come from a statistical extrapolation from the general household survey. To make the take-up campaign meaningful and to reach those people—on the assumption that they exist—we have looked at the information that the Government have within the Benefits Agency and used data matching and data sharing. From this, we have identified about 2.1 million pensioners who look most likely not to take up their entitlement. We plan to contact them personally in three tranches—by post, at specific addresses—so that we can cope with the feedback and the telephone line can cope with the inquiries that we shall receive. We have estimated the use to which the line will be put.

We will not send out a 40-page leaflet—lengthy forms are a big put-off in respect of MIG or income support—but will use a filter system to identify the most likely to be eligible and put them into the system to see whether they are eligible and whether they have been missed out because they have not claimed. Some may wilfully refuse to claim, but it is many years since I met a constituent who knew that they were eligible but wilfully refused to claim. Since I became a Social Security Minister, and following MIG's introduction, I have not dealt with a constituent without savings who survives on the basic state pension of £66.75, and neither have the two Age Concern branches in my constituency, which are very active. I am not saying that such people do not exist, but they may not fit the stereotype—a single pensioner living alone in a damp flat with a two-bar electric fire who refuses to claim because of pride or because he has been told that the minimum income guarantee is a state handout—language I did not use. The people whom we will find through the take-up campaign will not fit that stereotype. However, that is not the issue.

The money is there to be claimed, but we will never be able to backdate it simply because it is means-tested. Money is paid only from the day on which people make a claim, and my hon. Friend has to take that on board, but we must overcome the barriers to making a claim. I know from experience that people do not want to go to the social or the DSS. They do not want to be equated with the kind of people whom they perceive as using the social unfairly and affecting the unemployed, the disabled, people of working age on income support, and lone parents. Pensioners do not want to be associated with the DSS. I do not agree with that attitude, but I understand it. However, it is not necessary to go to a DSS or Benefits Agency office to claim the minimum income guarantee. That can be done through a home visit, by post or, in many parts of the country, over the phone. The information can be taken and the application completed at the other end and sent to pensioners to sign—that is all they would have to do.

The take-up campaign will not be in full swing on the day it is announced, which, as I said on Monday, will be before the end of the month; but it will be stepped up over the spring. We will then be able to use an electronic claim form, which will do wonders as people will not have to see all the questions that they do not have to answer. I freely admit that lengthy forms are a big put-off, although I am told that form design is reviewed every six months. For heaven's sake, there has not been much improvement in the past few years, let alone the past few months. There has been no literature or posters carrying the words "minimum income guarantee" in post offices or anywhere else visited by pensioners. That has been a big mistake. It does not matter whether anybody argues that MIG is income support dressed up as something else because it is different. MIG has been related to earnings in the way that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said it would be and we have to market it as MIG. That is what we will do.

As I said on Monday, we have seen the leaflet proofs. They refer to MIG and are simple, clear and easy to understand. They will be used as a filter to see whether people might be eligible before we get them into the main system. Obviously we have to check their means and know about their assets. There is no doubt about that. I say to my hon. Friend, with due humility, that this will not be like other Government take-up campaigns, which he so easily dismissed and which I accept have not always been successful: this one will be carried out on a different scale.

Much to my annoyance and distress, when I arrived at the DSS last summer, I discovered that we could not launch the campaign before Christmas. We could have made a start or introduced it this month, but it would not have worked. The planning has taken a considerable time; the cost will not be zero; and we have had to organise the resources to run it properly, which is what we intend to do. The Government have a moral obligation to see that everyone who is entitled to the benefits that Parliament has said are available—based on need and as of right—receives those benefits. They must not miss out because of ignorance.

People may choose not to claim, even if we remove all the hurdles that are present and perceived to be present one by one as we assess them. But let us be realistic: millions of pensioners claim means-tested council tax benefit; millions of pensioners claim means-tested housing benefit; and 1.5 million pensioners claim means-tested income support—MIG now. Forget the research, forget the statistics; because of my constituency experience, I do not accept that there is a massive stigma in claiming. Millions of people consider those benefits—which are based on their needs—to be a right, not a handout. We are getting that money to them, either from central Government or, if it is represented by housing benefit, via the local authorities.

Mr. Flynn

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Rooker

No, I do not have time; there is only a minute left.

My hon. Friend said in his first sentence that pensioners have not had a fair deal from the Government. Even though it is his birthday, I say to him that that is simply not true—I rebut it. The party to which he and I belong will lose seats if its own Members peddle an untruth, wherever it is peddled. It is not fair to say that there has been trickery in the Government's dealing. There has been no trickery and our record on providing for pensioners, based on their income and their needs, stands comparison with that of any previous Government.