HC Deb 06 February 1986 vol 91 cc221-2W
Mr. Meacher

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to his reply on 17 January, Official Report, column 746, he will publish a similar table showing the total weekly pensions assuming no change in the state earnings-related pension scheme, annual increases in the basic pension in line with average earnings, and that earnings increase in real terms by 1½ per cent. a year.

Mr. Newton

[pursuant to his reply, 5 February 1986, c. 197–8]: The following table gives the information

Age in 1988 and earnings levels Table number in the Technical Annex to the White Paper
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
16 Low earner 128 128 99 99 * *
Middle earner 171 171 119 119 * *
High earner 206 206 149 149 * *
20 Low earner 121 121 93 93 133 133
Middle earner 161 161 112 112 180 180
High earner 194 194 140 140 180 180
30 Low earner 104 104 81 78 115 112
Middle earner 139 139 97 93 155 155
High earner 167 167 121 115 155 155
40 Low earner 90 90 67 65 93 89
Middle earner 120 120 82 76 134 134
High earner 144 144 103 93 134 134

* Amounts were not shown for these cases in tables P5 and P6 of the Technical Annex.

Since my previous reply to the hon. Member on 17 January at column 746, four minor errors in the accounts of the assumptions used in the tables, on pages 1 and 2 of the technical annex, have come to light, as follows:

Page 1, paragraph 1.3

Table P3 Middle earner" and "high earner": 25 years and 15 years should read 26 and 14 respectively.

Table P4 Low earner": 12 years should read 10.

requested. Amounts illustrated are total weekly state basic and earnings-related pensions assuming no change in the present earnings-related scheme and that basic pensions were increased in line with earnings from November 1985 onwards. As the hon. Member will be aware from the report by the Government Actuary on the financial effects of the Bill on the national insurance fund (Cmnd. 9711), on the same assumptions such pensions would require a combined contribution rate of 27.3 per cent. in 2033–34, compared with a notional rate of 15.7 per cent. in 1986–87.

Page 2, paragraph 1.8 3¼ per cent." should read "3¾ per cent.

The projections in the technical annex, those in my reply of 17 January and in this reply are based on the assumptions as explained in pages 1 and 2 of the technical annex, amended as above.