| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.14 pm
Mr. Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale, East): The impact of the current virus is such that my speech will be delivered in perhaps softer tones than would be customary. None the less, I hope that it will contribute something to the debate. It is a pleasure to be able to take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who made several interesting proposals and suggestions--not least the need for joined-up government across the Pennines on transport policy.
When I read the motion I was disappointed with its scope. When I first saw the subject for the debate--meeting the needs of pensioners--I thought that we would have a much more wide-ranging debate than one that focused narrowly on the 75p increase in the state retirement pension. However, the state retirement pension is clearly important. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State reminded the House earlier that the state pension remains the bedrock of Government pensions policy.
Government policies for Britain's 11 million pensioners must be as wide-ranging as their different needs and characteristics demand. Our 11 million pensioners are not a homogeneous group; they are very different people.
It must be acknowledged that many pensioners now are better off than could have been dreamed of 30 or 40 years ago. Before coming to the Chamber, I opened the latest report on households below average incomes. I knew that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) was to propose the motion and that he is something of an expert on this series of reports, which he demonstrated this afternoon.
The tables in the report tell us a great deal about the poorer members of our society. They tell us also a thing or two about some of the richer members of it. For example, 5 million of our 11 million pensioners are members of the richest 60 per cent. of the population, and 1 million are members of the richest 20 per cent. Most of us know from our family and friends and our own experience that that is the case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Selby brought as evidence the position of his father, and I do the same. My father is 70 and he is not one of the super rich, but, like my hon. Friend's father, he was a teacher. He has an occupational pension and lives a quite comfortable life. During this interesting debate on the state retirement pension, my father has been sunning himself in Tenerife, along with thousands of other pensioners in Britain who take themselves abroad at this time of year for some warmer weather.
I do not make that point to belittle the plight of pensioners who still face poverty. It is a scandal that so many pensioners still do face poverty. I make the point to
put the pensioner question into context. The rich-and-poor divide that scars our society affects pensioners as well as people in all other sections of society. I believe that different policies are required for these different groups to deal, first, with the immediate pressures that come with poverty and, secondly, and just as important--more important in the long term--to deal with the factors that cause poverty in our society in the long run.
Against that background, I believe that the Government's approach is absolutely right. The measures that will help today's pensioners--the minimum income guarantee, the winter fuel allowance, free eye tests, free television licences for the over-75s and all the other measures that were welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) with, as he said, admirable assistance from the Liberal Democrat councillors on his local authority--mean that the poorest pensioners in Britain are now £10 a week better off if single, and £16 in the case of a pensioner couple.
The second crucial piece of Government policy is the action that we are taking to prevent poverty in future generations of pensioners. We are dealing with the causes, not just the symptoms. The Government are introducing the state second pension and the framework for stakeholder pensions so that we can avoid poverty in future.
Pensioner poverty is a huge problem and no one should underestimate that fact. The statistics on households below average income tell us that, between 1991 and 1997, a quarter of all single pensioners lived in poverty, not just for one of those years but for all six. They were trapped in poverty, with no prospect of an escape route. That has a severe impact on the life and quality of life of those pensioners.
Nowhere is that seen more graphically than in terms of health and life expectancy. In Manchester, a typical man who is reaching the age of 65 can expect to live until he is 78--a further 13 years. However, he will spend only about seven of those years in good health. In Surrey today, a typical man reaching 65 years of age can expect to live until he is 80--a further 15 years--and enjoy 10 of them in good health.
We must first accept that there are people in poverty who live in Surrey, just as there are reasonably well-off people who live in Manchester. The example brings two important points to our attention. First, people in better-off areas enjoy longer life and can expect healthier life, too. Secondly, pensioners in poorer areas need extra support from public services. The man from Manchester will die earlier but will require an extra year of support from the national health service, the local authority, the voluntary sector and so on. Pensioner poverty is about much more than 75p a week; it is about lifetime chances and public services, as well as income.
I have been to many pensioner meetings, as have my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members. I am in no doubt that, if the Government were to increase the state retirement pension in line with earnings rather than prices, it would be extremely popular with a number of pensioner organisations and groups, not least those in my constituency. However, I do not favour that approach because I do not believe that it would help us tackle the problem of pensioner poverty now.
We have heard several examples of the sums involved if the state retirement pension were increased--I think £13 billion was the figure given for an increase of
£30 a week. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) generously proposed an increase of £1 a week. An increase in the state retirement pension of £5 a week would mean, first, extra Government expenditure of £2.5 billion a year, which would of course be built on year on year, and secondly, a boost to the incomes of better-off people. The one group that such an increase would not benefit would be the poorest pensioners, who would lose every pound of that £5 in withdrawal of means-tested benefits. They would see the advantage taken away from them.
There have been some interesting contributions to the debate on the issue of means testing--not least from the hon. Member for Gainsborough who follows the social security debate, and especially means testing, assiduously--but I grow impatient over it. The Government are often accused by their critics of taking measures that increase it.
If the Government are to help the least well-off people, and if we leave aside, for the time being anyway, the fact that their long-term aim is to implement measures such as the state second pension and stakeholder pensions, to give carers, the low paid and people with disabilities the chance of a second pension that would take them above the poverty line in the long term, we must recognise that there has to be some measure of income and resources.
No party or Government can run away from that fact. We may hear much rhetoric on the issue, but no other party has made a firm proposal to abolish means testing as part of their overall strategy. All parties have a responsibility to help to develop a different approach to the testing of income and resources--to try to foster a new mindset among the public.
When means testing was operating in the 19th century and then in the 1930s, most people were poor, and the process was demeaning and stigmatising. However, times have changed; most people today are not poor. Together we should be able to create a new attitude to the testing of income and resources that reduces the stigmatisation process.
Three measures could be helpful. First, the branding of the minimum income guarantee as a guarantee--an entitlement--is very helpful. It begins to get us away from the handout mentality. Secondly, it is extremely helpful that the year-on-year increase is in line with earnings rather than prices. Its value will therefore increase year on year.
Many people do not claim means-tested benefits because they are of only marginal advantage. A lady came to my advice bureau the other day--not about pensions but in relation to another benefit--who had in the past claimed family credit and been only marginally better off. In the end, she had given up claiming. A few years went by; we introduced the working families tax credit, she made a new claim and now finds herself £70 a week better off. As people see a substantial difference by virtue of making a claim--it is worth their while--they will be more likely to claim. More pensioners will claim benefits as the minimum income guarantee increases.
The third reason for optimism is that anybody who retires from 2010 will have no memory of times before the second world war. Perhaps the images of the 1930s and further back will therefore dim in the public's minds. We must be honest: no party will get rid of the means test. It is a necessary test of income and resources, and we need a more positive attitude towards it.
I said that I was somewhat disappointed by the narrow nature of the motion. I certainly hope that we have other opportunities in the near future to debate other issues that affect pensioners. I was very pleased that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) introduced the issue of housing as it affects pensioners, because it is extremely important.
In the Manchester part of my constituency, two thirds of pensioners live in rented accommodation--much of it local authority owned, some of it housing association property, and some private. Many of those pensioners are unhappy with the house in which they live. Some have medical problems and need adaptations to their houses, which take for ever to be made. If they need alternative accommodation, what is available is often unsuitable for their needs. Some have family living outside the area, but transferring to suitable accommodation can be difficult. Sometimes, their houses are too big, but often smaller and more suitable accommodation is not available. Pensioners' housing need is an issue that we must all address.
One extremely important issue that has not been raised in this debate is the fact that 300,000 pensioners in Britain do not have access to a telephone. That is not necessarily a matter for the Government; it is one for telephone companies. Last week, a gas company announced that it would be abolishing the standing charge and restructuring its charging system to take account of that. If a gas company can do that, surely telephone companies can do something to connect the 300,000 pensioners who are isolated. It is great that pensioners are using the internet, but not if 300,000 of them cannot pick up a telephone to call for help when they need it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |