| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Rooker: I intervened to give the facts. It is six times more expensive to administer means-tested benefits, but not 25 times more expensive, as had been claimed.
Mr. Austin: I am using the figure that the Minister gave--that it cost six times as much to administer means-tested benefits. However, that does not include the cost of a take-up campaign. Half my constituency is in the borough of Greenwich, which has one of the best welfare rights units in the country. The Conservatives have criticised the council for spending council tax money on a job that should have been done by the Department of Social Security.
I think the job is better done by people outside the Benefits Agency, and the take-up campaigns have put hundreds of thousands of pounds into the pockets of the poorest people in the borough. However--perhaps because of the associated stigma, or for some other reason--hundreds of thousands of people do not claim their entitlement. A million people who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee are probably not claiming it.
If we continue to uprate the basic pension in line with inflation, it will be worth half its current value by 2040. The argument for linking pensions with earnings is so that elderly people can share in the increased wealth of the country. Those who argue for a link with prices say that at least that maintains the purchasing power of pensioners. Hon. Members have shown that it does not.
I wonder how many hon. Members read the report this morning about the rising cost of funerals. Someone from the National Association of Funeral Directors said that funerals may have increased above the rate of inflation, but they have fallen in relation to average earnings. So not only do pensioners suffer in life: they are penalised in death.
Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North):
I have just returned today from a week in which I was leading a delegation from the NATO parliamentary assembly which was looking into nuclear matters in the Czech Republic. We also visited the comprehensive test ban treaty preparatory commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency, both in Vienna. What has that to do with the debate? It is this--I was told this evening that a debate had taken place on this topic in the parliamentary Labour party meeting on Wednesday, that it had been a good debate and that everyone was satisfied. I was asked why I was going to vote against the Government, because as soon as I knew that this was to be debated on the Floor of the House, I sent a note saying that I have always promoted the concept of a link between earnings and pensions, so I would support new clause 36. I was told, "We have already had the debate." I said that I had not been there. When asked where I had been, I explained. I was told, "We did not know you were absent."
I confess that I have a vested interest in the debate. I am 65 this year, and I do not know what will happen to me. The outcome of the debate may matter to me next year. However, that is a facetious remark.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye):
The hon. Gentleman is an extremely good example of a person with a substantial pension to come as well as his retirement pension from the state. He has no need for an increase above inflation in any event, because he is one of those with a second pension.
Mr. Cook:
I remind my honourable colleague--I am not sure whether he is a Friend yet--that, come the day, I shall enjoy paying my income tax. That is a distinction that many people miss. We are talking about people whose income is so paltry that they will be unable to pay income tax on their benefits.
I have the greatest respect, in a fraternal sense, for some of my colleagues. I watched the performance of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) in Committee, and I admire her ability. Yet from a sedentary position, she said that she had spent 25 years in public service. I am sure that she spent 25 very praiseworthy years in the service. If that is the case, she should remember a time when pensioners were provided for better than they are today, or will be tomorrow.
Kali Mountford:
Not according to the report.
Mr. Cook:
If my hon. Friend has the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure she will be able to make her case.
Another colleague for whom I have great respect and admiration said that the Tories are loving this. They might well be--
Mr. Cook:
Yes. It would be one of the few times the Tories have enjoyed something that is true. The truth is coming out of the debate tonight. The people who do not enjoy differences among Labour Members will be the pensioners--the people to whom we have given these promises year after year, election after election. I have been an associate member of the Teesside pensioners' association since 1971. I qualify for full compliance next year, and I will be proud to do so.
I appeal to Ministers to listen to the arguments--arguments that they themselves have made repeatedly in the past. I appeal to colleagues who perhaps have more of an eye on career development than on the retention of
principle--[Interruption.] I invite my colleagues who think that that is a dirty remark to stand up and be dirty in return.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I have listened to the debate throughout. As we do not want to lower its tone, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should not use such language.
Mr. Cook:
I accept your reprimand, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I withdraw that comment--which I do unreservedly--I am at a loss to establish the motive for the stance that has been adopted or espoused by some of my hon. Friends.
I appeal to Ministers to listen to the arguments. I appeal to those who support the Government on this matter to listen to the arguments. I hope that we will have the opportunity to change course, even at this late stage.
Kali Mountford:
I had not intended to speak in the debate. I sat through the debate all day last Wednesday, I have been sitting here expectantly from 3.30 this afternoon listening to the debate on a range of issues relating to the Bill, and I served in Committee. However, I rise to speak because I feel that I have been patronised more thoroughly today than I have been in a long time.
I have worked in public service since I was 20 and have been, for a substantial amount of that time, involved in the voluntary sector. I have come across many people in many circumstances, particularly those who felt stigmatised when income support was related not just to pensions but to all parts of the benefits system.
Having thoroughly supported the Minister of State when he supported a link with earnings, I do so no longer, and for very good reason. State benefits, and pensions in particular, have changed since then. If I felt that a continued policy of a retained link with earnings gave a particular benefit to all pensioners, I would support it. I even went so far as to write to the Chancellor when the link with prices showed that the sum would be derisory.
I was concerned about that, but to be frank, it was because it looked bad, not because it was bad in principle or because I felt that there were people who were more deserving. I mean, 70p just does not sound good. Hand on heart--it was not because I thought that that was the right thing to do.
When I listened to the Budget statement, things changed radically for me, and I looked more closely at our own reports, what we were really saying and what we were trying to achieve.
Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North):
I appreciate that it may not look good, but is my hon. Friend aware that, over the past 15 years, the annual monetary increase in pensions has swung from 40p one year to £5.17 another year? We cannot make an argument about whether it looks good. It is linked with inflation--that is the reason for those figures.
Kali Mountford:
Obviously, if it is linked with inflation, that is the reason for the figures. However, we must look at the total amount of pensioner income. I do not believe that re-linking pensions with earnings would necessarily benefit all pensioners in all circumstances.
7.45 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |