| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Phil Hope (Corby): I have listened to the hon. Gentleman for the past 10 minutes or so and I have not heard one word of apology for the 18 years that resulted in 1 million pensioners living below the poverty line in 1997--[Interruption.] The Labour Government have targeted and tackled that, much to my pleasure and much
to the annoyance of Opposition Members. Will he now apologise to the 1 million pensioners whom he betrayed for more than 18 years? [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We cannot have a situation where hon. Members are shouted down.
Mr. Willetts: The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) is rash enough to make that point. Let me quote some figures. During our years in office, there was an average increase in the net income for pensioners of 64 per cent. on top of inflation. Total public spending on pensioners as a proportion of gross domestic product was higher in our last year of office than it is under the present Government. During our time in office, there was a reduction in the number of pensioners dependent on means-tested benefits. Compared with the present Government, what we achieved is a jolly sight better. Pensioners are suffering.
Mr. Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Willetts: No. I will get on. I will not waste any more of the House's time on that matter.
The claim that it is all to do with targeting the money better does not stack up. The real reason why we have all those special gimmicks lies at the door of 11 Downing street. It is all to do with the Chancellor.
This is a Chancellor who, a week or two before any Budget or any major economic statement to the House, suddenly thinks, "I need a gimmick. I want a special scheme. I need to announce that I am transforming the tax and benefit system." No Budget statement is complete without a radical change to that system.
We have debated already the impact of that on families. We have the working families tax credit, the child care credit, the children's tax credit, the integrated children's credit, and the employment credit. The Chancellor called the Budget that introduced all that lot a Budget for stability. I do not know what a Budget for a bit of change would look like.
When it comes to pensioners, the Chancellor does the same thing. We have a different scheme, changes in the rules on entitlement, different amounts of money. It is unfair on pensioners, who want simplicity and reliability. They do not want Labour gimmicks.
Mr. Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Willetts: I do not think so; no.
Mr. Hope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Quite clearly, he is prepared to answer questions about his own policy. Is he prepared to accept that the criminal act that he is announcing as part of his policy entails walking up to pensioners, taking out their wallets or purses, taking money that has been given to them by this Labour Government, putting that money into an envelope, and giving it back to them? Does he also
accept that that cons no one, particularly not the pensioners in my constituency, and that it would not make the poorest pensioners a single penny better off?
Mr. Willetts: Even if there were not a single extra penny for pensioners in our package, it would still be the right thing to do--because it would be part of the guaranteed, contributory basic pension, instead of all those complicated gimmicks. Actually, however, we are putting £320 million extra on top of the Government's provision and financing that by making savings elsewhere in social security. Nevertheless, even if we were not making that extra provision, our package would still be the right thing to do, because pensioners want the money as part of a guaranteed, weekly entitlement.
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) rose--
Ms Claire Ward (Watford): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Willetts: No. I want to make a bit more progress, and then I shall give way to the hon. Lady.
I do not want to leave the impression that all the blame is being heaped on the head of the poor, wretched Chancellor. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] Because the blame has to be shared between No. 11 and No. 10 Downing street. The Prime Minister cannot be allowed to escape responsibility for the situation. Pensioners are so angry about the 75p increase not only because of its financial effects, but because of what it tells them about new Labour and new Labour's attitude to older people. One pensioner said that the Prime Minister
- thinks people like me are old has-beens, who aren't important or glamorous, people who they think can go to the back of the queue.
Mr. Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the effect of his proposals on a pensioner's income would be a change of 42p per week?
Mr. Willetts: All pensioners will be better off under our proposals. Even if there were not a single extra penny, as I said, it would be the right thing to do; but there are gains for pensioners on top of that. The size of the gains will depend on the personal circumstances of the pensioner. They will vary also because the schemes that our proposals will replace are so complicated. We are providing a reliable weekly payment instead of all the special schemes.
Ms Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Willetts: No; I want to get back to the point that I was making about the Prime Minister.
We know from the people surrounding the Prime Minister what Labour really thinks of pensioners.
We know what the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said at a private meeting. The Sunday Times reports:
- Mandelson appeared to have written pensioners off as a group who were not worth cultivating.
The chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, at the same meeting, is alleged to have said that pensioners are "racist". I do not know whether that is true, but it is certainly true that--as he said--they are "predominantly Conservative". We certainly know that that is true.
Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North): Has the hon. Gentleman seen the most recent edition of Age Concern's magazine, which states that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) said nothing of the sort? That was stated in the pensioners' own publication--which the hon. Gentleman, like me, should have received this morning.
Mr. Willetts: I thank the hon. Lady. I am grateful for that point, which I shall consider carefully.
Let me just deal with something that seems to epitomise the new Labour approach to pensioners and why, at No. 10, they have got it so catastrophically wrong and are so out of touch with the views of pensioners across the country.
There is a report entitled "Ministers want trendy name for pensioners", which states:
- Ministers want to "rebrand" pensioners with a trendy name that will appeal to younger people . . .
Ministers believe words like "pensions"--
- or "elderly" carry a grey imagine which deters younger people from thinking ahead.
- Some of Whitehall's finest minds are working on the problem, while the Government is also seeking outside help to try to come up with a new title.
Ms Ward: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that is the right thing to do and that it will benefit pensioners? Is he suggesting that he will increase the amount of money that will go to pensioners year on year? If he is, perhaps he will tell us where that money is coming from.
Mr. Willetts: The increase in the basic state pension will be part of that pension, and uprated in line with prices thereafter. That is the right way to do it, and we make no apology.
As there are some Labour Members in the Chamber, I shall briefly clarify our position for a few of them, so that when they are in their constituencies they do not perpetrate the lies about our policies that have been perpetrated over the past 10 days.
Mr. Willetts: No, I shall not give way. I want to make some progress.
Two important points were made clear in the original announcement by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. They relate to two understandable concerns of pensioners, which were tackled at the beginning when we announced our policy. First, there is the concern--I understand the basis for it--that the special payments are tax exempt and the basic state pension is taxable. Some pensioners have asked, "Does that mean that we shall pay more tax as a result of this proposal?" It is not our intention that the proposal should include some special behind-the-scenes arrangement to collect more tax from pensioners. We do not believe in stealth taxes and it is the Government who have introduced them, not us. That is why my right hon. Friend said in his original statement:
- We would also adjust tax allowances for older people to compensate pensioners for any extra that they might otherwise pay.
Secondly, the Secretary of State has claimed recently--perhaps it is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister received the slow handclap by the Women's Institute when he tried to make the same point, but I do not know whether he managed to deliver that part of his prepared speech--that 2 million of the poorest pensioners would lose out because they would have an offsetting reduction in their entitlement to means-tested benefits.
The package is clearly costed, simple and straightforward. There is no messing about. It is costed on the basis that the money will go to all 10.5 million pensioners. There are no offsets or reductions in entitlement to means-tested benefits. Again, I shall quote the original statement, which says that
- we would adjust means tested benefits to ensure that the poorest pensioners gain at least as much as other pensioners.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |