| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Brady: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Darling: Perhaps we have a BUPA salesman here who will tell me how much it will cost.
Mr. Brady: I am sorry to disappoint the Secretary of State, but I am not a BUPA salesman. However, he ought to realise that the Labour Government are the private health industry's best ever salesmen. Since they took office, 150,000 people have been forced to pay for their operations because NHS waiting lists are so long. That is happening under the right hon. Gentleman's Government, not under the Conservatives.
Mr. Darling: We are actually increasing spending on the NHS by a third--something the Conservatives oppose. Obviously, the matter causes the Conservatives much distress. However, at the next election, when our two parties set out their stalls before the electorate and the Conservatives say they will give pensioners 42p more on their pension, I hope they will also say that, under their proposals, according to their health spokesman, conditions such as
- hip and knee replacements, hernia and cataract operations
What we have from the Conservative party is a complete con. It should surprise none of us, because they tried to con people for 18 years before they were finally rumbled.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet): It may have escaped my right hon. Friend's attention that, when it was cold enough for long enough--usually when it was too late--even the Tories used to make some cold weather payments. Are they not now proposing to scrap the winter fuel allowance without making any compensatory arrangements for the cold?
Mr. Darling: All of us who are familiar with the cold weather payment scheme were struck by the fact that it had to be cold for an awfully long time before it was triggered. The nature of the British climate made that quite difficult. One did not receive much and when one did, it was long after the event.
The advantage of the winter fuel payment is that it is tax free; it is not taken into account for benefits and it arrives just at the time when pensioners begin to worry about whether they can turn up the heating. That is not something that has ever bothered a large number of those from whom we are hearing this afternoon.
Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok): The Secretary of State is correct to dismiss the cynical approach of the Tories, but does he agree that the benefits that we are providing could be better targeted? I draw to his attention the fact that recent studies from Bristol university show that only 51 per cent. of people in my constituency are expected to live until they reach the age of 75, whereas in Eastwood the figure is 66 per cent. and in some of the better-off parts of England it is more than 70 per cent. That means that free television licences, targeted at the over-75s, actually miss out half the people in my constituency--[Interruption.] They will die before those licences are available. Would it not be better to re-target the provision at those in greatest need?
May I say that I was very glad--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has certainly been able to say a lot during an intervention.
I call Mr. Secretary Darling--[Interruption.] Order. Before I call the Secretary of State again, I appeal once more to hon. Members. We cannot have shouting across the Floor of the House--[Interruption.] Order. I am not addressing my remarks only to the Opposition, but to all hon. Members. We cannot have shouting across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Darling: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) would readily admit that not all his constituents die before the age of 75. However, the report to which he referred identifies the problems that occur when people are born into low-income households and live on low incomes throughout their working life. As sure as night follows day, they will die on a low income. That is precisely why the Government have introduced a range of strategies to increase the amount of money going into households with children. That is why we increased child benefit by so much and why we are introducing the integrated child credit. We are helping parents into work through the working families tax credit and a variety of means--all of which are set out in our annual report "Opportunity for All" and all of which are opposed by the Conservative party.
That leads me to another point I wanted to make. The contrast between the Labour Government and the Conservative Opposition is that we are tackling the problems we inherited, some of which had not developed during the previous 18 years but had been around for longer than that. However, if we do not sort them out, we shall prolong a wholly unacceptable situation.
First, we need a pension strategy so that in future everyone can retire on a decent income after a lifetime of hard work. Secondly, we must ensure that pensioners do not live in poverty. That is why we are spending an extra £6.5 billion on pensioner incomes during this Parliament--£2 billion more than it would have cost to restore the earnings link. It is important that half of that £6.5 billion will go to the poorest third of pensioners. We are spending more because we believe that we should be doing so and, as a first priority, we are spending that money on those pensioners who need it most.
As a result of what we are doing, all pensioners will be £3 a week better off because of the winter fuel allowance. The free television licence for the over-75s is worth a further £2 a week. However, because we want to tackle pensioner poverty, we are ensuring that the poorest pensioners, who receive the minimum income guarantee, will have at least £8.40 a week more, and up to £10.65 a week more for the oldest. That makes them better off than under the Tories--£8 and £10 a week better off, with more than that for couples. That money is over and above inflation. It is a real gain for those people.
I make no apology for making that our first priority. It is quite wrong that, at a time when many people retire with a good state second pension or an occupational pension, other people still live on a pension that is lower than income support. That is why we increased pensions by so much for the 1.5 million pensioners who lost out as a result of the situation we inherited.
Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) rose--
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) rose--
Mr. Darling: I shall give way to both hon. Gentlemen in a moment. I am conscious of the fact that it is their Opposition day, so I do not want to take up too much time, although even after their Whips and Front-Bench spokesmen leave the Chamber--I may be wrong, but I suspect that it will not be long before they do so--there may not be many Opposition Members who want to speak. However, just to show how generous I am, I give way to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson).
Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way to a humble Back Bencher. He must be the only Member who does not receive lots of communications from pensioners, all saying that they want not gimmicks but a decent pension. Surely, that is the basis of our proposal.
Mr. Darling: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench team will have noted his plea not to remain on the Back Benches for much longer.
I will deal with his second point. What pensioners want any Government to do is to increase the amount of money available to them. However, many pensioners accept the fact that the first priority must be to deal with those pensioners who were living in absolute poverty as a result of the situation left to us by the Tories. The second stage is clearly to help those pensioners who have modest savings or modest amounts of capital and who also lost out under the Conservatives.
As a first step, we have doubled the capital limits. The Tories did nothing about that for most of the time they were in government. We have doubled the capital limits that entitle more people to receive the extra help they need.
For the longer term, we are ensuring that a system will be in place to enable people to build up a decent pension in future. It is worth noting that, in 30 years' time, nearly a quarter of the population will be retired. That is why we need proper debate and an understanding of the need to save more, so that people can retire on decent pensions.
Ms Keeble: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said that he was going to talk about the future of pensions, he said nothing about that? He failed to address the pension needs of women, including the many women who work part-time, married women who have no pension rights of their own and those women who choose to stay at home and look after their families or disabled relatives and who currently lose their pension rights. Will my right hon. Friend say something about all that we are doing to support women--especially those who choose to stay at home and look after their families?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |