§ 8. Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Social Security what progress her Department has made with regard to a scheme for sheltering old-age pensioners from the effects of devaluation.
§ 30. Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Social Security what progress her Department is making in drawing up a scheme to shield the retired on low fixed incomes from the rising cost of living.
§ 44. Mr. Hornbyasked the Minister of Social Security whether it is the policy of the Government to seek to provide more help for the chronic sick as a result of the increase in prices following devaluation.
§ 68. Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Social Security what progress she has made to shelter and help retirement pensioners from the effects of recent Government measures such as devaluation and the Selective Employment Tax.
§ Mrs. HartThe increases in National Insurance benefits and supplementary benefits last autumn still provide a substantial margin for the old and sick against future price increases. The increases in supplementary benefits to be made in the autumn will protect the most vulnerable against the effects of devaluation; on this I cannot add to what was said in the Prime Minister's statement of 16th January.
§ Mr. EadieDoes my right hon. Friend recall that a pledge was made in November, 1967, that old-age pensioners would be protected from the effects of devaluation? Does not she agree that something could be done to ease the hardship of pensioners if some of the coal stocks at present lying on the ground were used?
§ Mrs. HartI answered a Question on that point three or four weeks ago. On the more general point about protecting retirement pensioners, we made it clear that we were anxious to protect the most vulnerable. I should mention that the value of retirement pensions has dropped by only 1.6 per cent. since October, so that there is still a considerable margin to meet the situation.
§ Mr. RidsdaleDoes the right hon. Lady realise that one needs £5 15s. today 10 to buy what £5 bought in 1964? When will she honour the pledge given in 1964 that old-age pensioners would be protected against the effects of devaluation?
§ Mrs. HartI have already answered the second part of that supplementary question in replying to an earlier Question. There is one aspect of the facts of which the hon. Member may not be fully aware, namely, that in relation to retirement pensioners the real value of the pension at this point, after devaluation, is still about 18½ per cent. higher than it was when the hon. Member's Government left office in 1964.
§ Mr. HigginsDoes the right hon. Lady agree that old-age non-pensioners above the supplementary benefit level are by no means protected against the effects of devaluation?
§ Mrs. HartThe hon. Gentleman will not expect me to go into the complex arguments that we had on the Bill three weeks ago—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because Question Time is not an appropriate time for that kind of exchange on a matter that has been fully discussed for a whole day in the House of Commons.