§ 3. Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek to apply selectively the proposed increase in retirement benefits announced in the Budget.
§ Mr. EnnalsNo, sir. To apply the increase selectively to retirement pensioners would undermine the contributory principle on which entitlement to those benefits is based.
§ Mr. BiffenIs it not clear that indiscriminate and across-the-board increases necessitate an increase in the National Insurance contribution, the magnitude of which is only just becoming apparent? Would the hon. Gentleman reconsider his position?
§ Mr. EnnalsThe amount involved in increasing pensions was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, indeed. I repeat what I said, that the amount required to increase the benefits was made clear by my right hon. Friend. To remove the right to a pension paid for by contributions over the years would be a betrayal, and I should be surprised if even the Conservative Party suggested that there should be means testing of the 7 million retirement pensioners before they got their rights.
§ Mr. Alfred MorrisHas my hon. Friend been able to discover whether the Conservative Party agrees or disagrees that there is an urgent need to increase retirement benefits? Comparing promise with performance, and allowing for the proposed increase, how will the value of the retirement pension compare with its value in October, 1964?
§ Mr. EnnalsWhen the new pension rates are introduced in November, they will be 20 per cent., in real terms, above the 1964 level. It was impossible to discover from the debate on Thursday whether the Conservative Party wished there to be an increase, and if so how much, or how it would pay for it.
§ Mr. EnnalsThere is a later Question on the Order Paper about that matter to which my right hon. Friend will reply.