§ 6. Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in view of the number of representations he has received about the introduction of a 54-week year for current pensions, he will now change his policy on this matter.
§ 16. Mr. Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many letters of complaint he has received from members of the public about the 1271 date of payment of the annual increase of the state retirement pension.
§ Mr. PrenticeAbout 800 representations have been received, from individuals and organisations, about the date of this year's uprating of pensions and other social security benefits, which it is proposed shall take place in the week beginning 24 November.
As my right hon. Friend explained during the debate yesterday, he has no proposals to change this date.
§ Mr. DormandIs it not now clear that this proposal, however it is dressed up, is simply another way of saving money at the expense of those who need it most? Will the Minister confirm that this sort of Government decision is without precedent? Even at this late stage, will he change his mind about this mean trick?
§ Mr. PrenticeThe House knows that the reason why the date was changed by one week was that it had been creeping forward in recent years. Regarding the second week's saving, the hon. Gentleman is correct to the extent that it is part of the savings that we reluctantly had to make as a contribution to the essential restraint on public expenditure this year.
§ Mr. BowdenDoes not my right hon. Friend accept that there are 52 weeks in a year? Next year, will he please review the pension increase on the basis of a 50-week year?
§ Mr. PrenticeIt is a little early to say what the date will be next year. When winding up the debate last night, I gave my hon. Friend an assurance that the Social Security Act makes it essential that the updating next year will be during November—in other words, not later than the week commencing 23 November 1981.
§ Mr. FoulkesBy how many millions of pounds are the Government cheating pensioners? Will he confirm that it is more than the cost of the Christmas bonus, and that therefore this year the Government are asking pensioners to pay for their own Christmas bonus?
§ Mr. PrenticeThis proposal has no connection whatever with the Christmas bonus, except in the fevered imagination of Labour Members. The saving, as it 1272 affects retired people, will be about £65 million. Retired people would certainly be cheated if the Labour Party's policy of hyperinflation were followed.
§ Mr. Paul DeanDoes my right hon. Friend recall that, in speaking of the 54-week period in the House yesterday, the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) accused my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of bad faith and of misleading the House? Have those serious and scurrilous charges yet been withdrawn?
§ Mr. PrenticeTo my knowledge they have not been withdrawn. Any hon. Member with respect for our parliamentary traditions would expect the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) to withdraw those charges at the earliest possible opportunity.
§ Mr. RookerWill the Minister confirm that the figure of £65 million means that a married couple will lose £12.30 between now and the date of the Christmas bonus—that is more than the £10 Christmas bonus? Why should millions of pensioners be expected to put their shoulders to the wheel in that way?
§ Mr. PrenticeIn view of my last reply, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman was one of the best qualified to advise his right hon. and hon. Friends on the techniques of withdrawal. His arithmetic is approximately correct.