§ Mr. Neil Kinnock(by private notice) (Islwyn)To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his intention to introduce further means-tested benefits for pensioners.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson)Mr. Speaker, I have no such intentions except in one respect. I have been discussing with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security a scheme to give special help to poorer pensioners. This would be over and above the existing level of benefits. We shall announce the outcome of this consideration in due course.
§ Mr. KinnockWill the Chancellor accept that his briefing on Friday and his statement that
only a small minority of pensioners have difficulty in making ends meetproduced widespread concern among pensioners and the general public? Does not the Chancellor recognise that the people in "difficulty", far from being "a small minority" as he claims, are, on the Government's own figures, the 3 million people who are on or below income support level, and the 3 million more who are just above that low level? Will he not accept, once and for all, that pensions are not an act of charity to an older generation; they are a right that retired people have earned in a lifetime of contributions.Since the Chancellor is such an advocate of targeting, will he now acknowledge that such a policy inevitably brings a more means-tested system and creates a wider poverty trap? Can he also tell us why it is that, when he targets handouts to the better-off, his aim is unerringly accurate, but when he targets benefits to the poor he always misses many of those in genuine need? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is the Chancellor's fault for talking to the press. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. KinnockHad the public not been misled on so many occasions over SERPS, child benefit and housing benefit, it might be more possible to believe what the Chancellor has been saying in denying his own words. Will he now specifically confirm that the Government will not, now or at any other time, means-test—[Interruption.] This is vital to 9 million people in this country. Will the Chancellor confirm that the Government will not, now or at any other time, means-test or reduce the national insurance pension? Will he pledge that the Government will not withdraw, reduce, or means-test the right of all old-age pensioners to free prescriptions?
Will he give an undertaking now that the Government will not introduce any new charges? As the mobility and attendance allowances are not covered, although they are vital to 3 million people—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is a matter of great interest.
§ Mr. KinnockAs the mobility and attendance allowances are not covered by the Government pledge to annual uprating, will the Chancellor now give assurances that he will maintain the value of those and will not subject the right to receive them to any form of means test? If the 22 Chancellor wants us and the country to believe that all the reports over the weekend are nothing more than what he called
the fevered imagination of the press",why does he not prove his commitment to pensioners by scrapping the policy of charging 6.5 million pensioners for eye tests, and scrap them now?
§ Mr. LawsonMr. Speaker, that was an extraordinarily long series of supplementary questions—[Interruption]—designed simply to conceal the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has once again demonstrated his infallible knack for getting the wrong end of every stick. The Government—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Leader of the Opposition has asked some questions and it is right and fair that the Chancellor should have an opportunity to answer them.
§ Mr. LawsonThe Government's position on social security benefits remains today exactly as it has always been. It remains today precisely what it is, including the pledge to maintain the retirement pension in real terms. We have uprated the retirement pension consistently in line with inflation, despite the fact that there are 1.25 million more old-age pensioners today, and despite the fact that the Labour Government, which the right hon. Gentleman supported, although he was not a member of it, that the Labour Government cheated the old-age pensioners. They cheated the old-age pensioner twice. On two occasions, they withdrew the Christmas bonus. They changed the uprating system from the historic uprating to the so-called forecast, cheating them of £1 billion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question!"] Then they fiddled the forecast—that is what they did—[Interruption]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This shouting does not enhance the reputation of this place.
§ Mr. LawsonThe only change which I have been discussing, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has been discussing, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, is a scheme to improve the benefits received by poorer pensioners. We have done that because pensioners as a whole have seen their real living standard, their real incomes, rise since we took office by over 20 per cent. When the party opposite were in office, they rose by only 3 per cent. That is what has happened, but there are some pensioners who are less well off and we are seeking a way to help them.
§ Dame Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston)We are most grateful to my right hon. Friend for the statement that he has just made and for clearing up what most of us thought—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Dame Jill Knight—was gross misreporting of the situation at the weekend, thereby making it clear that there is indeed no threat whatsoever to contributory pensions. Will my right hon. Friend note that many of us feel that it is unjust to make non-contributory pensions and handouts to those who can perfectly well afford to do without, bearing in mind that it is the poorer taxpayers who have to foot the bill?
§ Mr. LawsonOn the second point, my hon. Friend makes an important point, which I think has considerable 23 support on this side of the House. On the first point, I am afraid that it is true that the standards of the press have slipped somewhat since I—[Laughter.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I remind hon. Members that we have a very full day ahead of us. I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. Lawson—since I ceased to be a member of it. However, I am therefore grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—the first Leader of the Opposition for 34 years to ask a private notice question of a departmental Minister—for giving me the opportunity to make this statement today.
§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)How on earth did the Chancellor, as a former journalist, manage to mislead so many journalists at once about his intentions? Does he not realise that the message that is coming across to a great many people is that, if they save for their retirement or have an occupational pension, however small, they will lose benefits, as they have already lost housing benefit, home insulation grants and other benefits? If that message continues to come across, the savings ratio will become even worse than it is now.
§ Mr. LawsonThe hon. Member has raised an important point. That is a consideration. I hope that there can be a little bit more quiet from the Benches opposite even though I know they have been badly wrong-footed and badly misled by the Leader of the Opposition, as usual.
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. One could argue that nothing extra should be done to assist these poorer pensioners at all because that would be a disincentive for them to save. One could take that view. It may be the view of the Liberal party, or whatever it is nowadays called, but it is not the view of the Government.
§ Sir William Clark (Croydon, South)The Leader of the Opposition referred to the right of pensioners to have a pension. Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor reiterate that under the previous Labour Government, which the right hon. Gentleman supported, pensioners came off very badly indeed, compared with their position since 1979? As the Government are trustees of the taxpayers' money, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right that that money should go to people in real need, rather than across the board? It is a fallacy to think that all retired pensioners are on the poverty line. Many pensioners can afford to pay the charges and live in very good circumstances.
§ Mr. LawsonMy hon. Friend is correct. I will repeat what I said earlier on. I am not surprised that, because of the noise and baying from the Benches opposite, it was difficult for my hon. Friend to hear it. When the party opposite were in office—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] They do not like it, but they have got to listen to it—the real incomes of old-age pensioners rose by only 3 per cent. During the period that we have been in office so far, the real income of the average pensioner has risen by well over 20 per cent.
§ Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)May I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the judicious way in which he waved a fig leaf this afternoon, in his statement about the concessions for some old-age pensioners? Does not he agree that the House is being extremely unfair in its 24 response so far, in that the briefings he gave at the weekend follow logically from the statement that we heard recently on the freezing of child benefit? If it is proper to target help on families in need, is it not also proper for the Government to target help on other groups? Are not the pensions for 7 million pensioners, the payments to half a million widows, the disability pensions drawn by well over 1 million people and the 700,000 payments to the unemployed at stake if the Government really mean to target benefits? I have been a Member of the House since 1979. We in the Labour party have rarely got our teeth near an election winner. We have one today and we do not intend to take them out.
§ Mr. LawsonI have considerable respect for the hon. Member, but what I have no respect for is his attempt to terrify millions of old-age pensioners—[Interruption.] It is a disgraceful way to try to seek temporary political advantage—a disgraceful way. Let me say that the only announcement I have to make—the only change I have to inform the House of—is the one that I informed the House of today. This is a matter which I hinted to certain journalists on Friday. They misunderstood what I was saying—[Laughter.] There is no—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This kind of laughter and these interruptions take up a great deal of time. Many hon. Members want to ask questions about this matter.
§ Mr. Lawson—and as a result went in for a farrago of invention but that is no reason for the hon. Member to take it out. What I have to say is this matter is a serious matter. This matter is a serious matter. This matter was discussed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security during this year's public expenditure round but we were not, during that round, in a position to have a worked-out scheme. We were not in this round in a position to put the scheme in place but in due course we shall do so and this is good news for the pensioners and I hope the whole House will welcome it.
§ Sir Barney Hayhoe (Brentford and Isleworth)Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement this afternoon, the assurance within it and the assurances that he gave this morning in his interview on Radio 4, will be widely welcomed? However, can he explain why these assurances were not given at least 24 hours earlier?
§ Mr. LawsonI think perhaps I may ask my right hon. Friend why he did not try to ascertain the facts of the matter before he made the statement that he did to the media.
§ Mrs. Audrey Wise (Preston)Will the Chancellor accept our sympathy for his evident inability to make himself understood? Will he accept that his problems would be eased if he in turn realised that what pensioners want are better universal benefits and, if some of those benefits go to those who are rather better off, they will be recouped when those self-same people pay their taxes?
§ Mr. LawsonWe have maintained the value of the state retirement pension despite the fact that there are a million and a quarter more pensioners—maintained that in real terms as we had pledged we would do and we will continue to do so. That is firm; that is clear. What is also clear is that as a result of SERPS, someone now retiring gets on SERPS an extra £25 a week, whereas in 1979 it was an 25 extra £1 a week. That is, as I say, an extra £25 a week in SERPS. Many more people now have occupational pensions. Many more pensioners now have savings. Unlike with the Labour Government when inflation robbed them of the value of their savings, they are now getting a real return on their savings. So that is why pensioners as a whole have had their incomes rising faster than that of the rest of the community. But there still remains a problem—[AN HON. MEMBER: "You."]—as all of us on this side of the House know. There still remains a problem of a minority of pensioners who have done far worse. That minority is the minority we propose to address with the new scheme which I told the House about a few moments ago.
§ Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown)Does my right hon. Friend accept that up to 30 per cent. of pensioners live at an unacceptably low standard of living? Does he also agree that another 30 per cent. of pensioners have a very reasonable standard of living? Surely it is quite illogical to give a £10 Christmas bonus to the top 30 per cent. instead of giving a £20 Christmas bonus to the bottom 30 per cent. Let us use the money wisely.
§ Mr. LawsonI know of my hon. Friend's concern over many, many years for the pensioners and he has been consistent in that, but I have to say I have no change to announce whatever in the payment of the Christmas bonus. We will continue to pay it; indeed, we have put it on a statutory basis, unlike the Labour Government who, two years out of five they were in office, failed to pay it at all.
§ Mr. Michael Foot (Blaenau Gwent)As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has somewhat ungallantly attributed all his difficulties to members of the press, will he tell us which were the offending newspapers and whether he intends to invite their representatives to come round and see him again?
§ Mr. LawsonThe journalists concerned—the journalists concerned know very well if they—and if they look in their notebooks—and they were taking notes—they will see that what—the stories that appeared in the Sunday press hear no relation whatever to what I said.
§ Mr. Ray Whitney (Wycombe)Does my right hon. Friend agree that the splutterings of the Leader of the Opposition, which were so ill-judged and appeared to be so synthetic, may have been a genuine cry of rage? Does he further agree that all the new and positive thinking on social and other issues come from this Government and from the Conservative party and that there is no new thinking on the part of the Labour party and the other Opposition parties? Last week, the Opposition affected to be outraged by the suggestion that our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State responsible for higher education was seeking new funds to ensure that a greater proportion of young people would benefit from higher education. They are now outraged that my right hon. Friend is seeking to find new resources for the lower-income sections of the elderly population.
§ Mr. LawsonI think my hon. Friend is right, that the Leader of the Opposition did make, as usual, a complete mess of it and I think that was why his predecessor a moment ago tried to help him.
§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer accept that his arrogant statement today can hardly be interpreted as a consolation to those pensioners who have spent a sleepless night worrying about what will happen? Instead of filling the country with despair and poverty, will he, as an apology, give a commitment that the Government will look carefully at the King's Fund report which shows that British pensioners in general—not a tiny majority—are among the poorest in the world with the lowest life expectancy?
§ Mr. LawsonAs I pointed out earlier, during the time that we have been in office, the average—the income of the—the real income—the real income, that is, after allowing for inflation the real income of the average pensioner has risen by well over 20 per cent., over 23 per cent., in fact. It was 23 per cent. by 1986 and it is higher today. That is above the average level of increase for the population as a whole.
§ Mr. Robert McCrindle (Brentwood and Ongar)Although the targeting of benefits clearly makes a great deal of sense, especially when it is accompanied by additional resources, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just stated, will he perhaps try to avoid assuming in any future comments that he makes on these matters, that pensioners are either very well-off or on the poverty line, forgetting the large number in the middle to whom, for example, the withdrawal of free prescriptions would be a considerable setback? May I suggest to him that, if his statements over the weekend indicate the beginning of a debate on how targeting and its machinery should be implemented, his comments to the press on Friday will not have been in vain.
§ Mr. LawsonI am grateful to my hon. Friend. In fact, the statements, as I said—the statements that appeared in the press on Sunday bore no relation whatever to what I in fact said. What I have said to them is that, while we were absolutely, totally committed to maintaining—
§ Ms. Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood)They will have the shorthand notes.
§ Mr. LawsonOh yes, they will have their shorthand notes and they will know it, and they will know they went behind afterwards and they thought there was not a good enough story and so they produced that. They will know that I said that, while the state pension would continue to be uprated in line with inflation, as we have always said it would, that additional help over and above that ought, in my judgment, to be concentrated on those who are at the poorest end, of pensioners, whose incomes have not risen nearly as fast as the generality of pensioners.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)As all the Sunday newspapers carried virtually the same story, is the Chancellor saying that every journalist who came to the briefing—he has not denied that there was one—misunderstood what he said and that if the choice is between believing what all the newspapers said or what the Chancellor has said today we should somehow believe the Chancellor?
Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer appreciate, however, that he is to be congratulated—and I, as a member of the Opposition, congratulate him—on revealing the Tories' intentions on the hidden agenda and 27 making it clear that millions of pensioners should indeed be terrified of what would happen if the Tories were re-elected?
§ Mr. LawsonIt is quite clear that the less salubrious hon. Members opposite, of which the hon. Member who just spoke is a conspicuous example—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdrawn!"]—are determined to run a scare campaign. In fact, the people of this country will judge this Government by their record and not by the scare campaigns of the party opposite. We saw them before the last election and we remember the result of the last election.
§ Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West)Will my right hon. Friend totally disregard the nonsense talked by Labour Members, whose record on inflation, the elderly, the winter of discontent and the Christmas bonuses was utterly disgraceful? In view of the dangers of misreporting to which my right hon. Friend referred, however, would it not be a good idea to refrain from gabbing to the press until policies are clearly agreed and defined?
§ Mr. LawsonMy hon. Friend of course was once a Minister himself and therefore he speaks with great authority, but he will recall that it is customary for Ministers to talk to the press on an off-the-record basis from time to time.
§ Mr. SpeakerStatement—Mr. Hurd.
§ Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to refer to any right hon. or hon. Member as "less salubrious"?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have heard worse.
§ Mr. WinnickFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt will take up time and I have already called the hon. Gentleman once.
§ Mr. WinnickI am sometimes criticised by my colleagues for the fact that I rarely drink. Should not the Chancellor apologise for his slur? It should make no difference whether a slur comes from the Chancellor or from anyone else. Why can he not apologise?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not think that the word "salubrious" has anything to do with drink.
§ Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask why on some occasions, on issues not quite so important as this, you allow questions to go on for three quarters of an hour but on this fundamental issue for the mass of ordinary people in this country you bring questions to a close in less than half an hour? I should like an answer from you, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerI will give the hon. Gentleman the answer. He well knows that there is a difference between a private notice question, which normally goes on for about 15 minutes—this one went on for 25 minutes—and a statement. This was a private notice question and not a statement.
§ Mr. HefferSo what?
§ Mr. SpeakerJust that!