Elimination of Poverty in Retirement (Hansard, 19 December 1990)

§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities and health authorities to monitor the condition of their retired population; to eliminate standing charges on gas, electricity and water; to exempt pensioners from licence charges and telephone rental; to extend pensioners' concessionary fare schemes; to make provision for the calculation of old age pensions by reference to average earnings; and to appoint a Minister with responsibility for retired people. This Bill is very timely. Throughout the past few weeks, the country has been shivering in the grip of Arctic weather. Yet, as of 9 December, no cold weather payments had been made. For cold weather payments to be made, there have to be seven consecutive days with a temperature below freezing point, and the wind chill factor is not taken into account.

Pensioners are living in greater poverty than in any other country in western Europe, and the situation is deteriorating. The lot of many pensioners is to see local hospitals close, local health services curtailed and social service facilities cut because of local government expenditure cuts. In many of our cities, there is a possible threat to the concessionary fares scheme which, in London, allows free transport for pensioners. Pensioners feel that some of those services are under serious threat.

The value of the pension is the crucial issue and is at the centre of the Bill. In November 1979 the average single state old-age pension was 20.4 per cent. of gross earnings. As of next April, with the increase that the Government have announced, it will be 16 per cent., and 25.6 per cent. for a pensioner couple. Quite simply, the reason is that, in 1980, the Government broke the link between the state old-age pension and average earnings and instead linked it to average prices, which meant that the amount of money taken away from each pensioner is now the astronomical figure of £14 a week for a single pensioner and more than £20 a week for a pensioner couple. That is an awful lot of money—it adds up to more than £6 billion taken away during that period.

Contrast that with the billions of pounds which have been handed out in tax relief to the super-rich, who can use it to buy second cars, third homes and fourth holidays each year. The property boom in London is the beneficiary of those tax cuts, and the pensioners have paid for them.

The Bill seeks to restore the link as soon as possible. We must remember that pensioners lose out because the link with earnings has been broken and pensions are linked to prices instead, and if one considers how the retail prices index affects low-income households—the majority of those on the state old-age pension are low-income households—there are some interesting statistics. In the third quarter of this year, the retail prices index showed a year-on-year increase of 7.4 per cent. For a pensioner household the figure was 8 per cent. The year-on-year figure for the whole year was 10.6 per cent., and 12 per cent. for pensioner households.

Pensioners lose not only because of the break of the link with earnings, but because they are small households. They shop at corner shops, where prices are higher, and they buy smaller quantities. The benefits of going to 313 hypermarkets on ring roads and bypasses are not available to them. They have to shop in more expensive places. The state old-age pension should reflect old people's needs.

In 1987, 25 per cent. of pensioners' incomes were less than half the average, and the figure has increased rapidly since: state pensions are in a worse position as a percentage of all pensioner incomes. Pensioners are becoming progressively worse off. The Social Security Act 1986, for example, damaged the state earnings-related pension scheme by removing consideration of the best 20 years and substituting the entire working lifetime. That has made the prospects of many people in work particularly bad. The 1988 social security reforms made 2,090,000 pensioners worse off immediately. It should not be forgotten that the Prime Minister pioneered the introduction of the social fund, ending the system of automatic payments under the single payment scheme and substituting an arrangement allowing loans or grants.

During the last full year in which single payments were made, 12 per cent. of all single payments went to pensioners or pensioner households. In the latest year for which figures are available, only 0.1 per cent. of crisis loans and only 4.5 per cent. of budget loans were made to pensioners. That was not because pensioners did not need such loans; it was because the present culture, and the present evaluation of society, mean that people receive grants if they are entitled to them, but will not take out a loan knowing that in the future it will have to be reclaimed from pensions or benefits. The loan system is one of the most disgraceful aspects of the current social security legislation, and I believe that it should be abolished.

My Bill contains a series of comprehensive measures that would dramatically change society's attitude to elderly people. We should remember, that one day, every Member of Parliament will be a pensioner. One day, everyone will need help from someone else. The idea that everyone can take care of himself is arrant nonsense: everyone requires health facilities and support, and it is about time that we recognised the enormous debt that we owe to the pensioners who have put so much into our society.

First, the Bill provides for the appointment of a Minister responsible for co-ordinating pension policy throughout Government Departments.policy on housing, transport, health education and the environment. All those matters affect pensioners. I do not believe that, for example, education should be available only for those receiving job-related training or attending college or university; education should be available for life, including the adult education classes which have been so drastically cut. The Minister for Pensions would have a wide brief.

Secondly, local authorities would be required to produce an annual report on all their activities as they relate to pensioners. The report would list, for instance, the advice services that authorities provide, the day centres in the area and other facilities that they already offer or for 314 which they are campaigning: in other words, it would constitute an audit of what is available to pensioner households throughout the community.

Thirdly, health authorities would be required to produce a statement on the condition of the elderly people in their communities, containing details of, for instance, life expectancy, the health facilities that are available, the effects of local hospital closures and the centring of facilities on remote general hospitals, and the need for specialised services—chiropody, for example—and for health centres for the elderly, on the same principle as well-woman clinics.

Over the past few years, we have witnessed the privatisation of many utilities. Over the past few weeks we have seen the obscenity of the sale of electricity boards, enabling vast profits to be made by those fortunate enough to get hold of a few shares in a service that should never have been sold in the first place. The Bill proposes the abolition of standing charges for gas, electricity and water in pensioner households; the profits made by the companies concerned could easily cover such charges without any increase in unit costs for other consumers. The Bill also seeks to abolish television licence fees for pensioner households, a matter in regard to which my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has acted decisively in the past. The same applies to telephone rentals; moreover—this was brought forcefully to my attention today—why should pensioner households now be expected to pay for calls to directory inquiries?

The Bill would also introduce a national scheme to restore free travel on public transport and the earnings link. Above all—this is crucial—it seeks to meet the demand by the National Pensioners Convention that the state old-age pension be set at half the amount of average earnings for couples, and at a third of that amount for single people. That would mean a pension of about £75 a week, which is no more than the pensioners of this country deserve.

I hope that the Bill will receive support.