Pensioners (Hansard, 6 July 1992)

§ 10. Mr. Amess
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on targeting help towards particularly needy pensioner groups.

§ Mr. Lilley
Since 1988 we have increased annual benefits for pensioners on income support by some £700 million over and above inflation—not least for the pensioners of Basildon.

§ Mr. Amess
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that many senior citizens in Basildon have benefited from the extra Government help, which is over and above the normal upratings? Does he agree that that clearly demonstrates the Government's commitment to helping vulnerable pensioners and that the inflationary policies of Opposition socialist parties would crucify senior citizens?

§ Mr. Lilley
As always, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under this Government pensioners' income has risen by about 34 per cent. in real terms. That is five times as fast as the meagre increase that they enjoyed under a Labour Government when incomes from savings were cut because of inflation. They remember that.

§ Mr. McAllion
One needy group of pensioners are those with disabilities. While the Benefits Agency customer charter trumpets claimants' rights to a more accessible service, pensioners who apply for disability living allowance have first to fill in a form with two sections and 12 different parts, totalling 34 pages. How can that credibly be described as a more accessible service? Is not the real purpose of these bureaucratic black holes to ensure that the minimum number of claimants can find their way through them so that the Government can save on their social security budget?

§ Mr. Lilley
That is certainly not the intention, and that is clear from our record which shows a substantial increase in the number of disabled people to whom we have given help. Our introduction of the system of self-assessment rather a requirement for a medical certificate shows that we were anxious to extend benefits to all disabled people in need. It is also clear that a significant proportion of the £700 million increased entitlement for elderly people to which I referred is going to the disabled. There was an increase in April and there will be a further increase in October. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not have the grace to recognise and welcome that.

§ Mr. David Shaw
What is my right hon. Friend's Department doing to debunk the Labour myth that pensions were tied to earnings throughout the five years from 1974 to 1979? Does my right hon. Friend recall, and will he ensure that it is publicised, that at one stage the Labour Secretary of State changed the date on which pensions were calculated from a November base to an April base, some seven months —

§ Madam Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the Minister's responsibility on this question. The Minister will please answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question.

§ Mr. Lilley
My Department would like to perpetuate the tenure of office of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), as he was a member of the Labour Government in the Department of Social Security at the time. He is a standing monument to that Government, who not only broke the earnings link to which Labour Members now refer as though it were inviolate, but failed to pay the Christmas bonus. The hon. Gentleman was there to tell the tale.

§ Mr. Bradley
Does not the Secretary of State realise that one of the most vulnerable groups of elderly people is the over-80s? Is it not an insult to them that the additional benefit that they receive is a meagre 25p a week—less than the amount needed to buy a loaf of bread? Will he immediately review the increase for the over-80s to ensure that they receive a retirement pension that enables them to lead a happy, healthy and secure retirement?

§ Mr. Lilley
The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that over-80s on income support received an extra increase of £1 for single people and £1.50 for couples in April. This is to be followed by a £2 and £3 increase in October, and is geared and targeted to those most in need. I understand that the Opposition Front-Bench team is thinking of doing away with the universal retirement pension and targeting it instead. We would be interested to know how they intend to carry out that policy.