5. Mr. William O'BrienTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the pension for (a) a couple and (b) an individual in 1979; and what is this figure uprated in line with (i) inflation and (ii) with earnings.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Anne Widdecombe)The current rate of retirement pension, uprated in line with prices since 1979, is £54.15 for a single person and £86.70 for a couple. If uprated in line with earnings, the pension would now be about 29 per cent. higher. This would have cost the national insurance fund more than £40 billion since 1979, implying an extra £10.50 per week on the national insurance contributions paid currently by a man on average earnings and by his employer.
Mr. O'BrienDoes not the Minister's reply reveal that many old-age pensioners are at a disadvantage compared with other income groups? In view of her answer that pensioners are at a 29 per cent. disadvantage compared with the position under the Labour Government, is it not time that the Minister decided that pensioners were entitled to some further consideration? When does the Minister intend to do something about the pensioners, instead of using rhetoric about what it would cost the Government, given how much they spend on unemployment benefit?
§ Miss WiddecombeIf the hon. Gentleman is not receptive to rhetoric about what it would cost the Government, perhaps he is receptive to rhetoric about what we have done for the pensioners. Perhaps he is receptive to the fact that pensioners' incomes have increased by 34 per cent. since the Conservatives came to power whereas they rose by only 3 per cent. under the Labour Government. Perhaps he will reflect on the large increase in home ownership and consumer-durable ownership among pensioners and the fact that incomes from savings have doubled. That is what we have done for pensioners and it is worth more than the Labour party's rhetoric. That rhetoric lost it the last election and will continue to lose it elections so long as Labour Members make wild promises.
§ Mrs. RoeWill my hon. Friend confirm that since 1989 income-related benefits for pensioners have increased by £700 million? Does she agree that that shows the Government's commitment to increasing benefits for those who are most in need?
§ Miss WiddecombeIt is an essential part of the Government's policy to target benefits, as far as possible, on those most in need, and that is why there have been 8 substantial increases for those in residential and nursing homes and for those pensioners on income support. We shall continue to direct extra resources towards those in need while maintaining the value of the basic state pension.
§ Mr. AllenWill the Minister accept that although the Opposition are greatly concerned about the erosion of the pension, we are concerned also about the abolition of the pension for women aged 63 or less? We are reading press reports that say that the Government are considering increasing the retirement age for women to 65. Is that what the Government propose, or are they preparing the ground in order to back down so that the pension age for women goes up only to 63? Of the 3,000 representations that the Minister and her colleagues received on this matter, how many asked for an increase in the retirement age for women?
§ Miss WiddecombeThe trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he believes not only his own propaganda but everything that he reads in the press. As he well knows, the Government have not reached any conclusion on how to equalise state pensions, beyond our firm commitment to do so. We issued a discussion document and, as he will be aware, the period for discussion has only just ended. That set out four main options and went well beyond the narrow range that the hon. Gentleman identified. In due course, we shall come to a decision and we shall announce it, in the proper way, to the House. Until then, it would be improper for anyone to speculate, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman stops alarming prospective pensioners by speculating without reason.