§ 9. Mr. CorbynTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to uprate the state pension in line with earnings. [1706]
§ Mr. LilleyNo. If the basic state pension had been increased in line with earnings rather than prices since 1980, the extra cost to the taxpayer would be £7.5 billion.
§ Mr. CorbynDoes the Secretary of State recognise that, had the pension been raised in line with earnings rather than prices since that date, millions of pensioners would not have been robbed of a large proportion of their pensions? Many pensioners would not be living in the poverty in which they live, and future generations of pensioners would be able to look forward to some degree of security and reliability in their retirement rather than being prey to heavy selling by private pension organisations that charge up to 25 per cent. of contributions in administration costs, as well as making enormous profits.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the community as a whole would be better off with a state pension on which every pensioner could live, rather than the poverty that many face?
§ Mr. LilleyThe hon. Gentleman is honest and open—as is Lady Castle—about his policies and is prepared to admit to their cost. I respect him for it. I respect rather less the leader of the Labour party and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), the Labour spokeswoman, who rejected Lady Castle's policies at their party conference and simply bought off her supporters by making extremely expensive promises to include them in a review, concealing the likely cost of the exposed policies from the electorate.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's statement about the preferability of state pensions over occupational pensions. I am delighted that two thirds of people retiring have occupational pensions. On average, those pensions are two thirds higher in real terms than when Labour were last in power.
§ Mr. AtkinsDoes my right hon. Friend agree that, since it has been in government, the Conservative party has met every pledge that it made to the electorate about keeping pensions in line with inflation and about doing our best to help elderly and senior citizens? Does he also agree that that policy will continue for as long as there is a Conservative Government and that we have a proud record, which we can go to the country with and fight on when the time comes?
§ Mr. LilleyMy right hon. Friend is right and makes an important point. I hope that his remarks will be read and noted by all Britain's pensioners. We have fulfilled our pledge to uprate the basic pension at least in line with inflation. We have focused extra help on the least well-off pensioners through more than £1 billion more in pensions premiums for those on income support. We have encouraged the remarkable growth of occupational pensions to the point where we are better placed£not just than any other country in Europe, but than all other countries in Europe put together£to fund future pensions.
§ Miss HoeyHas the Secretary of State had time yet to consider the serious implications arising out of the Social 146 Security Select Committee report on unfunded pension liabilities in Europe? Will it be him or the Chancellor of the Exchequer who responds to our report?
§ Mr. LilleyI am considering the Select Committee report, which is important and makes the important point, which I have just made, that we have some £600 billion more to meet the liabilities to present and future pensioners, which is more than all other countries in the European Community. I will respond to that report in the normal way, within the three-month deadline that is allowed for thorough and proper consideration of the important issues that it raises.