Pensioner Incomes (Hansard, 25 February 1997)

§ 2. Mr. Flynn
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) of 5 February, Official Report, columns 637–38, if he will uprate pensions in line with earnings. [15738]

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald)
No. If the basic pension had been increased by the higher of earnings or prices since 1980, the total extra burden on the taxpayer would be £8.6 billion in 1997–98.

§ Mr. Flynn
Does the hon. Gentleman recall the pledge given in the 1979 election campaign that the Conservatives would increase pensions along with the prosperity of the country? In every one of the past 18 years they have cheated on that promise. Pensions will be £62.45 in April; they should be £82.60. Is it not true that, throughout those years, the Conservatives have never honoured that promise, and is it not the case that we cannot trust the Tories on pensions? Will the hon. Gentleman answer without blaming the last Labour Government or the next Labour Government?

§ Mr. Heald
The last time that the hon. Gentleman asked me about that subject, I costed his proposals at 134 £65 billion by 2030, but, if one takes into account his proposals for income support, that figure is too low—the cumulative figure would be more than £100 billion by then. He might like to ask his Front-Bench team where the cuts would fall to pay for his proposals. However, the Conservative Government have maintained the value of the basic state pension, encouraged private provision and given extra help to those most in need, and average pensioner incomes have increased by 60 per cent.

§ Mr. Jacques Arnold
Does my hon. Friend recall that the last time that pensions were uprated with earnings was under the last Labour Government? That was a time when the increase in earnings was less than the rate of inflation, so the population generally were less well off in real terms. The then Government wanted the pensioners to share with the general public being less well off in real terms. It saved money for the Exchequer. The Labour Government did that, not because they believed in it, but because they were required to do so by the International Monetary Fund.

§ Mr. Heald
Under this Government, average incomes have gone up by as much each year as they did during the whole period of the last Labour Government. One has only to examine Labour's proposal to equalise the state pension age at 60, with a reduced pension of £40 a week, to see that that would spell disaster for those who later required income support and were refused it. Labour has always meant difficulties and poverty for pensioners, and it still would with its current policies.