§ Mr. David Porter (Waveney)In continuing the vein of this morning's debates, I am pleased to have the opportunity to turn the House's attention to the welfare of pensioners in general. I am delighted that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for North Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), is here to reply. I have already told him that I wish to raise many issues that impact on pensioners, causing them worry and affecting their well-being. My hon. Friend will not be able to answer all those points, but I want to place them on record so that they can be passed to the appropriate Departments of State.
Periodically, anniversaries and the wartime memories of our older citizens bring home to us the debt of gratitude that we owe to our retired constituents. Those same people have given lifetimes of work and service to families, businesses and communities and to the country. Despite all that is provided in direct help, through payments, health care, local authority provision, taxpayers' funding, many of them feel vulnerable. Some fear that they will not have enough left to live on. They want long-term care for independence and security in the increasingly long periods of their crowning years. Everything from prices to heating, from health care to community care, from crime to transport, is pertinent. All those issues are challenges for us as politicians.
In view of the weather so far this winter, it is worth pointing out that the problem of keeping warm in winter is top of the list of older people's concerns. Every winter, we seem to redesign the cold weather payments scheme because it never quite seems to relate to the particular winter being experienced. Payments triggered at meteorological stations by postcode areas may mean that payments are prompt and automatic to those entitled to them, but the weather can be very varied over short distances and the system is not sensitive or flexible enough.
The wind chill factor is very much part of the present debate. I accept that the private Member's Bill that is before the House this week may not be the answer, but the wind chill factor must be acknowledged. Many of my constituents live on, or close to, the coast. The winds off the North sea that we get for most of the year mean that people feel colder. I know that the payments deal with homes being cold rather than with the people in them being cold, but only the best insulated homes can withstand penetrating winds that can cut into the strongest person, never mind the frailest. That has been graphically shown in the past month. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is looking at cold weather payments with an eye to being more flexible. Surely technology can produce accurate temperatures and wind chill measurements, even street by street.
We need a better way of encouraging the take-up of help if we are to give it. If Age Concern's figures are right and almost a million elderly people who are entitled to support do not claim it, we are not maximising the help that we make available. The Conservative party has been rightly keen to root out welfare scroungers, but we should also address under-claiming if we are to have a system of support through benefits. Many people have a pride that 279 makes them reluctant to claim their entitlements. That is admirable and I understand it, but perhaps more such payments should be automatic. The automatic triggering of cold weather payments, when the relevant criteria are met, has an appeal, and an efficiency, that could apply to other benefits.
People who are just above the income support level, those who have had no opportunity to build up extra pensions, those who were prevented by war service from so doing, and also people who have worked and saved, all feel at some risk. Some resent how the social security and welfare system helps some people and not others. They often feel that the undeserving are rewarded and the thrifty penalised. The debate and vote in the House on the pay of Members of Parliament brought forth a fresh bout of that feeling.
We must understand such feelings, because the feelings of significant numbers of people are the trends in politics that we have to recognise. Whether such fears are real or groundless is not the point: when people have them, we politicians have to address them. That is why scaremongering for political gain is so irresponsible and hurtful. The allegations in The Guardian late last year, led by the Labour party, that the Government tried to cover up cuts in benefits to war pensioners was merely the latest example of the deliberate distortion, the half-baked twisting, that does so much damage. The deliberate confusion of separate pensions issues can cause real suffering and anguish.
The future of the welfare state is one of the most urgent debates that the country faces. All parties are engaged in variations of radically thinking the unthinkable. So far, the only consensus is that we cannot go on as we are. We can project the number of retired people, but not the European demands on us—especially for bailing out the underfunded German pension scheme—were there ever to be a single currency. We cannot project public demands in terms of health and living costs or the heights that health technology will reach and the bills that will have to be paid for that.
We have discussion papers arguing the full range of ideas from left to right—papers enough to burn and keep warm with. One view is that future national insurance contributions may not be enough, so we should have a funded pension scheme and the voluntary or private sector should replace state welfare. A second view is that all benefits should be abolished and replaced with a basic weekly allowance for all, irrespective of need. To the poor, that would be a subsidy; to the rich, a tax cut. A third view is that we should let universal benefits wither on the vine and redistribute the money to the poorest, but how do we test for the poorest and draw a cut-off line? As ever, the devil is in the detail. A fourth view is that we should divert other spending to pensioners without regard to their incomes.
There is no shortage of ideas, some more acceptable than others, but there is no agreement about the solution. How can there be? While we have this essential debate about the future generations of the retired, we can see how unsettling and alarming such debates may be for those who have already retired. Whether we continue with reform of the welfare state in ways that we cannot anticipate—accepting that we cannot stand still—we must carry with us a majority of those who are the biggest users of the health service: the people who have already contributed the most.
280 Some statistics are encouraging: 24 per cent. of pensioners are in the least well-off fifth of the population compared with 44 per cent. 17 years ago; 88 per cent. of retired people now have incomes above their state pension. With low inflation, pensioners' savings and spending power are being maintained in a way that they could not have been a generation ago, when inflation touched 27 per cent. However, many pensioners dislike, distrust and reject statistics, and I understand that. We are talking about individual human beings, not numbers. They measure the money that they actually have and form a perception of themselves and the quality of their lives.
§ Mr. David Nicholson (Taunton)While it is true that there have been helpful trends in recent years, which we welcome, a relatively new concern has become prominent in my correspondence and, no doubt, in that of my hon. Friend: many of the very elderly fear that if they have to go into nursing homes they may lose their homes and sacrifice their family's inheritance. Should not the Government address that as a matter of urgency?
§ Mr. PorterI could not agree more. The Government need to inject urgency into their thinking on that issue, which will clearly be part of the forthcoming general election campaign. Whichever party wins that election, the new Government will have to tackle that problem as the number of elderly people continues to increase. The question of the cost of living and how those people will be able to afford it must be addressed urgently. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
Many of my constituents—and, I suspect, people elsewhere—believe that Irish, French and German pensioners do much better than ours. To some extent, pointing out to them the difficulties of making straight comparisons between countries and asking various questions—such as whether they have the same health care, whether the pension is normally their only form of income, what the spending power of their income is, whether there is provision for adult dependants and what the qualifying age for entitlement is—does not necessarily help. British pensioners come out quite well in accurate comparisons, but some pensioners retain the erroneous perception that they are the paupers of Europe.
During the years of evolution of our welfare and health care systems, we have learnt that however much is put into them it can never be enough: demand and expectation rise relentlessly. The quality of life through material possessions rises continually, as does demand for a share of them. Medical science, technology and medical inflation will always outstrip the taxpayer's ability to keep up. We are therefore right to consider future provision. We are right to confront the dilemma of shorter and more flexible working lives—which are constantly changing owing to technology—and longer, healthier, more mobile retirements and the unharnessed resources of our older people.
Factors such as tightening up on benefit fraud, saving on public spending, targeting welfare more accurately and developing a tax regime that allows the economy to create the wealth to spend are all helpful. It also helps to point out the Opposition's increasingly vague plans to link pensions and earnings and the way in which they have dropped their earlier magic wand promises to pensioners. In addition, it helps to highlight Labour's plans to cut the basic pension to pay for giving everyone a pension at 60. However, we must go further than that.
281 Pensioners have other fears. Both in cities and rural areas, there is a fear of loneliness and isolation. When grandparents were given greater acknowledgement as an integral part of family and community life in a less mobile, more rooted society, those fears were less acute. Pensioners fear physical immobility. It is small wonder that hip replacements are now so popular—some are replaced for the second or third time when they wear out. Many pensioners fear that the transport they need will not exist. Long-time retirees to popular parts of the country, such as my area in East Anglia, often feel more cut off as they become older and perhaps give up their cars.
Local organisations such as DIAL, and associations that help by working with the elderly and disabled, play an extremely effective role in combating that isolation and fear of it. Technologies that help to provide better access to buses and taxis also help, but we could go further. Perhaps tax-friendly assistance could encourage technology to come up with some better ideas to combat that fear.
The fear of not being safe in one's own home or walking the streets is real enough, even if it is not always borne out by the crime figures. The chief constable of Suffolk wrote in the East Anglian Daily Times on 10 September 1996:
There is a disproportionate fear of crime within vulnerable groups such as the elderly. People are fed a constant diet of scare stories of violence. We are not saying no problems exist. We are simply trying to put these stories in context. Statistically, elderly people are the group least likely to become victims of violent crime. However, surveys show they are the group who most fear being attacked. It is not right whole sections of the community should live in fear because of an inaccurate perception of our society.As well as real crime, we have to deal with the perception of a tidal wave of crime.Our continued drive for meaningful sentencing helps a lot. It is a pity that the Labour party has not supported our law and order measures for most of the past 17 years. Real support for the victims at the expense of the criminals—such as making the criminals work for their victims—would reassure those who feel at risk. I still believe that giving the courts the option of capital punishment would be welcome, but that is another story for another day.
As we look more closely at long-term health care and as the eligibility criteria for continuing care come fully on stream, another set of fears arises which needs addressing. Controversy over health has, unfortunately, never been far away in my area. That controversy has often been stoked up, and elderly people alarmed, by my opponents, who think that the national health service is theirs alone—notwithstanding the fact that for most of its life the service has been evolving and developing with more being spent on it year on year from taxpayers' money provided by Conservative Governments.
Our local Anglian Harbours NHS trust will be the first in this country to go out of business—by August this year—having lost all its contracts. There have been fears and threats, real and imagined, and rumours of the closure of our district general, the James Paget hospital, and of community hospitals at Lowestoft, Beccles, Southwold and Halesworth. Those fears have all been fanned like forest fires in a gale by the Labour party and its fronts in 282 the form of various action groups that have alarmed our pensioners. The All Hallows hospital, just over the border at Ditchingham in south Norfolk is outside the NHS and is run by nuns and the London Hospital Management trust. It faces cuts in contracts from East Norfolk and Suffolk health authorities because there are empty beds in the NHS cottage hospitals at Lowestoft and Beccles. It is a dilemma for the health authorities and for our local communities, but the health authorities have shown that they are sensitive to public demands in a local, GP-driven NHS. It does not help older people to be allowed to think that there will be no local provision for them when they need it or to insist on measuring health care on a strict bed count as though that were the only yardstick these days.
The final fear is the sickening feeling among many of my constituents about those who sometimes seem cravenly to hand over all our powers and our Britishness to the European nightmare. Whether the problem involves fishing, beef, lamb or the very pound itself, the generation who gave the best years of their lives fighting German and Japanese tyranny do not, in general, want to see that sacrifice squandered in the creeping way that often occurs. Most of them have had enough—more than enough—whether of being at the so-called heart of Europe or of never being isolated in Europe.
Let us continue with our threefold thrust: we must increase the basic pension in line with prices, encourage private provision on top of that and focus extra help on pensioners who most need it. Let us continue with our low taxing, liberalising, deregulating and privatising of the economy so that we can expand the health and care services for the retired and others in an affordable way. Let us take a hard look at the future provision and do all that we can to enable more people to provide for themselves and their families instead of always thinking that we have to do it for them. Let us harness better the resources of those who live longer and who have more experience of life. Above all, let us work with the retired generations to include them more and carry them along with us more as we—at least Conservative Members—continue to shape the world that our grandchildren and their grandchildren will inherit.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) on securing the time for today's debate and on his choice of subject. He is known to speak his mind in this place; he is also known for the vigorous way in which he promotes his constituents' interests. We have certainly seen an example of that today.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on his well-timed intervention on the important subject of long-term care. There is not time to go into that subject in great detail, but I know that my hon. Friend will welcome last autumn's White Paper and the proposed measures to enable individuals to ring fence their assets and provide for their long-term care in retirement while protecting the inheritance that they rightly wish to pass to their children and others.
Anyone watching our debate today will have noticed that, as we discuss the important subject of pensioners' welfare, the Labour Front Bench is empty, there are no Liberals present—[Interruption.] Of course, the Scottish 283 nationalists are here, and one Labour Back Bencher is now present. The poor attendance shows that the soundbite is often given precedence over debates in the House, which is to be deplored.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney made a number of specific points; I shall pass on his comments to the Ministers involved. He mentioned the Anglian Harbours NHS trust. I am advised that the health authorities do not expect to make significant changes to the location of services, and that it is likely that most clinical and nursing staff will continue to be employed by the new service providers, but my hon. Friend will have to wait for a fuller answer on that subject.
My hon. Friend also mentioned bus services. We now have increased route mileage, but it is the role of local authorities to subsidise socially necessary bus services should they wish to do so. At present, about 15 per cent. of bus route mileage is subsidised in that way. Many local authorities have also exercised their discretion to provide concessionary fares for pensioners. The Government's view, and that of previous Governments, has been that it is better for the local authority, with its knowledge of local circumstances, to decide how best to promote public transport and the needs of vulnerable people in the areas over which they have jurisdiction.
My hon. Friend referred to crime in general and to crime in Suffolk in particular. Crime in Suffolk fell by 3 per cent. in 1995, which will be welcome news to elderly people there, but my hon. Friend's point was that such reductions in crime are not recognised and that a sense of insecurity remains. I accept that there is a good deal in that argument. The police have better powers, there are more police officers and they have the ability to investigate cases more effectively, thanks to measures passed by the Conservative Government, all of which were opposed by the Labour party.
Measures at local level—neighbourhood watch schemes and other projects that try to reduce crime in the local community—have an important role to play. My hon. Friend will know that there are 1,200 neighbourhood watch schemes in Suffolk and that the draft strategy for community safety is currently being prepared. Again, I shall pass on his concerns to the Home Office to see whether anything more can be done to address them.
My hon. Friend raised the important issue of cold weather payments. The Government are committed to helping vulnerable people to receive extra help at this difficult time. So far this winter, we have made more than 5 million payments worth over £43 million. The payments, of £8.50 each, are made to claimants who receive income support or jobseeker's allowance when that is income based. The benefit includes all groups with pensioner premium and other vulnerable groups.
It is worth remembering that, under the Labour Government, there was nothing. The Conservative Government have introduced a system that provides an automatic payment, which is triggered when the average temperature over a seven-day period falls below a certain point.
§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)As the Minister knows, I have campaigned for many years on this issue. He referred to the automatic payment that emerges from the severe weather payment triggering mechanisms. Does he accept that other countries, such as Ireland, produce an 284 automatic payment that has nothing to do with the temperature and involves those who are in receipt of certain benefits—I think it applies to about 15 benefits in the Republic of Ireland—over the 17-week period? Such a system, if introduced here, would bring a much greater sense of relief to our pensioners and our vulnerable people than does waiting for the current rather vague mechanisms to come into play. In addition, will the Minister tell us what he plans to say in respect of the Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill, which is to be debated this Friday?
§ Mr. HealdThe advantage of our current system is that it is automatic and well focused, in that weather stations in various areas trigger the payment, not only when there are seven days when the temperature is at or below 0 deg C, or freezing point, but when those conditions are forecast. The process is quick and enables people to turn the heating up in the knowledge that a payment is on its way. It is not a broad-brush measure, but targeted, and it has been effective in quickly delivering a much needed benefit.
There was a comprehensive review of the cold weather payments scheme last summer, during which the Meteorological Office was asked to advise. Its recommendation was that there should be 70 weather centres, which are now on line. It also advised us on the links with postcodes, and its expert advice was accepted in full and implemented.
The Meteorological Office also gave advice in respect of coastal areas, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney is especially concerned. It advised that, although such areas may be windy, they are often warmer than inland areas during the winter months. It is interesting to note that, of the 15 weather stations that have not triggered cold weather payments this winter, 14 are coastal and only one is inland.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, postcodes in his constituency are linked to Coltishall and Wattisham and, so far this winter, Coltishall has triggered cold weather payments twice and Wattisham three times, bringing much needed help to his constituents.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) will be aware that the Meteorological Office is advising the Government on wind chill; I do not feel that I can take the matter further today.
Regarding pensioner incomes, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney pointed to the three key strands of the Government's policy, which are: first, to maintain the value of the basic state pension; secondly, to encourage private provision; and, thirdly, to target help on those who are most in need. This year, an extra £1.2 billion pounds compared with 1988 has been focused on the poorest groups. The result is that pensioners' incomes have, on average, risen by 60 per cent. in real terms since 1979.
My hon. Friend also pointed out that expectations are important—people want a system that will provide them with the sort of retirement that they wish for and expect. In that context, occupational pensions and private pension provision are especially important. Britain has £600 billion invested in private pension assets—more than the whole of the European Union. It is important that our pension assets should not be subsumed in or combined with other European pension assets; the Government are determined to fight that and have the support of the Maastricht treaty in doing so.
285 The British people's absolute protection is to have a Government who stick up for Britain in European negotiations. I deplore the fact that the Labour party has said that it would scrap our veto and make us join the European social chapter. Those measures would damage our sovereignty and damage the interests of people who work in this country or who want jobs.
The change in occupational pensions has been dramatic. The proportion of people retiring each year with occupational pensions and other savings income has risen to 63 per cent.—[Interruption.] Yes, I am back on the subject of pensions, but that is fair enough in a debate on the welfare of pensioners. The proportion has risen from 43 per cent. in 1979 to 63 per cent. now.
We have fulfilled our pledge to maintain the value of the state pension, and it is proposed that, in April, its value will rise to £99.80 a week for a couple and £62.45 a week for a single person. Of course, the headline figure is not the full story, because underpinning occupational and personal pensions, investment income and the state pension is the commitment to target help on those most in need. For example, our measures ensure that pensioner couples have access to income of more than £100 a week, with their housing costs paid, and with other concessions of the type mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Equalisation of pension ages at 65, as enacted in the Pensions Act 1995, is an important measure to ensure that state pensions are affordable in future. The changes that we have introduced are in stark contrast to those proposed by the Labour party, which would equalise state pensions at the age of 60, but with a reduced pension of only £40. That £40 a week would be for life, so it is no wonder that there are no Labour Members here this morning.
286 Not only would a Labour Government cut the basic pension by about £20 a week for the single pensioner and £37 a week for a couple, which would do little for the welfare of pensioners, but they would deprive pensioners of income support. Retired people in receipt of that £40 a week would, if single, be treated as being in receipt of £60 a week and, if a couple, £98 a week. To me, that is new Labour, new danger. It is half baked to suggest that people should retire earlier, at 60, on a level of pension that might not be adequate for their future needs—and without the safety net of income support, which the Conservative Government have expanded.
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing these important issues of concern to my attention and, as appropriate, I shall draw my colleagues' attention to them as well. He made the important point that many of our pensioners served during the war and gave valuable service to this country, thereby allowing us the freedoms we now enjoy. Many of them are among the older group of pensioners. They had saved all their lives, but the value of their savings was destroyed between 1974 and 1979. Under the Labour Government, inflation averaged 15 per cent. because they were a tax and spend Government—a spendthrift Government—and they have not changed their spots. When pensioners come to think about how to vote at the next general election, they should remember that new Labour is still the party that wants to spend money it has not got, to borrow and to reduce this country to beggary.
I welcome the opportunity to reply to this debate. In government, the Conservative party has protected the interests of pensioners. It will do more in that respect in future years to enable pensioners to realise their expectations—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)Order. We must now move on.