---

Social Security

I am afraid that the Minister really needs to pay closer attention to what we are saying. It is not a change of policy to make it clear that manifesto commitments from last year do not subsist for the four years after the general election. He should grow up, or maybe do A-level constitutional history, and understand that we are going through a policy process. Nothing I said suggested that we are endorsing the new deal. In fact, I went out of my way to describe how it is defective, how it needs to be improved and how it does not represent value for money for the taxpayer as currently configured. There is clearly a huge chasm between what the Labour Government are saying on the results of the new deal and what can be delivered by greater and more effective use of the third sector and private sector delivery. The fact is that the Government have failed utterly with the new deal as configured to get enough people into work—sustainable work—as quickly as they would like to get into work. However, I shall return to the burden of my argument. I had to put to rest a canard that the Minister was trying unjustly to lay on us. There has been no policy change in that respect. On pensions and the income that our pensioners enjoy, will the Minister tell us what consideration he is giving to uprating the basic state pension in line with earnings? I would be interested to hear how much more the basic pension would be next year if it were increased in line with earnings rather than prices this year? I ask that because my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) asked the same question of the Minister last December. I would be grateful if he provided us with an answer. Lord Turner’s proposals contain an important central conclusion, which is that means-testing for pensioners should be reduced. Nearly half of all pensioners depend on means-tested benefits, which is an increase over the past eight years. By 2050, that proportion will have risen to more than 70 per cent.