---

Pensions Bill

I rise only because my hon. Friends have been so moderate in their language. I want to get on the record the strength of feeling on the matter. I do not think that the Government have recognised the grievance and anger that pensioners in our communities feel. I still find it astounding that after 11 years of a Labour Government 2 million pensioners are living in poverty, partly because they cannot find their way through the labyrinthine system to the income, benefits and credits to which they are entitled, in order to take them out of poverty. When Labour was in opposition and Mrs. Thatcher broke the link, I can remember campaigning on the streets, exposing what would happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) has demonstrated that the income going to pensioners has eroded over time—now they are losing out on £30 a week at least—and that that has impacted on their standard of living, exactly as we predicted. I do not know what other hon. Members have experienced in their constituencies, but I have met pensioners who at times forgo turning on their heating in winter, even with the fuel allowances, who do not live on diets that we would expect the average person to enjoy, and who are cutting their quality of life as a result of not receiving an adequate income. Part of the reason, exactly as has been explained, is that we are forcing such pensioners on to means-tested benefits. When we raised the issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Prime Minister, the argument was, ““Well, tax credits are there, and even though it's complicated, there'll be advisers in the Department for Work and Pensions who'll be able to assist them in claiming those benefits.”” But those advisers are not there, because we have just sacked 30,000 of them. That assistance is no longer there for many pensioners, who struggle to understand the system and as a result struggle to gain the necessary income. I do not understand what is preventing us from making an announcement to address the issue. I would like that done tonight, and if not, at least for the Minister to give us a time scale over the next six months. The arguments might be about financial costs, but the estimate is £300 million to £400 million a year. The surpluses in the national insurance fund have already been mentioned. It is ironic that we can find up to £100 billion overnight to bail out banks that have speculated, received massive bonuses and made significant amounts from profiteering, yet we cannot find a relatively insignificant sum for pensioners—I do not even want to talk about what we are spending on wars, in Iraq and so on. Those are the issues that pensioners put to us when we are on the stump: that we can find resources for non-productive expenditure, but that pensioners always seem to be last in line. I would like to hear the clear message from the Minister tonight, which we can take back to the National Pensioners Convention and other pensioner organisations, and to pensioners in our constituency, that we will redress the wrong once and for all, and do so expeditiously. Otherwise, people will feel a sense of betrayal. We said in opposition that we would address the issue, but 11 years' wait is too long. We have tried the patience of our supporters in the pensioners movement who put us into government in 1997 and have supported us since. I hope that we get a clear message. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Jim Cousins). If he presses this matter to a vote, I will march proudly through the Lobby in support of new clause 16 and in support of pensioners in this country.