Clause 5
Pensions Bill
1:45 pm
James Purnell (Minister of State (Pensions Reform), Department for Work and Pensions; Stalybridge and Hyde, Labour)
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. I would guess that the difference is due to the increase in the number of people going abroad, to which he referred in his speech.
I accept that the hon. Gentleman thinks our reasons for not uprating are inconsistent, but the thrust ofthe policy is clear, as it was under the previous Government: we have limited resources and we need to prioritise our spending. Our main priority must be pensioners living here and we want to ensure that their standard of living continues to increase. Like both the hon. Gentlemen, I have met Mr. Markham and he makes an eloquent case. I have tried to explain to him, as have previous Ministers, that our obligation with limited resources is to people in this country. We have always made that clear to people when they have decided to go to other countries. Of course, we must meet our obligations to pensioners living in the European economic area and in those countries with which we have a reciprocal agreement.
As the hon. Member for Eastbourne said, our policy has been tested twice in the courts in the UK, and I can update him on that subject. After the final UK stage, Ms Carson had six months to decide whether to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. In 2005, we were made aware that she and 12 others had made an application to the European Court of Human Rights. We are unlikely to know whether it is successful until early in the summer of 2007, so the hon. Gentleman has plenty of time for the policy review group to make its mind up.