| Home Page |
Column 1
T H EP A R L I A M E N T A R Y D E B A T E S
OFFICIAL REPORT
IN THE FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
[WHICH OPENED 27 APRIL 1992]
FORTY-SECOND YEAR OF THE REIGN OF
HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
SIXTH SERIES VOLUME 230
TWENTY-FOURTH VOLUME OF SESSION 1992-93
House of Commons
Monday 18 October 1993
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[ Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]
Oral Answers to Questions
SOCIAL SECURITY
Medical Tests
1. Dr. Goodson-Wickes : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has had concerning the institution of objective medical tests in relation to the payment of benefits.
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley) : In the course of my review of invalidity benefit I am considering introducing an objective medical test. My officials have undertaken a number of informal discussions with medical experts. No decisions have yet been made, but I am encouraged by the progress made so far. When we have firm proposals I will publish them and consult formally and fully.
Dr. Goodson-Wickes : May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on tackling the necessary and rigorous review of the social security system, the operation of which is perceived by many to be subject to abuse at the expense of the most vulnerable in society?
Is it not ridiculous that, at a time when the nation's health is improving steadily, the number of people claiming invalidity benefit has risen by one third over the past five years? May I welcome my right hon. Friend's
Column 2
statement that he is considering an objective medical test, which would not only avoid difficulties in the doctor-patient relationship, but, most importantly, would ensure that benefit is drawn only by those who are incapable of work?Mr. Lilley : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the long-term review of public expenditure, and social security expenditure in particular. If we are to ensure that the system guarantees the position of the most vulnerable, we must make sure that money is not wasted or abused. That lies behind much of our thinking.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend also for pointing out that we are to review the unsatisfactory procedures by which medical checks are operated to test whether a person is incapable of working. Doctors will welcome the proposals to bring in an objective test which will remove them from their present invidious position.
Mrs. Dunwoody : Is the Secretary of State aware that his use of the word "objective" in that fashion is both pejorative and offensive to the medical profession as it implies that those who give accurate clinical judgments on medical conditions are influenced not by medical conditions but by personal attributes, or by some aspect of the doctor's relationship with the patient? Is that not unacceptable, ignorant and a poor excuse for the Government's attempts to cut the money available to the most vulnerable?
Mr. Lilley : I do not agree with the hon. Lady at all. There have been many criticisms of the present arrangements, particularly from doctors, since the previous uprating statement.
I received 300 letters from doctors, more than 290 of which supported the changes that we have made. I have never criticised doctors for the way in which they operate the present system. It is up to us to provide a system that does not put doctors in an invidious position and results in an objective test of medical capacity to work. The present system has changed over the years due to legal rulings, and has been difficult for doctors to operate. It is up to us to produce a better system, and that is what I am trying to do.
Column 3
Mr. Hawkins : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, under this Government, spending on the long-term sick and disabled--of whom there are many in my constituency--has more than trebled in real terms to around £15 billion a year? Is that not a powerful commitment by the Government to helping the most vulnerable?
Mr. Lilley : My hon. Friend is quite correct. There has been a particularly rapid growth in the number of people on invalidity benefit. The number has nearly trebled over the past 15 years, and expenditure on invalidity benefit has more than trebled during that period in real terms.
We have deliberately improved the benefits for disabled people through the disability working allowance and the disability living allowance. The allowances are targeted on those who have disabilities and who need help with mobility and care. That is a gauge of our determination to help those in need. We are determined to persist with that, but that requires us to make sure that other money is not misspent.
Mr. Dewar : Does not the Minister recognise that, with unemployment remaining stubbornly high at around 3 million, the impact on the cost of invalidity benefit is bound to be severe, as his own permanent secretary pointed out in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee a couple of years ago? Should not the right hon. Gentleman's anger and concern be concentrated on the Government's economic failure, rather than on those who have been forced on to benefit by ill health? Has the right hon. Gentleman read the remarks--reported in the press on Sunday--of Archbishop Winning, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Glasgow, who commented on the hypocrisy of targeting single parents, the unemployed and the disadvantaged in the name of a moral crusade? Is it not time that the Ministers gave up scapegoat politics and tried to face some of the real issues?
Mr. Lilley : The only anger that I feel and the only anger that I ever express is at the Opposition, for their scaremongering tactics--for deliberately causing concern among the sick, the elderly and the frailest in our society. Our policies and reforms are intended to help those people, and it is monstrous that they should be used as shock troops for the Labour party, as a substitute for its lack of policy. I entirely agree with the archbishop that no one should target the frail and the vulnerable, single mothers or otherwise, and I have no intention of doing so. We want a better system that will help those who need the help of those better off than themselves.
Pensioners (Incomes)
2. Mr. Streeter : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average income of a pensioner with savings in 1979 and in the latest year for which figures are available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague) : Converted to 1991 prices, the average income of a pensioner with savings was £90.10 a week in 1979. That had increased by more than half as much again--to £141.20 per week--by 1990-91, the latest year for which figures are available.
Mr. Streeter : I thank my hon. Friend for his impressive reply. Does he agree that the present Government have perhaps helped pensioners most of all by getting inflation
Column 4
down and keeping it down so that the real value of those pensioners' hard-earned savings is not constantly eaten away by ever-spiralling prices as it was in the late-1970s?Mr. Hague : I thank my hon. Friend for his compliment and agree with his statements. It is only under this Government that pensioners and future pensioners have had the opportunity and incentive to save on any significant scale. Some 76 per cent. of pensioners now have savings income, and that income, on average, is more than twice pensioners' savings income in 1979. That is a far cry from the days of 1974-79, when the value of pensioner savings income actually fell.
Mr. McAllion : Will the Minister confirm that a report on households with below average income published by his Department last July revealed that there are nearly 3 million pensioners in this country whose income has either been frozen or cut since 1979? Is not that a national disgrace in a country as wealthy as Britain? Will he also confirm that the average incomes to which he referred excluded housing costs and, above all, the costs of heating houses once the Government have imposed VAT on domestic fuel at the next Budget? Will he now tell the House what protection he offers to those pensioners on income support and to those who get by on incomes slightly above benefit level? That is the burning issue facing the country and the House at the next Budget.
Mr. Hague : The households below average income figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers are available both including and excluding housing costs. Both sets of statistics are freely available. In considering those figures, however, the hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that the proportion of pensioners in the bottom quintile--the bottom 20 per cent.-- of income distribution is 24 per cent., whereas in 1979 it was 38 per cent. That is a measure of the extent to which pensioners' living standards have improved over that period.
Mr. David Shaw : Can my hon. Friend confirm that one reason why the average pensioner income has been increasing so dramatically under the Conservative Government is that some 16 million people now save through life insurance schemes and towards second and even third and fourth pensions, and that in the next 20 to 30 years the prosperity of pensioners will constantly increase and improve as a result of the Government's policies?
Mr. Hague : There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says : 61 per cent. of all pensioners and 69 per cent. of recently retired pensioners receive income from an occupational pension. That compares with 43 and 55 per cent. respectively in 1979. A great many more of the pensioners of the future now also have personal pensions as well as occupational pensions and a great many more of them are able to save. That bodes well for pensioners' living standards in the future.
Mrs. Golding : The Minister will be aware that that still leaves one in seven pensioners relying on state benefits and, as at present calculated, it looks as though a single pensioner's uprating next April may be little more than £1 a week, given the Government's failure to provide an adequate state pension. Will the Minister answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East
Column 5
(Mr. McAllion) has just asked him? Will he guarantee pensioners full compensation for the devastating effect that VAT on fuel will have on their household budgets?Mr. Hague : All parts of the hon. Lady's question are about the uprating statement, which has still to be made. I am afraid that she and the rest of the House will have to wait for the uprating statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Government have already made it clear, however, that there will be extra help for less well-off pensioners and that that help will be available at the same time as the higher fuel bills arise.
Income Support
5. Sir Thomas Arnold : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current take-up of income support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt) : The latest available estimates of take-up of incomesupport for 1989 show that almost £9 out of every £10 of available income-related benefit was being claimed and almost four out of every five people eligible do claim.
Sir Thomas Arnold : In what ways has the Benefits Agency responded to the impact of the recession? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the quality of information available to the public?
Mr. Burt : The Benefits Agency has indeed responded to the need for greater information about benefits. It is now responsible for a wide range of initiatives to increase awareness of entitlement. Exhibitions, talks, liaison with citizens advice bureaux, the operation of multi-lingual telephone freelines and participation in local radio phone-ins all provide information about benefits. We hope that the one-stop shopping initiative will increase the availability of information still further.
Mrs. Mahon : What does the Minister intend to do about the discrimination in income support against young people under the age of 25? Is he aware that young people in my constituency who live independently are left with about £36 a fortnight to live on and are reduced to going to the Salvation Army with chitties for food?
Mr. Burt : The majority of young people under 25 who are in receipt of benefit are living with other people, which is why they are on a lower rate than those aged over 25. A continual provision is made by the Government to consider young people in hardship. In particular, a special hardship claim has been increasingly used during the past couple of years because we have increasingly made information about it available.
Pension Age
6. Mr. Thurnham : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the equalisation of pension ages for males and females ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Hague : We have received more than 4,000 representations about the equalisation of state pension ages.
Mr. Thurnham : Is my hon. Friend aware that several other countries are moving towards a common retirement
Column 6
age of 66, or even 67? Does he agree that those people who want a common retirement age of 60 should face the fact that that would cost more than £4 billion? Should not the Opposition get off their backsides and go and see the reality of what is happening in, for instance, Sweden and Denmark?Mr. Hague : I am aware of the developments in the countries to which my hon. Friend refers. They are subject to many of the same demographic pressures as we are. In this country equalisation at 65 would mean that there would be 2.7 working people to every retired person in the year 2030, but equalisation at 60 would mean a similar support ratio of 1.8 working people to each retired person in that year. So there would be major implications for future expenditure if an age as low as 60 were to be chosen, but that is one of the available options. The Government will announce their decision in due course.
Dr. Godman : Is the Minister in a position to estimate the effects of equalisation of the payment of pensions to men and women on women aged 60 to 65 who are in receipt of invalidity benefit? Is it his Department's intention to continue with its appeal to the English Court of Appeal concerning Commissioner Skinner's decision to restore invalidity benefit to women aged 60 to 65? Will the Minister answer the question himself?
Mr. Hague : There has been no change in the Department's attitude on that question. Obviously, there are implications for expenditure between the ages of 60 to 65 when we come to consider the equalisation of state pension age, but there is no change in the Government's policy on that matter to announce now.
Unemployed People
8. Mrs. Bridget Prentice : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what amount is spent from his Department's budget on benefits for unemployed people.
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott) : The estimated cost of paying unemployment benefit, income support, housing benefit and social fund payments to the unemployed in the year ending March 1993 was £9.3 billion, representing 12.5 per cent. of total benefit expenditure.
Mrs. Prentice : Does the Minister agree that with 3 million people unemployed at a cost of £9,000 per person--some £27 billion a year--the best way that he and his team could serve the unemployed would be to argue their case forcefully with the Treasury and put the responsibility for unemployment fairly and squarely on the shoulders of those members of the Government responsible for the economic mess that we are in?
Mr. Scott : The level of unemployment since the end of the second world war has depended on a range of factors, including international conditions, demographic change, technological change-- [Interruption.] If the Opposition do not believe that, one of them should stand up and say why unemployment doubled during the period of office of the last Labour Government. A range of other factors affect unemployment. Against the background of some of those factors, we are determined to ensure that we reduce unemployment as quickly as possible. Over the past six months, we have been rather successful in doing so.
Column 7
Mr. John Marshall : Has my right hon. Friend estimated the cost of benefits to the unemployed if we were to introduce a national minimum wage or sign up to the social chapter? Would not both of those increase unemployment and spending on the unemployed?
Mr. Scott : My hon. Friend has drawn attention to two factors that would add to unemployment and increase the range of other factors that tend to increase rather than decrease unemployment at any particular point.
Ms Lynne : Does the Minister accept that more money will have to be found for unemployment benefit if so-called "absent fathers", assessed by the Child Support Agency, find that they cannot stay in work because maintenance payments are so high? Does he accept that the legislation will have to be looked at to ensure that fathers who are already paying are not penalised and that real absent fathers do not get away scot free?
Mr. Scott : My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will answer a question precisely on that issue in a moment. I am not anxious to increase the amount of money spent on meeting the needs of unemployed people, except in so far as it encourages them to accept and benefit from training, and to find their way back into work.
Low-income Families
9. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what extra help, over and above normal upratings, has been made available to help low-income families since 1987.
Mr. Burt : Since 1988, extra help has been made available to low- income families with children, worth around £1 billion a year from April 1993.
Mr. Evennett : I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and congratulate him and his Department on the extra resources for low-income families. They show the Government's commitment to the family. However, will my hon. Friend look carefully in the ongoing benefits review to ensure that the Government have targeted the most vulnerable and those with young children in real need? Does he agree that we must ensure that taxpayers' money is spent effectively and efficiently?
Mr. Burt : I am grateful to my hon. Friend's remarks and hope that I can reassure him that both the social security system and the Government's commitment are designed to target resources in the manner that he would like. In addition to the £1 billion for low-income families, which I mentioned a moment ago, we have also been able to direct an extra £1 billion towards pensioners since 1988 and, over the Government's lifetime, we have been able to orientate an extra £5 billion towards the disabled. We agree with the premises that my hon. Friend stated.
Mr. Raynsford : Does the Minister agree that the effect of the targeting that he has pursued has been to create extremely deep poverty traps for low-income households, particularly those in work, so that at present a low-income family getting help from family credit and housing benefit will lose 97p of every extra pound that it earns? When will the Government act to reverse those absurd poverty traps, which are an appalling disincentive for people in that position?
Column 8
Mr. Burt : The particular statistic that the hon. Gentleman quotes applies to a tiny minority of people. The reform of the social security system in 1988, and subsequent changes to the tax and national insurance systems, have virtually eliminated the worst effects of the poverty trap. It is now virtually impossible to be worse off as a result of an increase in gross earnings. The hon. Gentleman knows that he refers to a tiny number of people.
Pensioners
10. Mr. Hendry : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total value of extra help which has been directed to less well- off pensioners since 1989.
Mr. Hague : The total value of extra help given to pensioners on low incomes since 1989 is now around £1 billion a year.
Mr. Hendry : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for stating the large amount of resources that have been given to less well-off pensioners. Does he agree that the Government are right to target help to less well-off pensioners rather than spreading the money more thinly? Does he further agree that successive generations of pensioners are likely to be better off through their own resources? Is that not better than the weasel words of the Opposition, who say that they care about pensioners, but, at the same time, do all that they can to discourage people from taking out personal pensions?
Mr. Hague : My hon. Friend is right. The Government policy on pensions over the past three years has had three main strands : first, to maintain the value of the basic state pension ; secondly, to encourage increased provision from other sources ; thirdly, to use the additional resources made available to help those pensioners who have not shared in the increased provision of resources from elsewhere. That policy has had the effect of raising pensioners' average living standards over the period, and will produce greater benefits in future.
Mr. Winnick : Does the Minister realise the disgust that pensioners feel for the £1 increase in pension that they are to get next year? How will that miserable, miserly sum help those pensioners who will be faced with the imposition of VAT on gas and electricity, many of whom are unlikely to receive any compensation from the Government? Pensioners are being crucified by this Government. The Minister should recognise the disgust and loathing that the elderly feel towards him and his colleagues.
Mr. Hague : The hon. Gentleman anticipates the uprating statement. I wish that he and others of his hon. Friends understood that low inflation is the friend of pensioners and not their enemy. [Interruption.] Although interest rates are low at the moment, they are positive for those who have savings income. In the 1970s, the rate of inflation grew to be 14 per cent. higher than the level of interest rates available to pensioners. What sort of compensation was given by the then Labour Government to pensioners in that position?
Mr. Matthew Banks : Will my hon. Friend confirm that the average income that pensioners have received from savings since 1979 has more than doubled as a result of the policies pursued by the Government? Will he assure the
Column 9
House that, in the current review of social security benefits, he will do everything in his power to ensure that we continue to provide the most where the need is greatest?Mr. Hague : My hon. Friend is quite right : the average savings income of pensioners has more than doubled since 1979. He is also right about the importance of concentrating social security resources on the neediest, and that is what the Government have done.
Mr. Bradley : Is the Minister aware of the fear among pensioners about the forthcoming imposition of VAT on fuel? Will the Minister confirm today that the help that will be given to pensioners will be additional to the 1.8 per cent., or £1, rise in pensions? Will he further confirm that the help will be given to all pensioners in addition to the £1 a week? Will he ensure that the announcement about the uprating of those benefits is made on the same day as the Budget to allay pensioners' fears even further?
Mr. Hague : That question is the same as several that have already been asked and I must therefore give the same answer. The Government have already made it clear that less well-off pensioners will be given additional help ; the details of that help will be announced at the time of the uprating statement.
Mr. Knapman : Can my hon. Friend confirm that basic pensions were increased by 3.6 per cent. last April, when the inflation rate was 1.3 per cent? Does that mean that the average pensioner couple is £2 per week better off and does it mean that low inflation benefits pensioner couples?
Mr. Hague : My hon. Friend has illustrated very well the way in which falling inflation benefited pensioners over the last financial year ; their increase was based on the higher rate of inflation that prevailed at the time. The general point has been put very forcefully by my hon. Friend and by other hon. Members : low inflation helps pensioners. That is what Opposition Members still do not understand.
Family Poverty
11. Mr. Wicks : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the impact of child support legislation on family poverty.
Mr. Burt : The Child Support Act 1991 laid the foundation for a new system of child support maintenance in order to achieve more maintenance, more regularly, for more children. We expect the proportion of lone parents receiving maintenance nearly to double in the long run. Regular receipt of maintenance will mean that many parents with care no longer have to depend on income support and will have a real choice to work if they are able to do so, thus increasing the family's income.
Mr. Wicks : Does the Minister accept that the vast majority of lone mothers--and, most important, their children--will not benefit from child support by one extra penny? The 70 per cent. of lone mothers who receive income support will have every pound of child support deducted from their income support, pound for pound. Is not child support now turning into a piece of a taxation? Is not the Child Support Act, in practice, an Exchequer Support Act? Does not this mean-minded practice risk undermining the important principle of parental responsibility?
Column 10
Mr. Burt : The hon. Gentleman has spoken before about his support for the principles. I accept and am grateful for that : I think that he speaks for everyone.
This is the position relating to the increasing availability of maintenance. Improving a situation in which maintenance had been in decline, and giving more women the opportunity to receive a portable income, will improve those women's circumstances in the short, medium and long term. As their children become older, the regular payment of maintenance will be a major advantage to them when they seek choices. Even if some are floated off income support in the first place--which is always a possibility when income is increased--the regular availability of more maintenance will be a genuine advantage to them in the years to come. That is the purpose of increasing maintenance and the point of the principle behind the Child Support Act, which the whole House has supported.
Mr. Jenkin : I thank my hon. Friend for his clear enunciation of the purposes behind the Child Support Agency. It is not something for which we should apologise. Are not we right to try to prevent the state from undermining the responsibility of parents and promoting illegitimacy and irresponsibility? Is not it also true, however, that the system must not simply be fair, but must be seen to be fair? Is my hon. Friend entirely satisfied that it is as fair as it can possibly be? Are there mechanisms that we should review and will the Department consider reviewing and monitoring the way in which the legislation is operating?
Mr. Burt : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, any new piece of legislation must be kept under constant review when it is introduced ; that is being done with the Child Support Act, but no changes are contemplated at present.
I must state clearly that, contrary to some items in the press, the Child Support Agency is indeed chasing fathers who have not been paying, as well as examining cases in which those who have been paying maintenance have not necessarily been paying a realistic amount and in which separation agreements have been largely based on support by the taxpayer. It must be right for us to ask parents to assume responsibility for their children, rather than placing a burden on low-income taxpayers with families of their own. Parents must support their own children wherever possible : that is the principle behind the Child Support Act.
Mr. Dewar : The Minister will know that the Labour party has a strong belief that every parent must contribute to the maintenance of his or her child. Is not he concerned that the inflexibility of the financial system means that some highly relevant circumstances cannot be taken into account, for example, the cost of exercising access, or major property settlements made at the time of divorce or separation? Does not that--at interests of the Department to recoup expenses, is not it true that a vast number of children will get no benefit out of that? If we are interested in the children and if that is what the system is about, is not there a strong case that there should be a disregard and some way of giving an advantage from maintenance collected to those who need it most?
Column 11
Mr. Burt : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman's continued support for the principles and was pleased to see that this year the Labour party conference reversed its decision of last year to oppose the principles of the Child Support Act. In relation to the two particular points that he mentioned, I reiterate that the regular payment of maintenance for more children will be a long-term benefit for them even if, in the short term, some families are floated off benefit. It must be better that families are not dependent on benefits and that maintenance comes in as a regular source of income, which will increase the opportunities and choices to the family in the future.
As to the payment of maintenance to the child as a matter of priority, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the formula places the payment of maintenance to the child as the greatest item of priority after an individual absent parent has looked after his own housing costs, his own immediate physical needs and the needs of any natural children in a second family. We believe that it is right to maintain the priority of that payment to the child. Any concession on that principle runs the risk of once again making the payment of maintenance to the child a matter of discretion. That was one of the problems of the previous system which we were anxious to avoid.
Mr. Quentin Davies : Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the light of experience, it is almost inevitable that some fine tuning will be desirable when a major new agency such as the Child Support Agency is established? Therefore, will he take a detailed look at the rules and not hesitate to change them if he finds that in practice justice is not perfectly being done between the competing interests of the taxpayer, the first family and subsequent families?
Mr. Burt : I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. I shall repeat what I said previously. New legislation is looked after carefully and kept under review. We have no proposals to change the rules, but often the silent voice in the debate over the past few weeks has been that of mothers who previously had not been receiving adequate maintenance regularly. Many of the cases in the papers have shown what low sums of maintenance were previously paid and the need to provide increased maintenance that not only suits mothers with children but relieves the taxpayers who, in many cases, have been an unwitting party to separation agreements and have been asked to provide money that they can ill afford.
Pensions
13. Mr. Dickens : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department is planning to encourage personal choice in pensions.
Mr. Lilley : The Government are committed to encouraging wider choice in pension provision.
Mr. Dickens : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is a fact that, since 1988, when it was possible to contract out of the state earnings-related pension scheme, 5 million pensioners have chosen to contract out and have personal pensions? Does not that show and amplify the Government's commitment to personal choice and personal pension schemes and should not we encourage everybody to think more about their future and provide for their twilight years?
Column 12
Mr. Lilley : My hon. Friend is right. The measures that we took to widen choice for private pension provision have been extremely successful-- 5 million, or 10 times as many as were initially forecast, have taken out personal pensions following that measure. That is on top of the 10 million or more people who have occupational pensions. We want to build on that success and enable people to build up pension provision for retirement, to give them additional resources over and above those provided by the basic state pension.
Mr. Skinner : Is the Secretary of State aware that it is one thing for business executives who have had a 20 per cent. increase in their salaries in the past 13 months and for those who have had tax cuts during the past 14 years to be able to have a personal choice in pensions? But for the great majority of pensioners who will have to put up with a miserly £1 increase as a result of the measures taken by the Government, it will be a scandal. They have not got two ha'pennies to rub together, never mind talking about a personal pension scheme, while it cost £4,000 to bring the Secretary of State back from France to vote in the House of Commons.
| Next Section
| Home Page |