| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are 30 minutes left before the winding-up speeches begin and three hon. Members hope to catch my eye. I hope they all will.
8.40 pm
Ms Judith Church (Dagenham): I shall take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We have heard a number of interesting speeches tonight, particularly from my right hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) and for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). When a matter has been addressed so well, I see no reason in the same debate to repeat points that have already been made.
I hope tonight to address the concerns of single parents in Britain, the vast majority of whom--nine out of 10-- are women. More than that, I want to address the problems of their children who will be the real victims of the measures announced by the Chancellor in his Budget. Many of my constituents are single parents and they are the scapegoats of a Budget that has made the pathway from unemployment into work more difficult.
As we all know, single parenthood takes many forms-- widowhood, the abandonment of women and their children, mothers bringing up their children when the father has failed to acknowledge his responsibility, women who have been separated or divorced who still maintain their children's contact with their father and women who are unable, for many reasons, to live with the father of their children.
Those parents all care for and love their children, but their lives are challenging and stressful. There are only so many hours in the day, but there are many domestic and caring tasks to undertake and complete. With the addition of paid employment, the burden becomes truly onerous. We all recognise that such a responsibility is better shared between two parents, but we must accept the reality that that is not possible for many people--a growing number in Britain.
I want to acknowledge the magnificent job which so many single parents do for their children. They deserve our praise and support and, more than that, financial recognition of the additional costs faced by lone parents in bringing up their children. Instead, all they get from the Chancellor in the Budget is a kick in the teeth. That in itself would be bad enough, but what is worse is that the Budget will hurt their children and it is the children
who are the most important people in our society. They deserve not just our affection and love but our protection and fair provision in the benefits system.
In his Budget statement, the Chancellor said that steps would be announced
I listened in disbelief as the Chancellor continued. He may have been too involved in delivering his speech to hear, but I actually said, "Not true", when he said:
The reason why that is not true was given in the Chamber the following day by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). He said that the Government had recognised the obvious truth that it is more costly for a single parent to bring up children than for a couple. He said:
The true additional costs of bringing up a child within a single-parent family are far too numerous to list now, but let me cover just a few. There are families with two economically active parents and families where only one parent is economically active and perhaps the wife stays at home to look after the children. In both those cases, the cost of child care is covered either by the additional income of the second earner or because the non-working mother cares for the children for free within the family unit.
The cost of child care is amazingly high. I am sure that Conservative Members will know that the cost of a nanny is well beyond what my constituents can afford. Even a registered child minder, recognised to be a good but cheaper form of child care, can cost £100 a week for 50 hours of care and another £60 or £70 for an additional child for the same number of hours. That is a tremendous amount of money. Conservative Members are out of touch if they do not recognise that a number of single parents who voted for them at the last general election are horrified at the steps being taken to freeze and reduce their benefits. After-school care of 15 hours a week for two children costs between £50 and £75 a week net.
In addition, there is the cost of babysitting. It is not a question of a single parent wanting to go out on the town at Ronnie Scott's or wherever it is that the Chancellor thinks single parents might want to go in the evening; it is a question of going to parents' evenings at a child's school--parental involvement in education, which the Government allege they want to encourage--or of going to self-improvement or evening classes so that a single mother can return to the work force or, if she is working, acquire additional qualifications so that she can progress up the ladder and provide a better standard of care for her children, which is what she is trying to do. It is clear that the additional costs are there. They were recognised 10 years ago, but suddenly in this Budget they have disappeared.
The effect of the Budget on children from lone-parent families will undoubtedly be quite dreadful. Account is not taken of children who are growing up in families without an income earner. Income support takes no account of birthday and Christmas presents, birthday parties, treats such as visits to the zoo and museums and other things that cost a good deal of money, as all of us who are parents recognise. The same applies to lone parents on low wages who receive family credit or who struggle to hold on to their jobs when their children are ill and they must stay at home.
A Budget such as this, which takes money away from lone parents, hurts children. It puts more pressure on people who, although they may be coping brilliantly now, are struggling to keep their heads above water. Conservative Members do not listen; they do not understand. They do not perceive the economic nonsense of the Government's proposals--for it is economic nonsense to block the pathway into work for those who want to work but cannot afford to, like my constituents, by freezing benefits.
Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley):
My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) made a comparison between the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), and the Reverend Moon. I suggest a somewhat less dramatic comparison between the current Leader of the Opposition and Harold Wilson in 1963-64. Both were new, youngish leaders; there had been a long spell of Conservative Government; both apparently offered change. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield is hitching a ride on the Internet bandwagon, which carries echoes of the way in which the then Leader of the Opposition, Harold Wilson, claimed to embrace the white heat of the technological revolution.
In the event, the Labour party was just able to squeak into government. We must ensure that that does not happen this time. As one would expect, however, that Labour Government were booted out after six years. As we know, whenever the British people have had a dose of socialism they have booted out the Labour Government at the next available opportunity.
The time since the last general election in 1992 has been a tough one for Conservative Back Benchers and Conservative activists. Effectively, we have had to do
things in which we do not really believe. For instance, we were in the exchange rate mechanism, and we had fixed exchange rates. We Conservatives believe--or we certainly should believe--in floating exchange rates; we believe in a free market in exchange rates. We have also had to increase taxes, which was very unpopular not only with the country but with our supporters.
A comparison with the Labour party can be made in that context as well. Under the current Leader of the Opposition, Labour is also doing things in which I do not think Labour Members truly believe--but they keep quiet about all that, because they are happy to put up with whatever the right hon. Member for Sedgefield says in his quest for No. 10 Downing street. Things would, of course, be different if he were successful in that endeavour.
The experience of the past three years demonstrates just how difficult it is to control public spending. In the early 1990s, the Conservative Government took their eye off the ball, and allowed public spending to increase beyond a sustainable level. We therefore had no choice but to increase taxes in order to keep the public sector borrowing requirement at a reasonable level. Labour spokesmen make commitment after commitment, day in, day out. They are for ever criticising the Government for not spending enough money. As we know, a recent survey found that four out of 10 speeches made in the House by Labour Members called for more public expenditure. In fact, every Labour Government have increased the basic, or standard, rate of income tax, with one exception.
Before the last general election, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) tabled an interesting question. Looking back into history, he asked about the rates of tax that had applied under various Governments. It was revealed that all Labour Governments, with the exception of the first--they came to power in 1924, and remained in power for only nine months; they did not have time to increase taxes--had left office with a higher standard or basic rate of tax than had obtained when they came to power. Now the Labour party says that if it were in government it would introduce a windfall tax on the utilities, which would pay for--so far--11 spending commitments made by a number of Opposition spokesmen. Those spending commitments are on-going, but the windfall tax would be a one-off. I think that Labour would find it impossible to square the circle, and to reconcile the desire for higher public expenditure with its express wish to keep taxes down.
I do not deny that I should have liked taxes to be reduced further in last week's Budget. There is a strong moral case for tax cuts under a party that believes that people should be allowed to keep more of the money that they earn. I believe that there is a strong economic case as well: consumer confidence is low, and a stimulus in the form of tax cuts would have increased economic activity, which in turn would have generated increased revenue. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor--I am pleased to see him in his place--was able to reduce taxes. The fact that he reduced them by £3 billion, as opposed to the £5 billion or so that I would have liked, leaves him with considerable room to reduce interest rates, and I hope that we shall see action on that front in the near future. Indeed, I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend will have
to act on that front if he wishes to meet the target of 3 per cent. growth that he has set for the economy next year.
When we say that we want taxes to come down, we are always asked where we would reduce public expenditure. That is a fair point. An aspect that causes me concern is the national lottery. I have never been a great supporter of the lottery: I saw it almost as state-sponsored gambling. I went along with it, however, on the ground that, in a single market, it was inevitable that other countries' lotteries would come into this country, and we--the British Exchequer--would lose out on considerable revenue. The national lottery has been an enormous success, generating some £4 billion to £5 billion turnover in its first year. Perhaps more tax should be raised from the lottery. At the moment the tax on the money raised is 12 per cent., but after the Budget pool betting duty will be 26.5 per cent.
Because of its effect on the economy as a whole--it is affecting economic patterns in a number of ways-- perhaps we should treat the national lottery in the same way as we treat the pools companies. I suggest increasing the tax on the lottery to the same as that levied on the pools companies. I also suggest using lottery money rather more flexibly. Most of the money for good causes has to be pumped into capital projects, but much more of it could be used to meet the running costs of charities for example.
I welcome the Budget's help for the elderly. The 20 per cent. tax on income from savings will help millions of pensioners who, on average, have higher levels of savings. The fact that the Chancellor has been able to introduce that change with no opposition as far as I can see demonstrates how we have improved the debate about taxation generally and tax on savings in particular. In the old days, such income was known as unearned income and the last Labour Government penalised those who received such income with an additional 15 per cent. tax. The reduction of the tax to 20 per cent. for most savers is good news, especially for pensioners who rely so much on income from savings. I welcome the fact that the benefits system is to be more friendly towards elderly people who have long-term savings to pay for care in their old age.
I am delighted that education will receive substantially more in the next financial year than it received this year. That is right, but there is a problem in that the resources are channelled through local education authorities. I urge all LEAs to ensure that the extra money that we have made available goes to schools.
The Conservative party is the only one that believes in low taxes and whose philosophy demands that individuals should be allowed to keep more of the money that they earn. It is the only party that believes in private enterprise and free markets. Since 1979, we have made substantial supply-side changes to the British economy across a range of areas. The economy is now in good shape and it is important to maintain the approach that ensures low inflation, a consistent economic policy and competitive corporate taxation. We must also continue deregulation. The best form of deregulation is not to introduce new regulations in the first place.
"to close the gap between single parents benefit and those paid to other families."
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) gave the impression that it is the families with a married man who are the good families, the real families, and that single-parent families are less good. The Chancellor went on to say:
"The right approach to single parents is neither to penalise them nor to favour them."
But he has actually shown a far right, extremist and uncaring approach to single parents which is far from what I consider to be the right approach.
"The costs and responsibilities of having children are the same for couples as they are for single people."--[Official Report, 28 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1060.]
"The 1985 Green Paper on the reform of social security argued that one-parent benefit should be continued
'as a contribution to the additional costs' . . . 'faced by lone parents in bringing up children alone'.
It approved the introduction of a lone-parent premium in order to recognise
'the extra pressures faced by lone parents.'
In 1985, the Government recognised that extra pressures and extra costs were faced by lone parents; now it would appear that they do not."--[Official Report, 29 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1216.]
What has changed in the past 10 years to alter the Government's policy so dramatically?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |