| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): Does my hon. Friend concede that one of the greatest problems facing Britain today is the vast gap between the rich and the poor and the fact that, according to OECD figures, it is the fastest growing gap between rich and poor in any
industrialised country? Does he agree, therefore, that what we need is increased Government income from a higher rate of taxation for the very richest within our society?
Mr. McAllion: That is a fair point, and I was about to come to that.
Nobody would suggest that taxation should be increased for the vast majority. It has already been increased to penal levels by the Government. What about the small minority who have grown fat on the tax cuts of the 1980s? The richest tenth of the population have seen their real incomes increased by 61 per cent. through the 1980s and into the 1990s. Under a fair and progressive tax system, would it not be right for those people to start to pay out more of the wealth that they were given for nothing during those years? Would it not be right for the redistribution from the poor to the rich that occurred under the Tory Government to be reversed under a Labour Government through the medium of the welfare state?
I am being told that I should finish, so I do not have time to outline the other ways that could be used to fund the needs of the welfare state. There are other--[Interruption.] If the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People wants to speak to me afterwards, I will be happy to give him further details. However, he should not get too near me. For once, I have realised the value of the red line on the Floor of the Chamber that keeps me apart from Tory Members. Some of the comments that I have heard from Tory Members today have been so incendiary that it is lucky that they were a good distance away from me.
The intellectual climate in which these debates are held is important. One of the things that we are often told is unrealisable today is what is known as equality of outcomes. It is no longer meant to be practical to argue that in this society we can afford equality of outcomes for everybody or that we should all get the same share of the country's wealth. We are told that there should be equality of opportunity, which allows for inequality of outcomes. That is the Government's argument, but I cannot agree with it.
I am from Scotland, and one of my heroes is Jimmy Maxton, the red Clydesider, who was one of the greatest Members that the House ever had. Throughout his career, he wanted to see a welfare state established in this country. At the end of his career, he was asked, "What does socialism mean to you?" He said:
Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay):
I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his determination to see that the £90 billion that we
I remind the Opposition that charity begins not only at home, but in the home. It is the Government's duty to foster the citizen's responsibility for looking after his own family. That includes elderly relatives, many of whom are cared for and loved by their families and are not left to languish and depend on the state. It also includes responsibility for children as they grow up and when they leave school and start looking for work.
When I left school, I did not expect the state to support me. I regarded it as my duty--so did my parents--to find work. In those days--which were not all that long ago--young people expected to take jobs on modest wages which enabled them to contribute towards the family budget. We should be nurturing such a society, not one that allows able-bodied people to languish on welfare, contributing nothing to the general budget of the country.
There are far too many examples of that. The Opposition may call it the poverty trap; in my opinion, welfare is too generous in allowing people to remain in what is technically defined as poverty. One of the most sensible remarks that I have ever heard was by the Chief Rabbi, who said that poverty should be a vale of tears through which people pass, not a land in which they dwell. The Opposition seem to wallow in the idea that people dwell in poverty. They treat it as if it were their constituency.
Mr. Corbyn:
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Gorman:
No. I do not have sufficient time.
The Opposition always back up their remarks with extreme examples of hard cases and then suggest that we should make laws accordingly.
In my constituency, I meet young people living in subsidised accommodation provided by the state. I have met hairdressers who do not want to work because they get only £50 a week and have to rely on tips, and young men who trained as chefs but gave up work because they did not want to work unsocial hours and they could live on the welfare state. Such behaviour is wrong, and we have to wipe it out.
In particular, we have to deal with fraud. In one minute flat, I want to mention three examples that I hope my hon. Friend will address. First, more than one case of fraud involving birth certificates has been brought to my attention. People working in the welfare system identify children who die soon after birth, but have been registered. They obtain copies of their birth certificates and, 15, 16 or 18 years later, use those certificates fraudulently to obtain benefits for themselves. They are defrauding the system of millions of pounds.
Secondly, people are fraudulently claiming carers' allowances. Their elderly relatives are being cared for in institutions, but they continue to claim carers' allowances. Thirdly, there is housing benefit fraud, which has been addressed on a number of occasions.
Mr. Keith Bradley (Manchester, Withington):
It has become almost customary to say that we have had a wide-ranging and interesting debate, but for once it is absolutely true. Speeches from hon. Members revealed the stark difference between the views of the Conservative party and the Labour party. The public will understand those views at the general election, when they will be faced with the choice between defending the future of positive welfare state and supporting the way in which the Tory party continues to dismantle and privatise it.
In reminding ourselves of the purpose of the debate, we make no apology for recognising the strand of thought that has flowed from the No Turning Back group, the Adam Smith Institute and other organisations with which the Secretary of State has some sympathy to the Treasury document entitled "Strategic Considerations for the Treasury". Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers have tried to rubbish the contents of that document by attacking an individual civil servant rather than properly addressing the issues in that report.
It is interesting that tonight Conservative Members have reinforced rather than allayed the fears that the document recognised. It is clear that the Government plan to tackle the economic decline identified in the report by the wholesale privatisation of the welfare state, affecting state pensions, insurance benefits, unemployment benefits and much more. In a nutshell, it is about dismantling and privatising the welfare state.
We do not need to go into further detail about, for example, "The Fortune Account" proposed by the Adam Smith Institute. As the document stated, it is not a welfare entitlement but merely a savings account. The benefit that it confers reflects the contributions that have been made; it is not a Government promise of a defined benefit. That demonstrates the Government's thinking on these matters.
"Socialism means nothing to me if it does not mean that as I have a house to live in, you also have a house to live in; that as I have food to eat, you also have food to eat; that as I have education, recreation and leisure, you also have education, recreation and leisure."
Jimmy Maxton had never heard the phrase "equality of outcomes", but that is what he was talking about. That is what the welfare state is about. Nobody in this society should be denied the benefits that come from the wealth that is generated. It should be shared as fairly and equally as possible. We want to see a welfare state that begins to put right the wrongs that have been done over the past 17 years. That will not happen unless there is a change of Government and, thank God, there will be a change of Government soon.
6.18 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |