Previous SectionIndexHome Page


5.30 pm

Mrs. Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston): I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on being confirmed in your post yesterday.

Edgbaston has a long and, indeed, proud tradition of being represented by women. In 1953, Dame Edith Pitt became the first woman Member of Parliament for Edgbaston, a city that she described in her maiden speech as


She was succeeded in 1966 by Dame Jill Knight, who served the constituency loyally and well for more than 30 years. I am sure that many hon. Members remember her with great fondness. After 43 years of being represented by a woman, the people of Edgbaston, Harborne, Quinton and Bartley Green decided that they wished to continue being represented by a woman, but there was just one change--for the first time ever, it was to be a Labour woman.

In her maiden speech in 1966, Dame Jill Knight described Edgbaston as having


All that still holds true. The four city wards of Edgbaston, Harborne, Quinton and Bartley Green make up this diverse constituency, which, like my predecessor, I am proud to represent.

I entered politics when I became aware of what was happening to our pensioners. For so many of our older people, the past 18 years have been hard--3.5 million pensioners are on income support. Even those who thought that they had provided for their retirement found that they had been let down because some occupational pension schemes did not use their surpluses for the benefit of their members. Also, some workers lost out when their companies were taken over or went bankrupt. Some personal pensions were missold, and thousands of policy holders are still awaiting compensation. There has also been steady erosion in the value of the basic state pension.

It is important to acknowledge that pensioners are not a homogenous group, and one group of pensioners has suffered more than others--women. Even today, only one woman in five is in receipt of a basic state pension in her own right. Women who spent their working life working hard, either in low-paid and part-time jobs or--this is even worse--caring for their families or dependants, were

15 May 1997 : Column 206

not able to provide for their retirement. There were no occupational pension schemes for them. They had no way of paying into a personal pension scheme because their income was not high enough. Those who stayed at home fared worst. The system was simple: those who did not earn and did not pay tax could not pay into the system and take advantage of the various insurance policies and pension plans. In addition, married women thought that they were provided for in their old age through their husbands' pensions but, on divorce, they found themselves in dire straits.

Edgbaston has more than the national average of women over 55, so I am acutely aware of the problems that women face in retirement. My previous work in pension law also raised my awareness. Labour's plans for a stakeholder pension will return dignity and status to those who have worked all their life. They deserve a decent retirement and financial security with a proper pension.

The Government are committed to saving the basic state pension and to cutting VAT on heating, which will especially benefit those, like pensioners, on fixed incomes. They are committed to reducing national health service waiting lists and stopping the forced sale of care homes. I know that many of my constituents will benefit from these first steps taken by the Labour Government, but I remind hon. Members that we will all, sooner or later, be pensioners, and we will all find that the improvements will be relevant to us.

I shall do my level best to ensure that future generations of pensioners, and women in particular, will not be caught in a perpetual cycle of low wages during their working life and poverty in old age. As a newcomer to the House, I hope that my colleagues will support me.

5.35 pm

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): It is my pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Stuart). I hope that she will enjoy representing a Birmingham constituency. I cannot say that I am exactly from the Birmingham area because we in Lichfield consider ourselves to be very different from those in Birmingham.

I am especially pleased that the hon. Lady has come to the House because, along with the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), I am making a play for the co-chairmanship of the all-party German committee. I was telling him that her arrival would give me an opportunity mein Deutsch zu uben, or to practise my German. Perhaps the hon. Member for Edgbaston and I can get together outside the Chamber to discuss in German matters of mutual interest to our constituents in the west midlands. The hon. Lady will find that while there is sometimes argument in the Chamber, hon. Members co-operate outside. That is not a bad thing. It is a shame that television viewers sometimes do not understand that we co-operate.

The speech made by the hon. Member for Edgbaston was in marked contrast to what we have heard from Labour Front Benchers, who have offered a strange combination of cliches and wish lists--which we also heard during the general election campaign--but when they were questioned by Conservative Members about how these wish lists were to be paid for, there was no answer, only evasion.

15 May 1997 : Column 207

I welcome three particular measures announced in the Queen's Speech, and believe it is a shame that they were not introduced by a Conservative Government. The first is a freedom of information Bill. It is a great shame--[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There is far too much conversation on the Government Benches.

Mr. Fabricant: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I am disappointed that the freedom of information Bill has been relegated to the second or third year of a Labour Administration and in the form of a White Paper--perhaps it will never appear at all. I come from the libertarian right of the Conservative party and, as a libertarian, I think that freedom of information, which has worked perfectly well in the United States, ought to be allowed to work in the United Kingdom. I should have liked such a Bill to have been introduced in tandem with a privacy Bill, but I note that neither the Labour nor the Liberal party has girded its loins and suggested such a possibility. A freedom of information Bill might bring some gentle pressure to bear on the media to concentrate on things that are worth investigating, as opposed to those things that are not worth investigating but which do sell newspapers.

I have consistently said in the House that I support a ban on tobacco advertising. It is quite fallacious to maintain, as some in the House do, that a Conservative Government would not introduce such a ban--indeed, it is nonsense. We did introduce such a ban--in the two Broadcasting Bills brought to the House by Conservative Administrations. Both Bills contained provisions banning tobacco advertising on radio and television. We did that because tobacco advertising works. It encourages young and old people to smoke, when it is known that smoking is bad for people's health. It is therefore intellectual nonsense to claim that a Government who thought it wrong to advertise tobacco on radio and television would not also think it wrong to advertise tobacco on posters and in newspapers. This, therefore, is the second item of Labour legislation that I welcome.

The third item refers more to an action than to legislation. I support the appointment as Minister of State of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who will serve in the Department of the Secretary of State for Social Security, whom I see now sitting below the Gangway. The hon. Gentleman used to have an office adjoining mine; on a number of occasions I was able to repair his television set for him. I hope that the Secretary of State for Social Security will support him as much as I do in what he is trying to achieve.

There are also many items in the Queen's Speech that I do not support. Indeed, I do not support most of it. A great deal of it concerns presentation, not substance. We have heard about the Blair project and about social inclusion. Who can argue against that? What we argue about is how it can be achieved in practice. At the moment, the Government seem to be concentrating on relations with the media. The Foreign Secretary spent an inordinate amount of money putting on a media promotion to explain the mission of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office--instead of sending our missions

15 May 1997 : Column 208

overseas a document explaining that mission. An expensive video was put on in the Locarno room for the benefit of the media, not for our ambassadors and high commissioners overseas. Once again, the media seem to be the message.

I should like now to comment on some other aspects of the Queen's Speech. I am pleased that we can comment on them, after what we heard from the Leader of the House today. It would seem that anything that appeared in the Labour party manifesto is to be given to the nation, not the House, but by decree--


Next Section

IndexHome Page