| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bradley: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. He is right about the number of telegrams that are sent out. As a new Minister, I was surprised to learn that there is a dedicated official for that task because of the number of telegrams to be sent. My hon. Friend has raised important points, which our pensions review and our review of long-term care for elderly people must take into account. It is crucial that elderly people do not live in abject poverty.
Mr. David Rendel (Newbury): Will the Minister confirm that hidden in half a sentence of his statement was a comment that made it clear that the thresholds at which employers pay national insurance will be frozen in cash terms? That means that he is introducing a real-terms increase in business taxes.
Mr. Bradley: May I clarify that? No employer will pay more on existing payrolls as a result of the freezing of the bands.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that unemployed people whom I often see are unemployed not because they want to be but because of genuine disability or age--people who are in their 40s and 50s have been made redundant
and cannot find work? They want to find employment. Despite what the Government have said, there will continue to be much difficulty for such people. They should not be penalised by any cuts in social security payments. That would be wrong.
Like my hon. Friends, I welcome what the Government have done for pensioners in the past six months--actions which the Tories would not dream of taking, such as the action on fuel payments. There is more to be done, as my hon. Friend has said. Far too many pensioners are living in dire poverty, and among them are a good number of war veterans. We should do justice to those people, and as soon as possible.
Mr. Bradley:
I am well aware of my hon. Friend's continuing and effective championing of the plight of pensioners. I recognise that and pay tribute to him for it. Our pensions review will take into account the matters that he has raised; it is essential that it does.
Clearly, there are barriers to work. Part of the pilot scheme that we are setting up--especially the £195 million of new deal money to help people with disabilities--will look at those barriers so that we can effectively address them. As my hon. Friend rightly said, many such people want to work, to recognise their capacities rather than their incapacities. We have to learn from the pilot experience to ensure that the new deal is effective for all people who want to move from benefit dependency into work.
Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East):
My hon. Friend rightly recognised the growing gap between poor and rich pensioners. Does he also recognise that the present generation of pensioners bequeathed to our generation a national health service and a welfare state from which all of us have benefited? Does he further recognise that, for the poorest among them, it is now too late to take out a second-tier or stakeholder pension? At the very least, we owe it to them to restore the link between pension increases and average earnings, which was so callously broken by the Conservative party in 1981.
Mr. Bradley:
Clearly, we recognise the plight of pensioners who have not been able to make proper second-tier provision. That is why we are looking closely at those who are not claiming their income-related benefit--income support--to ensure that they at least come up to the minimum level. The pensions review recognises the plight of the poorest pensioners. I assure the House that representatives on that review will not let the Government forget it. Through that review, we will explore how we can most effectively help those poorest pensioners.
Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead):
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. Will he reflect on his rather anodyne words about the Child Support Agency, which is a vital component of social security? It would be more appropriate to describe its operations with alarm, especially as the resources that it is allocated for the detection and pursuit of people who evade its operations seem to be very low. Does my hon. Friend think that the agency should be deemed not the Child Support Agency
Mr. Bradley:
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As I mentioned in the statement, we recognise the importance of payment of child maintenance. It is not acceptable for the money not to go to the parent who cares for children. It is an essential element of such parents' income and they need to know that it will be reliably and efficiently received. That is why we are undertaking a fundamental review of the CSA. We hope to bring forward proposals on the matter in the first half of next year.
Mr. Burns:
Will the Minister please tell the House categorically whether the Government have any plans at all in the new deal for lone parents to bring in compulsion, as there is compulsion in welfare to work for young people? Yes or no?
Mr. Bradley:
The Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that compulsion is not the issue. We shall continue to work to help lone parents to get into work. That is what they want and that is what we shall continue to do.
5.14 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate an important matter that requires specific and urgent consideration, namely,
- the blockading of Welsh ports by farmers at Holyhead and Fishguard, and threats that the illegal action will spread.
The wilful dumping of 40 tonnes of beefburgers on Sunday night in Holyhead harbour was disgraceful, as were the skirmishes with the police. The blockading of lorries at Holyhead and Fishguard cannot be allowed, and the turning back to Rosslare of six lorries carrying £600,000-worth of beef and lamb flies in the face of free trade.
The Government need to address this urgent issue quickly. Enough damage has already been done. As the actions of French lorry drivers demonstrated recently, compensation claims will follow--as happened with British lorry drivers who saw their livelihoods being damaged. The Government must act to ensure that all ports remain open at all times. They must not allow the issue to deteriorate.
The economic issues about which the farmers are rightly angry must be addressed, but not as a reaction to illegal actions and midnight ultimatums. The disruption must stop. The Government must look separately, and without duress through threats from anyone, at the crisis facing farmers, especially beef farmers and those in less-favoured areas.
It has been estimated that farmers' incomes this year will drop by between 37 and 50 per cent. One commentator has described the industry as bleeding to death. Prices are sharply down on 12 months ago, and, even in the past seven days, prices have fallen dramatically--in some dairy herds they are lower than they were 17 years ago--from 89p per kilogram to 50p per kilogram. Farmers are selling some of their meat at a loss.
Interest rate rises by the Government have strengthened the pound, so we are sucking in imports at the expense of domestic produce, which is hitting our farmers. The Government could seek more compensation from the European Union, but they refuse to do so. They could use some of the rebate from the ewe premium underspend, but they refuse to do so. They could reinstate the hill livestock compensatory allowance--extra payments that the Conservative Government made to the tune of £60 million last year--but they refuse to do so.
The Secretary of State for Wales should be fighting his corner against the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He either refuses to do so or has failed--whichever it is, it is dismal. Instead of concentrating on the siting of his beloved Welsh Assembly, he should concentrate on the urgent plight of his farmers.
Farmers' unions have condemned the illegal actions, but, at the same time, they want urgent talks with the Government. They want the crisis in farming to be addressed. They need help and support, and they need it now. The president of the National Farmers Union said--
Madam Speaker:
Order. I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member has said. Of course, I must give my decision without giving any reason. I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24. I cannot therefore submit the application to the House.
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Was it in order for the Paymaster General to make a statement today on the replacement of the whole regime for saving, replacing the highly successful tax-exempt special savings accounts--TESSAs--and personal equity plans--PEPs--and to choose to do so outside the House? Is it perhaps possible that he is avoiding the Chamber so that he does not have to take questions on other matters which may embarrass him?
5.17 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |