| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central): The House finds itself in genuine difficulty in discussing such an important and complex matter at such an hour, but I gently say to Conservative Members that, in those circumstances, we should pay regard, not simply to their strategies as a Government over 18 years, but to their tactics tonight, in the last nine and a half hours of debate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead(Mr. Field) pointed out that benefits can be replaced on the private market, but the sums of money required to buy substitutes are far in excess of the savings of most of the people whom Labour Members represent. They are far in excess of a lifetime of savings for a working family. That should make us cautious as we consider this matter, reminding us that the collective savings of working families, expressed through national insurance contributions, are a basic, inescapable building block of our social security system. They should not be chipped away.
I am disappointed by the Government's proposals. In short-term bereavement allowances, they have dealt with the problem of equality between men and women and come up with positive and imaginative solutions. Yet, in the proposals before us now, there are important gaps. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) rightly reminded us that people who return to the labour market in their 50s find it a toughand raw place. Good opportunities are scarce. The Government intend to make more opportunities and to
support people who take them, but they should recognise that men or women who have been full-time carers and who, between 45 and 55, find themselves back in the labour market after a bereavement require special support that goes beyond six months.
The Government should also recognise the link between these proposals and the Budget's proposals for an employment tax credit for the over-50s. Can the Ministers assure us that the short-term bereavement allowances introduced by the Bill, which are new, will be a qualifying benefit for access to an employment tax credit on return to the labour market, even though that credit, in its present form, is just a short-term support?
May I draw to the Government's attention the situation of women who have been on widowed mothers allowance? When their children cease to be dependent, they will find themselves with no support at all. The average age at which that occurs is 51. The position for those women is difficult and traumatic.
Mr. Rendel:
Has the hon. Gentleman considered the possibility that such a woman may no longer have a dependent child because the child may have died? That would be an even more traumatic circumstance in which to be left with nothing.
Mr. Cousins:
Clearly, if there were time, it would be possible to devise all sorts of circumstances that could heap upon the misery of those women. That is not my intention.
At termination of widowed mothers allowance, when children are no longer dependent, women require support. The Government's proposals lead to complete withdrawal of widows benefits and pensions. I urge the Government to think again. At a better time, in better circumstances and in a better mood, I hope that we may return to this matter and find better proposals.
Mr. Brady:
Despite the late hour, I am pleased to follow such powerful speeches in this important debate. I mention in particular the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who powerfully criticised the Government's proposals, saying that they undermine the contributory principle, attack those who are most vulnerable and remove one of the last vestiges of recognition of marriage in the tax and benefits system. I can think of no better way to crystallise everything that is wrong with the proposals in the Bill.
Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have received many letters from constituents who are concerned about these matters. What struck me most strongly was not merely the concern of those who have been widowed and are anxious that proper provision should be in place for others who may face a similar fate and circumstances. Sometimes, the most moving letters were from elderly husbands, to whom the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) referred. Frequently, they are much older than their wives and are of a generation who have felt a total responsibility to care and provide for their wives. Also, in many instances, they are men who are quite ill and who have written to me in some distress and anguish feeling that, because of the changes, they may not be making proper provision, and are letting down wives for whom they have cared for so many years and for whom they believe that they should continue to care.
All that I can tell them is that I believe that the contributory principle should be maintained. It is an important principle in the welfare system. In some ways, it is the most important, in that it contains an element of contract. People have paid in expectation of securing a benefit. In this instance, perhaps more than any other, they have paid in the expectation of securing a benefit not for themselves but for others who may be left in need of support in difficult circumstances later in their lives.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) welcomed sinners on the Opposition side of the House who repent. I was left wondering what was the appropriate phrase for the opposite situation. Hon. Members who have been in the House for longer than I have will remember that, when this matter was raised by the previous Government, the then Opposition spokesman responsible, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton(Mr. Meacher) said:
Mr. Hawkins:
My hon. Friend mentioned the anguish expressed by a number of husbands and the inconsistencies on the Labour side. Does he agree with one anguished husband who has written to me to draw attention to the fact that, once before, someone who professed to be Labour robbed pensioners--the late Robert Maxwell. Are not the Treasury Bench the spiritual inheritors of the mantle of Robert Maxwell?
Mr. Brady:
I thank my hon. Friend for that colourful illustration, but perhaps I should not be drawn on that at a late hour in a serious debate in which some Labour Members have made thoughtful contributions.
Mr. McWalter:
The hon. Gentleman talks about the contributory principle. Does he agree that clause 53(4) allows some people who have not made contributions to be treated as though they have? They have made contributions, but not of a financial nature. People who receive invalid care allowance who may not have a recent work record would be protected by that principle. Does he agree that extending contributory rights to those who have not been able to make them is valuable?
Mr. Brady:
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. However, the Government are extending not contributory rights but some rights to benefit. That may be reasonable, but it does not, by definition, involve a contributory right because no contribution has been made to secure it. The Bill would snatch away rights for which contributions have been paid. That is where the contributory principle is undermined. He may have a reasonable point, but it does nothing to lessen the abuse of taking away something that was paid for in good faith. People have a right to expect what they paid for, and those who have contributed on behalf of others over many years have a right to expect that it will be maintained.
Many people who are drawing to the end of their working lives face legislative changes that affect the benefits for which they have contributed and permanently affect the well-being of those for whom they care. However, there is no long run-in, no recognition that the measure should apply only to those who can make alternative provision. It will come into effect quickly, with no opportunity for people to make such provision. It will affect many people who cannot contemplate private provision. For them, this is the most appalling betrayal, because they have paid.
Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside):
In view of the hon. Gentleman's concern for the fundamental importance of the contributory principle, will he commit the Conservative Opposition to restoring it where they summarily removed it, such as with earnings-related unemployment pay and in the undermining of the state earnings-related pension scheme? That profoundly affected the individuals who suffered.
Mr. Brady:
Sadly, the hon. Lady cannot make me commit the Conservative party to anything. The critical factor is what her party and Government are doing. I think that she would do herself more credit if she were to take responsibility for her stance and that of her right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Front Bench. That is the issue on which she, and her right hon. and hon. Friends who are not safely tucked up in their beds at this hour, will be judged when the time comes. They must remember the pledges and unequivocal statements that they made in the past. They should look to those and try for some record of consistency and principle.
"I want to make it absolutely clear that the Opposition unequivocally reject the revised proposals on SERPS".--[Official Report, 28 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 834.]
At that point, the then Opposition were unequivocal on the matter. It was a principle that had to be defended. Far from being sinners who repent, they were virtuous believers in a principle that was important to them. Apparently, they now feel that it is appropriate to sin.
1.15 am
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |