---

Sir Peter Emery: I do indeed, and I apologise. It must be the hour. Nobody in the House believes that the Bill should pass unamended: new clause 1 would be of great benefit to everybody in the country and it deserves support.

Mr. Swayne: My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) is right to draw attention to what will happen when the letters arrive. Earlier in the debate, several hon. Members mentioned the letters that they had received. I have received no letters, but I believe that the public have yet to cotton on to what is happening. Those letters will come and many Labour Members will find answering them very disagreeable.

I found some two hours ago that Ministers were at their weakest when responding to our criticisms of Government new clause 15. However, one of their arguments resonated with me, although it was treated somewhat dustily by many of my colleagues. Perhaps I am more gullible. I was persuaded by the Ministers' argument about their motive. They said that it was their perception that some people were escaping their obligations and not paying the level of national insurance contribution that they should be paying. The Ministers' estimates were probably incorrect, but the motive behind them had some resonance for me. However, in the context of these provisions, the incentive to pay up and make proper contributions is undermined by the way that we will all be treated in the future.

I entirely understand those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have dwelt on the plight of widows--often movingly--and of elderly men who recognise their frailty and are concerned about how their wives will manage after they have gone. However, the Government's proposal should concern everyone, and not only widows and elderly men. It is a question for all of us, because we will all be short-changed by this measure. Our legitimate expectations will be undermined.

The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) made a telling contribution when he intervened in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). Indeed, my hon. Friend gave a dusty response to the important point made by the hon. Gentleman when he drew attention to the importance of imputing to people contributions that they could not otherwise make because we approved of the activities that they were undertaking. That is a good and responsible measure, but I am tempted to ask to what end we would do that now. What is the point of imputing contributions when we are set on abolishing the contributory principle? That will be the effect of this measure. We will move away from the contributory principle to means testing.

It has been said before, but it bears repetition, that the previous Government greatly extended means testing. As a policy, it was not a success. It certainly failed to achieve its principal purpose of restraining the rise in the social

17 May 1999 : Column 806

security bill. However, one of the most depressing features of life since 1 May 1997 is the inability of the Labour party to learn from that experience.

2.15 am

I urge the Government to recognise the problems that we faced and the problems that they now face. Astonishingly, as the debate has proceeded, I have heard three Labour Members sort of shuffle away from the debate, saying, "We might not press our amendments tonight, we might not sort this out tonight, but we hope that these matters will be properly addressed in the other place". After the debates in recent months about the nature of the other place, Labour Members would do well to press their amendments tonight if they have any honour and honesty.

Mr. Timms: In Committee, we had a very serious debate on this part of the Bill; on the whole, we have done so again tonight. In Committee, we debated several permutations for extending bereavement allowance. I shall tell the House the reasoning behind the reforms that we propose, and explain why we believe that we are doing the right thing.

First, the widows benefit system that we inherited was hugely out of date. Thousands of people are unfairly excluded from the benefit each year, simply because of their gender. Conservative Members have said remarkably little about that tonight, but I suppose that that is not surprising.

We are modernising the system by extending benefits to bereaved men for the first time, giving widowed fathers the support that they need through the new widowed parents allowance--support to which they have never previously had access. That is a huge step forward. Let me emphasise for the benefit of some Conservative Members that the widowed parents allowance is a wholly contributory benefit. It is an extension of the contributory benefit system to people who have never had access to it before. It is an extension, not a reduction, of the contributory benefit principle.

Secondly, and equally old-fashioned, the current system is based on the assumption that wives are wholly dependent on their husbands. That has not been the case for a considerable time.

Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman says that this is an extension of the contributory principle. Will he confirm that, because women accumulate a smaller amount of national insurance contributions, it will not create equality because the level of allowance that a widower will receive as a result of his wife's contributions will be less than a widow will receive as a result of her husband's contributions?

Mr. Timms: No. Through the widowed parents allowance we are greatly extending the contributory benefit system to many people who have not had access to it before. The hon. Gentleman's argument is misleading because women's contribution records are very rapidly catching up with those of men.

Mr. Pickles: One cannot use phrases like "are very rapidly catching up" in this context. The fact is that women's contribution records are considerably behind.

17 May 1999 : Column 807

In future they are bound to catch up, given time, but now and for the next few years they will be less than the equivalent of male contributions, and therefore widowers will receive a lesser pension than widows will. It is common sense.

Mr. Timms: The amount of contributions will not affect the level of allowance that widowers receive, but it will determine whether people are entitled to receive that allowance.

In Beveridge's time, when the current system was designed, only one in eight married women worked. Today, seven out of 10 do--a proportion almost as great as the proportion of men who work. As a result, women's national insurance contribution records are catching up.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Has my hon. Friend discussed the proposal to curtail widows benefits with the Minister for Women? I understood that it was Government policy to involve issues concerning women's disadvantage in the mainstream of Government policy. Even when women are working full-time, they earn far less than men, and the disparity is greater the older they are. Given those facts, are the proposals not discriminatory against women?

Mr. Timms: I can reassure my hon. Friend that our proposal has the full agreement and assent of every member of the Government, including the Minister for Women. National insurance contributions records for women are catching up with those of men.

The third flaw in the system is that it pays money to people who have substantial provision of their own, while simultaneously failing to provide adequate support for those who need help most. It does not distinguish between those who need continuing help and those who do not. Those who earn decent wages or who have substantial occupational pensions or life insurance see the greatest benefit from the system as it stands. The least-well-off widows receive the least. Some 35,000 widows see no gain from their widows benefit because they have to have it topped up in income support. Widowers receive no help at all.

Mr. Rendel: The Minister says that he does not like the present system because it does not give more help to the poorest. Am I correct to say that if he cuts widows pensions for everyone, that will not give more help to those who are poorest?

Mr. Timms: I do not entirely follow the hon. Gentleman's logic. I shall come to his amendment in a moment.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Timms: No, I need to make some headway.

I have outlined the background to the problems that we inherited in the present system. We are introducing reforms that will bring the system up to date, delivering support to those who need it. No one on the Opposition Benches mentioned the fact that we are doubling the lump sum benefit paid on bereavement from £1,000 to £2,000.

Mr. Pickles: I mentioned it.

Mr. Timms: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I am grateful to him for informing the House of something that none of his hon. Friends mentioned.

17 May 1999 : Column 808

We want to provide help with the immediate costs that face people following bereavement. We are ensuring that the system helps the least-well-off widows and widowers with children and on income support. They will be entitled to an additional premium of £10 a week through a new disregard of the widowed parents allowance instead of having their benefit deducted pound for pound. We are also providing long-term, non-means-tested contributory support for bereaved mothers and fathers with dependent children through the widowed parents allowance. That is equivalent in value to the current widowed mothers allowance.

I ask the House to support Government amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 65, which correct a minor drafting error in clause 48 to make sure that widowed mothers and fathers receive the full pension that they are entitled to at retirement age. As well as providing continuing help for those who most need it, we recognise that people need breathing space to come to terms with the emotional and practical upheaval caused by the loss of their spouse. We have rightly heard a good deal about that, and we propose that the new bereavement allowance should offer financial support to widows and widowers aged over 45 and without dependent children for the six months following bereavement. I suggest that that is a reasonable period of adjustment.

---