| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Malcolm Wicks (Croydon, North): I have listened with care to speeches from both sides of the House and have heard many hon. Members talk about the inadequacy of the six-month period, given the nature of bereavement. Given the weight of argument, would the Minister at least agree to reconsider the period?
Mr. Timms: No. This is a question of balance. Having considered the matter carefully, we think that we have struck the right balance.
Mrs. Fyfe: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Timms: No, I need to make some progress. [Hon. Members: "Give way."] I shall be pleased to give way to my hon. Friend later in my speech.
The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said that we were moving away from the principles of the Beveridge system. I took the opportunity to look back at what William Beveridge said about widows benefits in 1942. He rejected universal cover for all widows regardless of need. It is important to recognise what the Beveridge principle was in this respect. The report said, although it is in terms that I would not use:
Miss McIntosh:
My point was a more serious one. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that one has to move with the times. I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who said that the Government are trying to score a cheap feminist point. I particularly want the Minister to answer this question: what about the expectations of husbands who have contributed for a substantial number of years and whose contributions will be worth nothing when, as has been put on the record this evening, the savings will be so minimal that the Government will not help the category of people whom the Minister says that he wants to help?
Mr. Timms:
The hon. Lady may well want to put that question to those who were on the Front Bench when the Conservative party was in government and to ask them why they made the huge changes that they did to the contributory benefit system during their 18 years in office. I wanted to raise that matter myself.
Mrs. Fyfe:
I happen to agree with Beveridge. Speaking as a widow, I do not believe that widows should be kept by the state for life, but I object to the six-month period. Will my hon. Friend expand on what made him and his colleagues arrive at six months? I do not believe that most middle-aged women could get into work or training in that space of time.
Mr. Timms:
The judgment is a balance. We want a reasonable breathing space to allow people to adjust to their new circumstances and then move on. That is what the six-month period will do.
Those who are aged 55 or over at the start of the new arrangements and who are widowed in the first five years after the changes are implemented will be able to claim income-related help without signing on for work--my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) asked about that. Particular help will be available transitionally, and there will be a special premium in the income-related benefits to help ensure that people's income remains at the level of the six-month bereavement allowance.
It would not be right to assume that younger widows and widowers, many of whom will already have regular employment, should settle into a lifetime of dependency. We have a firm commitment to help men and women to be financially independent, both during their working life and in retirement. We are putting policies in place to achieve that.
Mr. Cousins:
I want to clear up this important point. The Minister rightly drew attention to the introduction of the employment credit system for the over-50s. Is he telling the House that short-term bereavement allowance will not be a qualifying trigger for access to it?
Mr. Timms:
That is correct. People would need to spend a further sixth months on one of the other benefits to qualify for the new deal for the over-50s. A spin-off benefit of what we propose is to ensure that people can be put in touch with this support at the earliest stage, in six months rather than delaying longer.
Mr. Ruffley:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Timms:
I will not because I must make some headway.
Our reforms will refocus expenditure where and when it is most needed: on immediate needs, children and families. We are concentrating help on the immediate period of bereavement and, where necessary, providing carefully focused help to those most in need thereafter.
Several Opposition Members suggested that changing the rules for contributory benefits is a breach of promise. They spent 18 years doing that. We will take no lectures or crocodile tears from them on that front. A seriesof Conservative Members, including a Front-Bench spokesman, apologised in Committee and tonight for the record of their Government. I will be interested to hear whether the shadow Secretary of State will echo them.
Mr. Letwin:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Quentin Davies:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Timms:
No, I need to conclude.
Our measures modernise bereavement benefits. It is right that the benefit system should reflect changes in our society. I understand the attraction of the argument that we should leave things as they are, and that some people believe that it is in the interests of those who depend on the benefit system to do so. It is not. If we hand out benefit to people who plainly do not need it, we undermine the system. It saps confidence in the national insurance system that underpins it and, in the long run, those who depend on the system are the losers. That is why modernisation is so important for those of us who believe in the system and in the potential of publicly delivered welfare to improve people's circumstances in a decent, dignified manner.
Things do not stand still. It does no favours to those who depend on the benefit system to behave as though nothing has changed. If we are spending benefit cash to
meet yesterday's needs instead of today's, we are weakening the system and damaging the interests of those who need support. The capacity of the system to meet need will always be constrained. To insist on continuing to meet yesterday's needs means only that we will be unable to meet today's, let alone tomorrow's. There are big new demands that the system needs to address. We must ensure that the capacity to address them is in place without making unrealistic demands for new resources. That is what we are doing.
Fifty years ago, one in eight married women worked; today it is seven out of 10. The benefit system needs to reflect that change. Some 47 per cent.--almost half--of widows receive income from an occupational pension; 50 years ago, it would have been unusual. That change has consequences for the benefit system that it must reflect.
Audrey Wise (Preston):
Will the Minister give way?
"There is no reason why a childless widow should get a pension for life, if she is able to work, she should work. On the other hand, provision much better than at present should be made for those who, because they have to care for children, cannot work for gain or cannot work regularly."
It is important to remind the House of that because, from the comments of the hon. Member for Vale of York and some of the other comments made in the debate, one could easily get the impression that these things were fixed in tablets of stone years ago by our forefathers and cannot possibly ever be changed. That is not the case. The truth is that we need continuously to review the way in which the system works and reflect in it the changes that have occurred. In that way, we can ensure that the system meets current needs and does so effectively. We will have
a stronger benefit system as a result. Simply refusing to change things--saying that we cannot change anything, as a number of people have said tonight--would mean that the system would not meet the new needs that it must address.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |