House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 May 1999 (pt 54)

Mr. Pickles: We know now that when a Minister is in trouble he puts his head down, sticks to his brief, and ignores everything around him, including arguments and reasons. The Minister's speech was a disappointing end to a fine debate which has included some interesting and intelligent contributions. I am sorry that the Government seem to be so obdurate when so many Labour Back-Bench Members and Opposition Members are doing their best to dig them out of a hole. The debate has continued for more than three hours, and it is remarkable that there have been only two loyal interventions from Labour Members. With the notable exception of the Minister, not one speech has been made in support of the Government's proposals.

Mr. Rendel: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most disappointing features of the Minister's response to the debate was when he was challenged on six months? He was asked to say what evidence he had to support his suggestion that six months was the right period. Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that not one of the organisations that deals with widows has said anything other than that six months is far too short a time? I know that he has several letters similar to those that I have received.

Mr. Pickles: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have not come across anyone, with the exception of those who occupy the Treasury Front Bench, who thinks that six months is acceptable. I have considerable time for the Minister, but I am unhappy about the way he responded to the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks). The hon. Gentleman made a reasonable suggestion. He said,

17 May 1999 : Column 812

"Maybe we should have a think about this. Perhaps we should pull back from this. Perhaps we should consider a figure other than six months." The Minister just said no and moved on. That is insulting to a senior Member of this place.

Mr. Letwin: The Minister is laughing.

Mr. Pickles: I am sorry that he is laughing.

It is also insulting to the House that we have not had the continued presence of the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman has been in his place for exactly five minutes. If he was able to break off from the pensions debate last week systematically to tell Lobby journalists how he would crush the rebels, he should have the decency to be here in front of the rebels to tell them how he will crush them.

There have been some notable contributions from both sides of the House. Some were very amusing but mostly they have been sombre. That reflects the fact that what we are about to do is shameful. I think that I heard the Minister say--he was going at such a gallop that I cannot be sure--that people on contributory benefits were part of dependency.

Mr. Letwin: Yes.

Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend agrees with me. If that is what the Minister said, and his civil servants do not try to erase it or paint it out in Hansard, it is the clearest indication that we could get that he does not understand the contributory principle and the basis of someone paying into a national insurance scheme so that, if times are bad, he can take out what he has been paid in.

Mr. Letwin: If my hon. Friend thinks that he may have misheard the Minister, does he agree that the Minister went on to say that we should not--I think that I quote almost ipsissima verba--hand out benefits to those who do not need them. That is undermining the entire contributory principle and announcing that means testing will be the sole basis of the whole system.

Mr. Pickles: I regret that that is the only way in which the Minister's comments can be construed. I hoped that it was a slip of the tongue. If it was not, the Government are in deep trouble.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend also recall that in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) the Minister failed to confirm that support for the Government's proposals had been forthcoming from the Minister for Women, or even that that Minister for Women had been consulted? He merely gave a blithe, bland and meaningless reassurance that Government policies commanded the support of all Ministers, including the Minister for Women. He failed to answer the specific question whether the Minister for Women was consulted directly, yes or no.

Mr. Pickles: That is true, but, in fairness to the Minister, perhaps he cannot remember who the Minister for Women is. Who can blame him?

The Government are in a terrible hole. They will have to rethink the measure. It will not get through another place in its present form. We are conscious that votes give

17 May 1999 : Column 813

people mandates, and that the decisions of this place affect the other place. We want to give the Government a chance to rethink. We do not want to paint them into a corner. It would be easy to kick them about now, as they seem to have lost the support of every thinking hon. Member on their Benches.

We believe that the Government should be given one last chance to rethink. I am firmly convinced that another place will send the measure back for our further consideration. In order to enable the Government to climb down, as they must do in the interests of justice, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Age additions

'For section 79 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act there shall be substituted--

"79.--(1) A person who is above the specified age and who is entitled to a retirement pension of any category shall be entitled to an increase of the pension, to be known as 'age addition'.
(2) Where a person is in receipt of a pension or allowance payable by the Secretary of State by virtue of any enactment or instrument (whether passed or made before or after this Act) and--
(a) he is above the specified age; and
(b) he fulfils such other conditions as may be prescribed,
he shall be entitled to an increase of that pension or allowance, also known as age addition.
(3) In this section 'specified age' means an age specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(4) Age addition shall be payable for the life of the person entitled, at weekly rates to be determined by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(5) Regulations under this section may--
(a) specify one or more specified ages at which age addition shall be payable;
(b) provide for different rates of age addition to be payable for persons of different specified ages.".'.--[Mr. Webb.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Webb: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 2 gives the Secretary of State additional powers. After the debate that we have just had, many Labour Members may feel that giving the Secretary of State additional powers is the last thing that they want to do. The new clause allows the Secretary of State to do something that the Minister told us the social security system needs to do--not to leave policies set in stone for decades, but to reflect the changing patterns of a modern society.

The new clause, which is supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends and, I am pleased to say, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), calls on the Government to take an extra power. That power would enable them to pay age additions to the basic state pension not just at the age of 80, which is currently written into primary legislation, but at such ages and at such rates as the Government saw fit. The Secretary of State could decide to pay age additions at 75, 80 and 85. He could decide to pay age additions not at the current, rather insulting, 25p, but at whatever rate he saw fit. The new

17 May 1999 : Column 814

clause gives the Secretary of State new powers, but takes away none that he currently possesses. For that reason, I am sure the Government will welcome it with open arms.

New clause 2 is the thinking person's new clause. As evidence, I shall quote from a pamphlet from the Social Market Foundation produced in 1993. It is called, "The Age of Entitlement", and states:

"There is a tendency for older pensioners to be the poorer ones. . . older pensioners tend to get left behind as living standards enjoyed by the rest of the population increase. After a decade or more of retirement the gap in incomes can become significant."

The pamphlet continues:

"These arguments constitute the case for a higher rate of pension payable to the over-80s. There is indeed a hint of this in our current pension arrangements, with a 25p pension increase payable on reaching the age of 80. This is a laughable attempt at implementing a sensible policy."

Those are wise words, written--as the Minister suspects--not by me, but by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), the Conservative spokesman on education and employment matters, who is regarded by his friends, I gather, as Two Brains. If it is good enough for him, I hope that his hon. Friends in the Conservative party will see fit to support the new clause.

The policy is supported not only by the leading thinker in the Conservative party. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead, who repeatedly denies being asked to think the unthinkable, but says that he was called upon to think the doable and the workable, has lent his support to the motion, and was cited recently in the Financial Times publicly giving his backing to the idea of tiering the basic state pension to give additional support to older pensioners.