| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have provided a 100 per cent. winter fuel payment for all pensioners next year. The Conservative Government intended to increase VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent., whereas this Government have reduced it to 5 per cent.
Mr. Davies: I am afraid to say that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Those payments are means tested. [Hon. Members: "No."] That is what I am complaining about.
Mr. Bayley: It is a universal payment--£100 to every pensioner household in the land.
3 am
Mr. Davies: I accept that, but £100 is pretty pathetic compensation for what the Government are doing.
It at least represents a brave attempt, and a welcome departure, that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and the hon. Member for Northavon should try to do something for a category of pensioners for which nothing, or virtually nothing, has been done by this Government.
There is a second aspect to the proposal, which I must say we strongly support. We think that it is on much better lines than those on which the Government have been working. When the economy permits it--when we can afford it nationally--it would be far better to try to do something to reinforce the national insurance system by rewarding contributions made out of people's incomes over many years, to make it clear that there is a reality in the national insurance system: that people who contribute are not just throwing their money away. It is not just a form of tax; it is and genuinely remains a social insurance system, rather than simply reserving any money that is available for an expansion of means-tested benefits.
The Government have a fatal obsession with means testing. Never but never, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do I believe that anyone in this country would suppose that one of the great negative achievements of this Government--I do not offer any positive achievements--would be, having come to power in 1997, to extend means testing to bring about the biggest expansion of it since the 1930s, and as a result to reverse so much of the good work that has been done by all parties to build up our national insurance system over the generations.
Given those aspects--the desire to see what can be done for a category of our fellow citizens who have been shamefully neglected, and the intention to do that by strengthening the national insurance system--we think that those who tabled the new clause are on the right lines. In due time, we shall present our own proposals, which--I can tell the House this now--will be a good deal closer to the principles enshrined in the proposal than the policies of the so-called new Labour Government.
Mr. Garnier:
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) for presenting our proposals so clearly. I agreed with much of what he said. I am happy to have understood that, before long, those on the Conservative Front Bench will produce proposals that will come close to the proposals in new clause 2. There is much in new clause 2 that I think Conservatives can recommend, although I disagree profoundly with other parts of it.
I received quite a lot of criticism in the last Parliament when I suggested to a number of my constituents in the local press that the 25p increase for pensioners over 80 was an insult, and a misuse of public money. I believed that because the 25p accumulated across the cohort of pensioners over 80 could have been better spent on the poorest pensioners over that age. Some pensioners over 80 might not need the extra 25p, and the agglomerated 25ps could be directed better to help others.
New clause 2 suggests that it is impossible to assess the cost, as no figures are included. That point was anticipated by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who asked the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) what the age ranges and price ranges--if I may use that expression--were. I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's explanation. It appears from what he was saying and from the illustrations that he provided that the proposals would be cheaper and better directed than the Government's present proposals, with their so-called £100 gift.
That is one of the reasons why I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford will persuade hon. Members to be encouraged by the new clause. We want better-targeted spending and the best use of public money in the funding of provision for our elderly citizens. I am greatly encouraged by his remarks. I am particularly encouraged that at least someone is doing some thinking about what to do with the pension arrangements.
Where I part company with those who support new clause 2 is in relation to its creation of unspecified new powers for the Minister, or Secretary of State. Subsection (2) refers to someone being above a specified age. I ask myself what the specified age is, and I am told by subsection (3) that it is
It is a pity that, increasingly, primary legislation is no more than a Christmas tree, or a collection of coat hangers--I think that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) will remember the phrase from the Committee stage of the Access to Justice Bill, which was recently completed--by which the Government give themselves the ability to create secondary legislation by handing powers to members of the Executive. Here we have another example. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will not allow themselves to be persuaded by the present Government that that is a good way in which to make legislation.
The first concern arises when we deal with specified age. The second is to be found in subsection (2)(b), which says that someone above the specified age has to fulfil
It may be that the hon. Member for Northavon has, in the back of his head, a fully worked out scheme and that it is only because of lack of time, or shortage of paper that he has been unable to inform the House, either on paper or orally, what the other conditions might be and how they may be prescribed.
Mr. Webb:
May I briefly explain? The new clause mirrors the existing measure; the figure "80" is written into primary legislation. The first part of the new clause refers to the state retirement pension. The second vaguer bit relates to any other benefit where an age addition might be added. All that is beneficial to the claimant because he or she does not receive that addition at present.
The power that the hon. and learned Gentleman is worried about the Secretary of State exercising would be to introduce additions that do not currently exist: more age additions and other benefits. That is why it is vaguely drafted. The Secretary of State could not exercise those additional powers malignly, save possibly by abolishing the 25p age addition; that is the worst that he could do under the new clause. Otherwise, it would be entirely beneficial.
Mr. Garnier:
I fully accept the sincerity and motives behind new clause 2. However, that does not stop me making the point that drafting legislation in such a manner is to be deprecated. I have a constitutional abhorrence of such legislation--which was passed increasingly by the previous Government, and is being passed increasingly by the current one. We should be aware of, and check, the practice.
I hope, however, that my criticisms of the way in which the new clause is drafted will not prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, and others who take an interest in the matter, from making proposals that are worthy of consideration.
Subsection 4 of the new clause states:
I fully accept that the Bill would be very fat--fatter than it is already--if all its rules and regulations were included in primary legislation. However, it would be of assistance to the House--as it would have been to the Standing Committee when it considered similar matters--if draft rules had been available for consideration alongside the new clause.
In response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, the hon. Member for Northavon was able to produce some additional information that, on another day, mighthave been available in written form. Sometimes, the Government produce explanatory notes, giving the public some idea of their intentions. In the case of this new
clause, however, we have been left with nothing but what is stated on the amendment paper. I do not expect the hon. Member for Northavon to bob up every time that I make a criticism, but am simply stating, for the benefit of the House, my concerns about the way in which the legislation is being made. I urge the House to consider very carefully any other new clauses, or any Government proposals, that are so drafted.
Subsection (5) of the new clause states:
Subsection (5)(b) goes on to say that the regulations may
"an age specified by the Secretary of State in regulations."
I am not sure that I would trust such a Government with any further powers. I am inimical to any proposals that create unspecified secondary powers through primary legislation. As I have said, I do not necessarily disagree with the thrust of the new clause, but I do not like the way in which the proposal is delivered into legislation.
"such other conditions as may be prescribed".
There is a double vagueness. The conditions are not specified, and there may be some prescription, about which we know nothing. I do not believe that we have heard anything about that from the hon. Member for Northavon.
"Age additions shall be payable for the life of the person entitled, at weekly rates to be determined by the Secretary of State in regulations."
Although I do not have to repeat the points that I am making, that is another example of vagueness. It is not sensible to deal with such a matter in that particular way.
"Regulations under this section may--
The hon. Member for Northavon has very helpfully provided us with some idea of what he had in mind there.
(a) specify one or more specified ages at which age addition shall be payable".
"provide for different rates of age addition to be payable for persons of different specified ages."
I again applaud the hon. Member for Northavon for responding with some detail--in anticipation of my point--to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green on that provision.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |