| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove): I commiserate with the Secretary of State on having only one new announcement to make at the Dispatch Box today. Clearly, his statement that pensions will rise only by a measly 75p this year is very unpopular with Labour Back Bench Members.
I welcome the Chancellor's announcement of free television licences for pensioners over 75, as will Sir Denis and Lady Thatcher, who will be beneficiaries of the proposals. However, I remind the Secretary of State of what my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said about the Government's figure for the rise in pensions. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of a rise of 1.3 per cent., but does he accept that the true rise, as my hon. Friend said, will be of only 1.1 per cent., and that £90 million will have been taken out of the mouths of pensioners?
Mr. Darling:
Talking of Lady Thatcher--which we sometimes do--I seem to remember that she was head of a Government who, some years ago, took concessionary television licences away from an awful lot of pensioners. I suspect that those pensioners will remember that. They will not be consoled by the fact that there are now two
However, the hon. Lady will have to have a word with the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). At the Tory party conference, he pledged that a Tory Government would slash social security spending. [Interruption.] No wonder she is pointing at him. Her welcome for the steps that we are taking, and his policy pledges, are totally inconsistent.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
How does the Secretary of State justify the fact that, by the year 2001, an estimated 300,000 taxpayers, including 90,000 sole earners, will have to pay a marginal tax rate of 46 per cent. because of the tapering of the new child care element of the working families tax credit? Is the right hon. Gentleman proud that he intends to plunder the pockets of the people in that way?
Mr. Darling:
I am very proud of the fact that this Labour Government introduced the working families tax credit. What is more, I am proud too that the Government reduced the marginal rates of tax effectively being paid by people who, when they went into work, found themselves worse off because of the Tory benefit rules.
I shall also be very happy to go into the next election pointing out that Conservative Members have pledged to get rid of the working families tax credit. That will mean a huge tax increase for the many people who have gained under this Labour Government.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset):
I welcome the announcement of free television licences for pensioners aged 75 and over, although I should be happy to explain sometime to the Secretary of State how licences could be done away with for every age group.
I congratulate the Secretary of State too on the way in which he very carefully did not say that every pensioner household would get the minimum income guarantee, as the House was told last year. Will he say how many million pensioner households on lower incomes will not get that guarantee, and whether he intends to raise the capital limits? Also, will he say how it can be fair that a 64-year-old man who spends £8,000 on a car before he retires will get the extra increase and the minimum guarantee, whereas the guy who saves his money will not? Surely that is not equitable among pensioners.
Mr. Darling:
The Tory edifice is crumbling. The hon. Gentleman is the third Tory in a row to oppose the Conservative Front-Bench line on spending. He wants even more free television licences. He cannot have it both ways. The Conservative party opposes our public expenditure plans--those plans that are introducing the minimum income guarantee, free television licences, winter fuel payments and all the other help that is going to pensioners. For the avoidance of doubt, the minimum income guarantee goes to those pensioners who qualify for it. That is as plain as a pikestaff--even he should be able to see that.
At the end of the day, Opposition Members have to face up to the fact that for 18 years they did nothing for the poorest pensioners, who lost out as a result. It is this Government who are helping the poorest pensioners through the minimum income guarantee, winter fuel payments and free television licences. Britain's poorest and oldest pensioners will be £500 a year better off as a result of this Labour Government.
Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar):
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), the right hon. Gentleman said that he was particularly proud of giving additional money to young disabled people. Is that pride tinged with a little shame that the money to pay for that is being taken away from older disabled people on slightly above the minimum income?
Mr. Darling:
No, it is not. While Tory Back Benchers are willing to welcome free television licences for the over-75s, we have had not one word about it from those on the Front Bench. We can take it that the reason that Front-Bench Conservatives are saying nothing is that that is something else that would be cut under any future Conservative Government.
As for disability, I repeat that we are giving more money to the young severely disabled. We are giving nearly £40 a week more to three and four-year-olds who have difficulty in moving. In addition, we are spending more on the disabled person's tax credit, on the disability income guarantee, and on providing pensions for disabled people with broken work records and for carers, all of which is opposed by the Tory party, which shows yet again that the Tories' opposition to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill is opportunism pure and simple.
The Government have an excellent record. We are helping people who are disabled, helping pensioners, helping people get back into work and tackling poverty--something that the Tory party never did and never would do.
Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For many Back Benchers, particularly those who are relatively new to the House, once a statement is read it is important to be able to peruse a copy in detail. When I went to the Vote Office straight after the Chancellor's statement, it was not available. I was told that it would not be until it appeared in Hansard tomorrow morning. Do you not feel that that is unacceptable? Something that is read into the record of the proceedings of the House should immediately be available for us to interpret.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Making statements available is a matter for Ministers. Therefore, I hope that they will note what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House has been seriously misled this afternoon--inadvertently, I am sure--by the Chancellor, who said that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor was opposed to the £40 billion more for health and education. I was sitting by my right hon. Friend and I heard him say the precise reverse. Indeed, we have done so on many occasions. We are in favour of and agree with the additional £40 billion for health and education and it is a travesty to say anything else.
Will you give the House some indication that you would be minded to allow the Chancellor to make a personal statement later today if he wishes to set the record straight, as I am sure he will as a man of good faith, once he recognises the serious mistake that he has made?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Those are matters for debate.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
No, they are not.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will give me credit for knowing something about the rules of the House. He will learn. The point raised is a matter for debate. The words of the Chancellor are no responsibility of the Chair. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) may have helped to put the matter right.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to take more of the House's time, but you will know that in the main business there is an allocation of time motion that excludes consideration of amendments tabled by Opposition Members. It allows amendments to be put only by Ministers of the Crown. Have you considered that point? Has such a limit on debate been imposed by a guillotine motion before? Can it possibly be within the rules of the House to stop Opposition amendments being considered in a debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
That is not an uncommon practice when the guillotine comes down.
Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North):
I beg to move,
It is becoming ever more apparent that science and technology play an important, central role in determining political decisions and will do so in future. We heard the phrase "Science is on our side" in the beef debate, and it has been said that good science will take the debate on genetically modified organisms--or indeed on cannabis, cancer treatments or other matters of public concern--forward. Such phrases are part and parcel of life in this House and of our way of life in general. They bounce around the airwaves and are often on people's lips.
It is important for the politics of the environment that we take science and technology seriously. In September 1999, a dramatic rise in global land temperature raised the prospect of typhoons and environmental problems that must be taken seriously in our political decision making. Even health changes in human populations may be affected by such rises. Scientific assessments and information can inform, but not pre-empt, political decision making.
Science and technology plays, and will continue to play, a major role in the so-called enterprise culture. I believe that it underpins the whole issue. Without a solid scientific base, it will fail. Such a base has been maintained over the years in the United Kingdom and can certainly be correlated with wealth creation. However, it has been delivered amateurishly in the periods of boom and bust. There have been more busts than booms in scientific and technological advance. Only if that base is sustained and allowed to grow, will we be able to play a competitive role in the world and create a viable economy.
I am grateful to the Royal Society of Chemistry for its support. The Bill would establish a national science strategy, spearheaded by a strategy council to monitor sustainable funding, which would increase in real terms over 10 years. It would consult relevant scientific organisations, advise the Secretary of State and ensure that there is a national programme for research and development in science, technology, engineering and medicine. The body should report to Parliament and could address the problems of education and training across the whole system.
Among the problems that the council could consider are the training of science graduates and postgraduates, the medical school curriculum--which desperately needs reform--continuing education and science in our primary and secondary schools. A holistic approach to science and technology is essential if we are to produce a work force capable of thriving in a high-tech world. It would replace the reactive mechanisms that we employ in government now that seek solutions for each problem as it comes along.
We would do well to remember that public support for science and the investment required in it is a function of how well we can explain to the public why science is
important in the contributions that it makes to economic development and to improving the quality of our lives. It is vital for the whole scientific community to begin to communicate effectively to the public the value and applicability of their research.
In the words of Harold Varmus, the director of the United States National Institute of Health, we must concentrate on
As we move into a world of e-commerce, the intensification of information technology and the human genome project with its potential to revolutionise medicine, the call for a focused strategy, a sustainable resource flow and the doubling of the science budget becomes deafening. The Bill recognises the explosion in science and technology and seeks to address its importance by creating a structure for a national science strategy to take us into the next century and deliver the benefits in a co-ordinated manner that the public can understand.
5.48 pm
5.51 pm
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the establishment of a national science strategy; to create a National Science Strategy Council to monitor levels of funding, to consult scientific organisations and to advise the Secretary of State; and for connected purposes.
I hate to get in the way of a good argument across the Floor.
"the destinations of science, the answers, the miracles, the cures",
and not get bogged down in talking too deeply about the journey itself. If we are to maximise the benefits that we get from the exciting scientific developments taking place today, scientists will have to talk about the destinations and benefits of science. Varmus represents in the United States what I think that we need in this country: a voice for the long-term benefits in science and medicine, achieved by investing heavily in basic science.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |