| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Points of Order
3.35 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday's Sunday Express reported that the Government have covert plans to withdraw from the Falklands. The Prime Minister said that
- "no withdrawal should occur until after the next general election".
Madam Speaker: That seems to be a statement rather than a point of order to me, so it requires no response.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the wanton destruction of United Nations vehicles, the injury to NATO troops and reports over the weekend of mounting and desperate ethnic violence in Mitrovica, coupled with reports of the unsatisfactory situation of our own British soldiers in the cold of Kosovo, has there been any request to make a statement--either by Defence or Foreign Office Ministers--on what is becoming a dire situation?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that such a statement is about to be made, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that Foreign Office questions are not far away, and that he will use his ingenuity to ask a question to that effect.
NEW MEMBER
The following Member made the Affirmation required by law, first in Welsh and then in English:
Simon Thomas Esq., for Ceredigion.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
What does that mean?
Madam Speaker:
Order. If the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) had been patient enough, he would have heard the hon. Member for Ceredigion explain himself a moment later.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
The right hon. Gentleman should apologise.
Madam Speaker:
Order. Let us cool down; that is quite unnecessary. We have business to do.
Social Security
3.39 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move,
- That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
- That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
If the Liberals vote against the order, they will be voting not only against increases in child benefit, but against the additional help that we are giving pensioners, particularly older and poorer pensioners. As well as raising the state pension to £67.50, we are increasing the minimum income guarantee for pensioners in line with earnings. Taken with the winter fuel payments, the changes to value-added tax and the introduction of free television licences, that increase will mean that the oldest and poorest pensioners will have gained £500 a year--nearly £10 a week--as a result of steps that we have taken. All that, we understand, is to be opposed by the Liberal party.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock):
Will the order remedy the anomaly whereby--I believe--460,000 expatriate pensioners currently do not enjoy the uprating, while 390,000 do? It is not a blanket embargo; it is a case of "some do, some do not". We are the only country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that has been treating pensioners in that way. Will the order remedy the unfairness? If not, why not?
Mr. Darling:
The order will not change the position. If we spent money uprating the pensions of people living abroad, that money could not be spent on people in this country.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Darling:
I will give way to as many hon. Members as I can, but let me finish this point first.
Over the lifetime of this Parliament, the Government will spend £5 billion on pensioners. I expect to show in today's debate that the money will be well spent and well targeted: it will tackle pensioner poverty, which is one of the many scandals that we inherited from the Conservative party. Let me say to the Liberals, as I said at Question Time, that not only do I fail to understand how on earth they can justify voting against the uprating of all benefits, but I fail to understand how on earth they can justify voting against what is in their own manifesto. Their manifesto stated that they would increase pensions in line with prices, and that they would introduce extra earnings-related help for the poorest pensioners, which is precisely what we propose.
No one should be in any doubt that the Liberals--who intend to vote against the orders--would, if successful, stop not just pension increases but increases for children, and all the other benefits that go to some of the poorest people in the country. It may be merely a gesture; perhaps people should be thankful that there do not appear to be enough Liberals present to make much of a difference. I believe, however, that any serious political party ought to be serious about its intentions, and should not vote against the Government unless it really wants to carry the day--which, in this instance, would deny many people benefits.
Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon):
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Webb:
To save the right hon. Gentleman the trouble of misrepresenting us for the rest of the afternoon, let me assure him that, should his party be defeated in the Division, we, through the usual channels, will make time available at the earliest opportunity for the orders to be brought back to the House, amended only in respect of the 75p rise and the capital limits. We will then give them plain passage, and the business can be completed by the end of the week.
Mr. Darling:
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has a sense of humour, which we all appreciate. I shall continue to represent accurately what is in the Liberal party manifesto, to which I think we should all attach significant weight. Presumably, the hon. Gentleman would not have stood as a Liberal party candidate if he did not intend to support his party's manifesto--or so one might have thought.
Let us examine what the hon. Gentleman has done during the time that he has been the Liberals' pensions spokesman. Last year, he came up with a policy to pay more to those aged 80 and over. Part of that policy--in addition to the policy for scrapping the state earnings- related pension scheme, which would completely disrupt the pensions industry--he has repeated, saying that the basic pension would continue to be uprated in line with prices. What has happened between publication of the manifesto, the hon. Gentleman's last public policy utterance, and today's debate, seems to me opportunism at its worst.
Mr. Webb:
Will the right hon. Gentleman be staying to hear the answer?
Mr. Darling:
I shall certainly be staying, and I shall see what happens to the Liberal Democrats' policy.
Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside):
My right hon. Friend made very welcome references to child benefit, and
Mr. Darling:
The short answer is no, I cannot. I would never attempt to explain the Liberal Democrats' mindset. Moreover, I have always understood that one of the great virtues of the Liberal Democrat party was that it did not have a collective mindset--which is why it has been able to come up with so many policy contortions at the same time.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |