| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.7 pm
Mr. Chris Pond (Gravesham): I am puzzled, having heard the comments of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), about where the Liberal Democrats stand on social security issues. We have heard not only that they will vote against all the upratings, but that they will subsequently and generously co-operate with business managers to reintroduce all the bits of the motions of which they approve. It is a bit like saying that they will
run over the school crossing patrol, but will be the first to pick up and dust off the lollipop lady and call for an ambulance. That does not seem to be a terribly responsible approach to really rather serious issues. It also seems to be an example--as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) said--of playing politics with the living standards of people who are often in very serious straits.
Before this debate, at Social Security Question Time, we had a discussion on progress towards meeting the Government's target of halving child poverty within 10 years and eliminating it within 20 years. We should recognise the significance of the establishment of that target--no previous Government have even acknowledged the existence of poverty in such a manner. Indeed, Secretaries of State in the previous Government told us that poverty did not exist at all. They turned a blind eye not only to those individuals' plight, but to their very existence. The previous Government refused to accept responsibility for tackling the problem.
As the House well knows, during the Thatcher and Major years, a consequence of turning a blind eye to poverty was that the number of people living in poverty increased from 5 million to 14 million. One quarter of the population were living in poverty. Opposition spokesmen would undoubtedly deny those figures. Indeed--I am saying this slowly, just in case the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) wishes to deny it--when the Government were elected, 14 million of our citizens were living in poverty and 4 million of those citizens were children.
The Government have set themselves the challenge of dealing with that problem. I assume that Conservative Members' approach to the issue of poverty has changed and that they accept the figures that I have given. However, I shall give way willingly if the hon. Member for Havant wishes to intervene.
Mr. Willetts:
I am sorry, but by increasingly caricaturing the Conservatives' view, the hon. Gentleman has driven me to intervene. The figures that he cites are from the households below average income statistics, which, as he knows, are a relative measure of poverty and were rightly described by a Minister in the Government whom he supports as one picture of many that can be taken of poverty--one snapshot at one moment in time. If people care about poverty, they will want to look at a variety of indicators. That particular one is a dangerous basis for policy. I do not believe that even his Ministers want to use such a basis.
Mr. Pond:
That was the intervention that I was expecting and, indeed, hoping for--the hon. Gentleman ducks behind the suggestion that the measures are wrong and that we need to take a range of different measures before we can address the issues. The fact is that, whatever the measure chosen, the party that he represented refused to accept that poverty existed. If we take a consistent measure, whichever it is, from the huge range from which we could choose, it will be clear that poverty increased dramatically.
We know that it is not only the poor who suffered through that process. Poverty is not only socially divisive but economically wasteful: it destroys people's ability to use their energies and talents for the common good.
That is why the Government's target of halving child poverty in 10 years and eliminating it in 20 is significant not only as a social policy objective but as an economic policy objective.
That is why I welcome the proposed upratings, especially the focus on help to families with children and to the poorest pensioners. The ability of the Secretary of State and his team to pursue that target with any great success simply through benefit upratings has to be limited, however. The upratings can make a real contribution towards that target but will not in themselves enable us to reach the target.
If spending extra on social security were a means of eliminating or reducing poverty, the Conservative party when in government would have had rather more success than it did, although that was not one of its objectives. We know that spending on social security increased dramatically under previous Governments, but that the number of people in poverty trebled under the Thatcher and Major Administrations. That is why we need to consider the discussions on benefit upratings in the context of the other Government policies to tackle poverty: most important, the creation of jobs--800,000 new jobs have been created since the Government took office--the impact of the new deal, especially on lone parents, people with disabilities, the younger and the long-term unemployed; and the national minimum wage.
We heard last week that the Conservative party now supports the national minimum wage. For those of us who served on the Standing Committee that considered the National Minimum Wage Bill--which made parliamentary history, I understand, sitting for the longest period ever--and who listened to the Conservative party filibuster and try to kill the national minimum wage, hearing the shadow Chancellor tell us that it was all right now and that the Conservative party would keep it was pleasing in one sense--especially for the 2 million who had the threat hanging over them that, if there were a change of government, they would lose the wage--but irritating in another.
We are hoping for an announcement--perhaps we will get it during the debate--that a similar U-turn has taken place on the working families tax credit and the child tax credit because the many people who depend on that--1,700 of them in my constituency--the families who are, on average, £24 a week better off, are suffering uncertainty about whether, if there were ever to be a change of government, that help would be removed, too. We need to view the debate in the context of the wider tax and national insurance contribution changes and the provision of affordable child care.
One important element of the debate concerns capital limits. The hon. Member for Northavon argued that what may be most important about the limits is not the limits themselves, but the assumed income from the capital. I was pleased to receive a fairly positive response from my right hon. Friend the Minister--who did not give much away--and I know that the Government are looking at that matter seriously, as the assumed income is the most dangerous element.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York):
One thing that is emerging this evening is that the Secretary of State clearly is not living up to his name--he is not the darling of the pensioners. I wish to express my personal and deep regret at the derisory increase of 75p per week for pensioners, for the reasons given by many hon. Members today.
I am delighted that at least one successful amendment was passed during the debates on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill--to abolish the dreaded 75-year rule on annuities for people who take out a stakeholder pension. I invite the Government this evening to extend that exemption to all pensioners: it would give tremendous satisfaction to many of my constituents if the Government would rule out the 75-year age limit once and for all.
Mr. Rooker:
I will take advice if what I am about to say is wrong, but it is my understanding that what the hon. Lady has said is quite wrong. The amendment was passed in the Lords, but was reversed in this House.
Miss McIntosh:
Am I right in understanding that the Government remain unsympathetic to abolishing the rule that all pensioners must take out annuities at 75, regardless of whether they are taking out a stakeholder pension or whether they are existing pensioners?
Mr. Rooker:
The hon. Lady heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier. The Inland Revenue is leading a review of the issue, to which the Department has input. However, the hon. Lady stated as a matter of fact that the Bill contained an amendment which the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 does not contain.
Miss McIntosh:
I stand corrected, but at least we managed to get the proposal into the Bill. We will have to try harder next time round.
The Government must accept that, as long as the rule remains in place, the income of 75-year-olds will be reduced from the level for which they had planned. Surely that runs counter to what the Government have said today. The Secretary of State has said that the Government wish to encourage people to save. That alone would provide conclusive evidence that the 75-year rule on annuities should be abolished, as it is hampering people who are planning for their retirement.
On the vexed question of winter fuel payments, the Minister of State--in answer to me on 10 January--said categorically that
"everyone who is ordinarily resident in Great Britain and aged over 60 is eligible"--[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 12.]
and that that applied whether they worked or not. Some of my constituents find it embarrassing to apply, because officials discourage them from applying until the notice has been sent out, and there is unnecessary bureaucracy.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |