Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
My first regret about the debate is the failure of the Conservatives to acknowledge, let alone apologise for, the devastation they inflicted on families and
communities during their appalling 18 years in government. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed), I make no apology for striking a discordant note in response to the Conservative efforts to present their compassionate face. I was a local councillor. I worked in the third sector throughout the 1980s and the early 1990s and, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman)who made a brilliant contributionI saw at first hand the devastating effect of mass unemployment and cuts to public services, which put intolerable pressure on vulnerable families, children, young people and pensioners. I for one will never let the Conservatives duck their responsibility for the poverty, homelessness, mortgage misery, divorce and crime increases. Whole communities were abandoned when they were in power. Groups such as lone parents were stigmatised and scapegoated by the Tories, so I agree with my right hon. Friend that for them now to try to shed their reputation as the nasty party and claim to be the party that will deliver social justice is a little hard to swallow.
What might have helped the Conservatives case would have been some recognition in their document of the enormous progress in economic and social justice that the Labour Government have brought about since 1997. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) says that he wants consensus on the way forward, but he deliberatelyalmost perverselyrefuses to name, let alone, applaud, the huge improvements of the past 10 years under Labour. Six hundred thousand children have been lifted out of poverty. Unemployment has gone down dramatically and 2.5 million more people are in work, including many more women. Pensioners have not been mentioned in the debate, but 2 million of them no longer live below the poverty line. The number of children living in workless households has dropped. Teenage pregnancies are at their lowest level for 20 years. There are record levels of investment in education, increasing the educational achievement of young people not only in schools but in apprenticeships, which have trebled to 250,000 a year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland talked about action, not words. He probably does not know that the motto of Corby borough council in my constituency is, Deeds not Words. The Tories voting record in opposition, let alone their past in government, tells us all about the sincerity of their commitment. They voted against tax credits, the new deal and the minimum wage. However, it is good to see Members such as the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) breaking ranks with his Front Bench. He called for more public spending, clearly opposing Conservative Front Benchers commitments to cut funding by £21 billion.
I do not want to be wholly negative. There are some useful suggestions in the Conservative proposals, some of which will appear familiar to my hon. Friendsnot least because they are lifted from our policy documents. Imitation is of course the sincerest form of flattery, so I welcome the support in the document for the measures we are already undertaking to support the third sector, about which I shall say a little more later.
Crucially, the Conservative flagship proposal for a transferable tax allowance is fundamentally flawed. As
my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office said, the Tories, would be taking more than £3 billion from public services and support for families to help married couples who pay tax, most of whom do not have children at the expense of children who are growing up in low-income familiesthe hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) forensically took apart the Tory proposals.
I must admit that before the debate I wondered whether others on the Opposition Benches would be happy to support proposals for changing the tax system that would mean that only 3 per cent. of the benefit would go to the poorest 10th of the population. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) made it clear in his intervention that he thoroughly disagreed with a proposal that would clearly stigmatise and penalise children in the most disadvantaged families. The Tories have chosen to spin this aspect of their report as something that makes them the great party of marriage, but as we have seen today they are hopelessly divided among themselves on the proposals. They have no answers to the forensic demolition of what are socially unjust proposals, given the impact that they would have on children in need.
The truth is that families come in all shapes and sizes and that the Government must support all families, irrespective of their structure. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) was right to say that it is not the role of the state to say what type of family is best. The real focus of our efforts to tackle inequality should not be on family structures; it should be on supporting children so that they can grow up in loving, stable and supportive families, whatever their circumstances. The issue is about income for those children. It is about financial support through increased child benefits, which the Tories froze when they were in power, and the working families tax credit, which the Tories opposed when they were in opposition. There is the issue of giving children more time with their parents through increased maternity and paternity leave and giving parents that time to be with their children in those crucial early formative months and years. There is also the issue of giving greater support to parents through better access to child care. There are new childrens centres and new programmes covering parenting skills and giving advice.
We do not have a massive problem of family breakdown and it is simply not true to say that we do. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon made that point. The vast majority of families are doing well. Parents are doing an excellent job and the outcomes for their children are getting increasingly better. Our challenge is to concentrate our help on those familiesabout 2 per cent.who experience multiple family disadvantages and who have not been reached by the growth of our universal services. We might at least have a consensus on that and on the role of the third sector in meeting those needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who is not now in the Chamber, made an important point about early intervention and preventive work with those families.
That takes me on to the importance of the third sector. The report states that one of the Conservatives objectives is to increase the role of the third sector in
tackling poverty. As the Minister with responsibility for the third sector, I wholeheartedly agree that voluntary organisations, charities, community groups and social enterprises make a vital contribution. That is why, over the past 10 years, the Governments public support for the third sector has risen from £4.5 billion in 1997 to more than £10.5 billion in 2005. In practical terms, that is reflected in the thousands of community groups and local voluntary organisations that are involved in programmes to support families, communities and those with disabilities. We heard from the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) about those who work with people with addictions. The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire mentioned those who work with young people in and out of custody. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindona real champion in her communitydescribed the work of the Drove centre in her constituency.
It has not been possible to acknowledge properly all the contributions made by hon. Members. However, warm words about social justice from Conservative Members cannot hide the facts of their partys record in office and voting record in opposition, or the reality of the stigmatising impact that their partys proposals would have on children in most need. A shiny new façade
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
That this House notes that since 1997 employment has risen to the highest level ever with 2.5 million more people in work, the number of workless households has fallen, the number of children in workless households has fallen, the number of children in non-decent homes has been cut by 1.4 million, child poverty has fallen by 600,000, pensioner poverty has fallen and educational attainment has risen for pupils from all social classes, across the board and at all key stages; further notes that this has happened because of a sustained strategy which includes the New Deal programme, Tax Credits, the National Minimum Wage, Sure Start, a National Childcare Strategy, programmes to improve parenting, Educational Maintenance Allowances and record investment in public services; and urges politicians of all parties to recognise the benefits of these reforms and not undermine them, support all children and work together to tackle the social challenges that the UK still faces through continued investment, engagement of individuals and communities, work with the voluntary sector and through an approach which recognises that the best way to build a fair society is through providing opportunities for all citizens, not just the few, to meet their aspirations.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this days sitting, consideration of proceedings on the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. [Mark Tami.]
Lords Reasons for insisting on their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed and for disagreeing to the Commons Amendment to the Bill in lieu, considered.
Lords Reasons Nos.: 2C, 3C, 5C, 6C and 10J.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Maria Eagle): I beg to move,
Next Section | Index | Home Page |