| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Darling: Again, Conservative Members are expressing concerns about the means test, which many Labour Members find extraordinary. Using a variety of measures, such as the new deal and the single gateway, we are ensuring that as many people as possible have the opportunity to work rather than be reliant on benefits. I repeat my earlier point that many women work at present and many more are choosing to work, and we propose to make it easier for them to do so.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough): Will the Secretary of State clarify whether existing widows will benefit from the proposals? I had a telephone call two weeks ago from a constituent who is on benefits because he had been caring for his wife. She died, and he had a visit from the Benefits Agency for the sole purpose of tearing up her benefit books. He asked me angrily, "How can I pay for the funeral and live with my two kids on £117 a week?" I hope that, following the statement, I can ring him and give him good news. Will the Secretary of State tell me whether I can do so?
Mr. Darling: The proposal is that, from the implementation date of the changes, widowers will be treated in exactly the same way as widows, so that we avoid a situation in future where bereaved women receive the widows allowance and lump sum for themselves and their children, but men do not.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): May I follow on the questions asked by the Secretary of State's colleagues, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Members for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins)? The right hon. Gentleman knows that, since the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act 1925, widows pensions have been based firmly on the contributory principle. Will he therefore confirm that the proposal is a decisive shift away from that principle towards means testing, and tell the House how that will foster a responsible society?
Mr. Darling: That is a bit rich from the Conservative party, which spent almost a quarter of a generation trying to undermine the contributory principle. The benefits remain contributory. The proposals are not a move towards means-testing. The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware that, during the past 50 years, many changes have been made to the widows benefits regime and to the
contributory principle. In many cases, we are extending the benefits that in the past were not available to men and increasing the lump sum. We are determined to ensure that those benefits are modernised to meet the needs of today's society. To say that no change is necessary, and ignore injustices, is absolutely crazy.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley): I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, particularly because it addresses the changing roles for men and women in our society. Some of the inequalities, such as low pay, that women face today are caused by the fact that there is still an assumption that they are earning pin money to keep the family going. That is not the case. Many women in my constituency are the only breadwinner in their family. I welcome the policy because--I hope that my right hon. Friend will reassure me on this point--it addresses the changing roles of men and women, particularly the parenting role of the father. For too long, child care and domestic and family roles have been seen as women's burdens, and the proposals are part of the means of beginning to challenge that.
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right on the latter point, that fathers and mothers should play a greater role in bringing up their children. Perhaps some of us have further to go than others.
On my hon. Friend's general point, the Government's whole strategy on welfare to work and reform of the benefits system is to do everything possible to encourage men and women to work and to make work pay, something that the Conservative party opposes.
Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon):
I thank the Secretary of State for going one step further than he needed to go. He may have been forced to extend widows benefits to widowers, including those with children, but I thank him for extending them to existing widowers with children. I draw his attention to the case of my constituent, who was widowed earlier this year, has two young children and is struggling to keep a part-time job to pay for child care. If I tell my constituent that he will have to wait two and a half years, he will be desperate. Must the package take two and a half years to be introduced? Could it not be introduced in even one and a half years?
Mr. Darling:
The measure is part of a package. It will not be possible to implement the package before April 2001. It is always tempting to implement one part while delaying another, but the measure must be seen as part of a coherent package. Whatever the date is, there are bound to be problems either side of it.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the fact that, from the implementation date, we will be able to help fathers with young children, even those without mothers now. The hon. Gentleman must accept that all these changes take time. We need primary legislation, and we need to change our systems to enable us to introduce the package. April 2001 is probably the earliest that we can do that.
Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar):
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify a point that builds on the interesting question from the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks)? Is it his intention to put men and women on the same basis? Will the payment of the new
Mr. Darling:
As I said earlier, this is a contributory benefit. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He wants to defend the status quo, and now he is asking for a slight change in the contributory benefits system. Far more women now make contributions than was ever expected 50 years ago.
4.16 pm
The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): Madam Speaker, I am taking the earliest opportunity available to me to apologise to the House for the late registration of my ownership of Stenbell Ltd., and the directorships of Agie UK between 1984 and 1987 and Transtec plc between 1987 and 1990. I have apologised in writing to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and have amended my entry in the register to include Roll Center Inc., which I owned between February 1988 and January 1992.
The House will want to be assured that these shareholdings and directorships were matters of public record. No attempt was made by me at any time to use my position in this House to advance any commercial interest. The oversight concerning registration, for which I apologise, is entirely my responsibility.
Mr. Tony Colman presented a Bill to require the Financial Services Authority to issue guidance to persons authorised to provide financial services regarding advice to be given to clients: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 264].
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock):
I beg to move,
The Prime Minister stated that in the introduction to the White Paper that was prepared for my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). My right hon. Friend was a principal architect of the White Paper, and many of us would have liked to see him pilot through the legislation and realise that election promise by getting it on to the statute book as a Government Bill. However, I am pleased that he is in his place today. His presence, together with that of other hon. Members, underlines the fact that there is widespread support for a freedom of information Bill across the political spectrum. That support is also reflected by the sponsors of the Bill, which I shall publish today.
We desperately need to change the public service culture on the keeping of records and public access to such records. My Bill would make it a presumption that all records held by public bodies could, and should, be available for public access and scrutiny. The legislation draws upon the experience and the statutes of other jurisdictions, such as the United States, the Netherlands, Sweden, the Republic of Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It defines "records" as any written or printed document, any plan, map, photograph, tape or electronic record.
The Bill does not exclude the security services, the police or the Crown Prosecution Service from its scope. It is right that we should not jeopardise their role in detecting crime and determining who should be prosecuted and the means of prosecution. The defence of the realm should not be put in jeopardy. My Bill would introduce safeguards to guarantee that those important functions were not impeded in any way. However, I believe that it is quite wrong that there should be a blanket exemption for the services to which I have referred.
Many members of the public will welcome the fact that the Bill's provisions would apply to the former publicly owned industries that are now in private hands, which enjoy a monopoly or near-monopoly. I have in mind industries such as water, gas, electricity and so on. The spirit of the Bill is one not of compulsion, but change: we want to change attitudes and encourage the holders of public records to prepare now to make them available. We want to reassure them that any reasonable custodian of such records would have nothing to fear from the fact that the public would have access to them.
Whenever there was disagreement, mediation would be the key. My Bill envisages that every Ministry, public agency, or former public utility that is now in private
ownership would designate a senior person to listen to the arguments of those seeking access, and of any agency refusing to grant access by claiming that the disclosure of information would cause substantial harm. We hope that the resolution of such differences would be dealt with in house, but, as a fall-back position, a new information commissioner would be appointed. He would have the status of a judge, and the power to demand access to documents and to reach some conclusion. He would also be able to issue instructions as to what documents could, and should, be made available.
"Reasonableness" is the key word throughout the Bill. That includes reasonableness in the cost of access. We will not tolerate any abuse of the right of access. However, the Bill also ensures that individuals with few resources who were trying to fight the big battalions--perhaps they opposed some motorway scheme or a proposal that adversely affected their businesses--would not be disadvantaged by cost. Charges would be very modest, but there would be safeguards against those who might seek to abuse the system. In addition, the legislation ensures that the disclosure of public records would not place a disproportionate additional burden on the public purse. I re-emphasise that I want a culture whereby our Ministries and agencies prepare documents and records in such a way that they can be made available at minimal cost and with least delay.
Obviously there would be tests for disclosure. The primary test would be the public interest, and exemptions would be justified only where the people resisting the disclosure of information could show that substantial harm would be done to the public interest. I make no apology for reminding the House of recent scandals: the BSE scandal; the Bristol royal infirmary scandal, in which people should have been given information a lot earlier; and the plight of, and distress experienced by, many people in respect of Gulf war syndrome--in all those cases, there was a failure to grant access to information, and to recognise that there were problems.
The history of all those shameful parts of our recent history would have been different had such a measure been on the statute book. Most related to the previous Administration. However, I am disappointed that, when I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a parliamentary question about the dates on which the Cabinet has met since the general election, I was not able to have that information. That underlines how we must change the culture of government and of people who advise Ministers. Why on earth cannot such information be made available?
I draw strength and support from the Prime Minister himself. Addressing the Campaign for Freedom of Information, he said:
4.17 pm
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the right of access to information held by public authorities; and for connected purposes.
A freedom of information Bill is long overdue and much needed, as the role and complexities of Government are increased, particularly with the growth of the new technologies. The promise of such a Bill is one of the few promises to have endured in Labour manifestos since 1974, and it is yet to be realised. It survives there because, apart from the fact that it is supported by the overwhelming majority of my hon. Friends and many hon. Members throughout the Chamber, the concept has the endorsement of the Prime Minister.
"It is not some isolated constitutional reform that we are proposing with a Freedom of Information Act. It is a change that is absolutely fundamental to how we see politics developing in this country over the next few years."
I acknowledge the bottleneck for legislative time, but I say to my right hon. Friends that placing such a Bill on the statute book could be a great benchmark for the radicalism of the Government and, indeed, this Parliament, in which we are all privileged to serve. The Bill would become an enduring Act, which would create
new rights and enhance our democracy. I therefore hope that I have the overwhelming support of the House to introduce the Bill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |