Standing Committee D
Thursday 25 March 1999
(Afternoon)
[Mr. John McWilliam in the Chair]
Clause 44
Bereavement payments
Amendment proposed [this day): No. 202, in page 39, line 34, after "day", insert
"or a bereaved person aged 60 to 64 when the spouse died.".--[Mr. Pickles.]
2.30 pm
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking amendment No. 102, in page 39, line 39, leave out "and" and insert
Kali Mountford (Colne Valley): Ordinarily, Mr. McWilliam, I would hope that you had a substantial and enjoyable lunch, However, given that lunchtime today was quite grim, I am in a less than jocular mood. All Committee members doubtless feel the same.
Before lunch, we were discussing the support that a Government should provide for society in general, and those on whom particular attention should be focused. Opposition Members' view of women and their prospects--which I do not share--surprised me, given the thoroughness with which, during the previous debate on pensions, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) discussed the current prospects for women in work. Women who suffer in bereavement also suffer from pension splitting, and we must remember that, as the hon. Lady pointed out, 70 per cent. of married women are in work.
Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar): May I respectfully remind the hon. Lady that the amendment relates to women between the ages of 60 and 64?
Kali Mountford: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but earlier contributions from Opposition Members, to which I felt it appropriate to respond, ranged rather more widely than the subject of women aged between 60 and 64. We must have cognisance of changes to future working patterns, particularly in relation to European law. The hon. Gentleman forgets that women can--in this House, they often do--work beyond the age 60. There is no reason why they should not do so.
Why should men and women be treated differently? It is entirely appropriate for benefits to be extended to bereaved men. The points made on bereavement were well made, but there is no reason to assume that a man who loses his spouse is any less bereaved than a woman who loses her spouse.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury): The hon. Lady is right to say that bereavement affects men and women equally--I have two friends who are widowers, both of whom support children, as it happens. However, she must accept that there is a considerable economic difference, to which many of her hon. Friends drew attention on Second Reading: a great many of the 70 per cent. of women in work have low-paid jobs.
Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the economic prospects of women. He should consider the wide-ranging measures that the Government are implementing to provide support for families--particularly women in work--to which I referred earlier. The minimum wage provides disproportionate help for women because they tend to be paid less than men. However, other measures are available to everyone in their quest to improve their prospects. Surely, the House would not argue that women's prospects should not be improved and that women should remain in low-paid employment. We should consider the lot of women overall and try to help them live independently.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) mentioned children, on whom we should focus our support. What matters most are the children of the family and the ability of their parents to support them. The ability to support children must be shared equally between the husband and wife--the parents--while they are alive and working or, indeed, if they are sadly bereaved. There is no justification for not acknowledging that the Bill contains proper measures to support children. Opposition Members are more concerned with focusing on the prospects of women and their ability to cope. I have not heard an argument to support that.
Mr. Mark Oaten (Winchester): The hon. Lady wants to hear an argument. There is no disagreement on the need to treat men and women equally. She is making a number of assertions, but missing the point. Our argument is that the measures will not help elderly women who are over 65. We want to target help for those elderly people who will be hit badly by the measures.
Kali Mountford: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but he is missing the point. A wide range of other measures are available to support not just women of working age or in retirement, but others. I have heard no reason why we should treat people differently.
Mr. David Rendel (Newbury): The hon. Lady said that there are other measures. What other measures help the elderly bereaved?
Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman draws a distinction between the elderly bereaved and other elderly people. The argument so far has focused on the contribution principle to justify why people of that age, in those circumstances, should be treated differently. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) will recall that after 12 months in office, the Conservative party changed the contributory principle, which it now holds so dear, when it altered the pension rules for unemployment benefit. it took away the right of people with occupational pensions to be entitled to unemployment benefit when that benefit applied to their wives. That principle did not matter to the Conservatives then and it does not matter to them now. As ever, they have changed their minds. It appears that one does not have to be responsible in Opposition, but one does have to be responsible in government. The thrust of my argument is that we must focus on those people who need help most and for whom no other help is available.
Mr. Howard Flight (Arundel and South Downs): The changes to SERPS were made in 1986 to apply in 1999. That gave 13 years' notice. These proposed changes are immediate and there is no time for people to adjust.
Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman referred to the changes that were made by his Government in 1985. I was talking about a change that was made in 1980-81 to unemployment benefit, which is more analogous to what we are debating. Although there was notice of his Government's change to SERPS, I would like to know where it was given because the people who sent letters to my post bag did not know about it. I cannot accept his argument.
Governments must consider the overall resources that are available for spending and where they are placed. Opposition Members have not told us what the impact would be on the Budget if we extended the range of bereavement benefits to men, which I believe is the right thing to do, without changing the focus of benefits overall to children, which I also think is right. I usually carry the Red Book around with me--it is dear to my heart and I love it--but I do not have it with me today, so I cannot check what the impact of the changes will be.
Mr. Pickles: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Kali Mountford: Oh, if I really must.
Mr. Pickles: I shall simply tell the hon. Lady that the effect, according to the Red Book, is straightforward. Through these measures, the Government will save £550 million a year.
Kali Mountford: I shall check the hon. Gentleman's figures, but whatever the figure, that amount is to be refocused on children. That is my point.
My other point is that the hon. Gentleman's opposition to these measures implies that he must be suggesting further expenditure. Is he suggesting not spending more money and not changing the focus of benefits? Surely his proposals would involve extra expense for the Exchequer? No other argument would make sense. I see that no Opposition Member will now intervene to tell me how they would find that money. That is a pity.
It is the duty of the Government to spend taxpayers' money appropriately. I have never heard either party say that it should not be spent appropriately, but one must be able to say where one would get the money from. It is right to have a balanced budget that is focused on children, which is what these measures will achieve. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) seems amused by the idea of focusing on children.
Mr. Pickles: No, I was just casting my mind back to the banners that I used to see outside the House, which said, "Stop the Tory cuts." Now, obviously, those banners would have to read, "Stop new Labour's refocus."
Kali Mountford: That is a bit of fun for our debate, but it did not take us any further forward. Refocusing is an appropriate way to deal with the matter, because one has to think about who needs to benefit the most.
Mr. Rendel rose--
The Chairman: Order. The proposal in the Modernisation Committee report to have a Second Reading debate on a clause before the amendments are dealt with is looking increasingly attractive to me, because that is what we seem to be doing now. Could we please come back to the narrower debate on the amendments? It is time that we made some progress.
Kali Mountford: I agree with you, Mr. McWilliam. Although I enjoyed hon. Member's interventions, they took me completely off track and I apologise for that.
Mr. Rendel: I want to talk about the amendment, which will get the hon. Lady back on track. What she appears to be saying is that the proposal will focus money where it is most needed. I put it to her that the over-65s who are on income support are more needy that the under-60s who are not on income support.
Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman has already made that point. I shall tell him again that, as part of overall expenditure of the Government, measures are in place to support people in retirement. The hon. Member for Newbury is shaking his head, but there are such measures. Measures are in place to support people who are out of work, and people who are trying to get back into work, where that is appropriate.
| 
