| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove): Can the Secretary of State explain why it is fair to take away widows benefit from widows without dependent children when they have incredibly modest means but not sufficiently modest to be able to qualify for income support while, at the same time--if I understand the Secretary of States's announcement--proposing to give benefit to other widows and widowers who may have been left a substantial amount by their dead spouse?
Mr. Darling: My proposal is that we continue to help the surviving parent and children. What is more, we want to extend that help to men with young children who do not get a penny under the present system. For those without children, the widow and widowers pension should be payable for a transitional period of six months because we believe that that is a reasonable time to adjust. I repeat my earlier point that I find it difficult to justify the current situation where, in many cases, we are paying benefit for years to people who do not need it while not doing nearly enough for others, particularly those with young children. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would support that, rather than defending the status quo, which most people find it difficult to defend.
Audrey Wise (Preston): Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absurd for the Tories to complain about means-testing, which is their favourite tool? By the same token, we have to be cautious about making it a tool of ours. I offer my warm congratulations to my right hon. Friend on the extension of the principle of benefits to widowers for the first time, which is a good move. However, I wish to express my concern and ask for more information about the position of older widows. My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that many women now work, but he did not mention that they are still congregated in low-paid, temporary or part-time work or that the gender gap in wages is widening. Will he give more thought to, and explain, the plight in which older widows may be left by his proposals?
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her welcome for many of the proposals. Low wages for women generally, and older women in particular, will be helped by the minimum wage. It is more difficult to take account of women aged 55 and older when changing the structure of the system, but we want to ensure that those on income support are no worse off after the changes.
In other words, we wish to safeguard the position of that older generation of women who are probably less likely to be in work than younger women because of the changes in working habits.
My hon. Friend makes a good point about means-testing. I am not sure whether the Conservatives have now come out against means-testing as part of their strategy, but we will wait and see. Today, we have introduced a disregard of £10 for the poorest widows and widowers to ensure that they get a benefit from the widows and widowers payments that they do not currently get. That is a similar move to ones that we have made for other benefits, and it means that the poorest will keep the benefit of £10 a week. That will be welcome.
Mr. Howard Flight (Arundel and South Downs):
May I seek the Minister's confirmation? In the simplest terms, he appeared to say that the widows pension will be abolished for those under 45, whether men or women, if they are widowed in the future; there will be a more generous payment on bereavement; there will be a payment for six months; and otherwise they will need to rely on income support and other child allowances. That seemed to be the essence of his statement.
The role of men and women in our society may have more overlap than before, and both may work, but there are still significant differences. Because women generally have a lower earning power and many break their careers to have families, a system of benefits for those who are widowed that is precisely equal for men and women is not entirely suitable. Indeed, most women will feel that it is unfair, given the patterns of employment and different responsibilities of men and women.
Mr. Darling:
I am becoming increasingly puzzled about the Conservatives' position on these matters. Over the years, patterns have changed and the work force is now almost half made up of women, thanks in many ways to the reforms that we are introducing. The difficulties of low pay are being addressed, and many women have successful careers and have chosen to work throughout their lives. The benefits system must reflect that. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the system was introduced in the 1940s, when most women did not work. When Beveridge drew up the plan, it was never the intention that people should remain on benefit when they could be working.
I believe strongly that the benefits system must change to take account of completely different economic and social circumstances. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument; he seems on the one hand to argue for the status quo, but on the other to display a new-found sympathy for the low-paid. I cannot understand such an attitude from the Conservative party, which has spent a lifetime fostering lack of such sympathy.
Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central):
My right hon. Friend knows that I represent part of north-east England where working class men die younger than in any other part of England. Is he telling me that, as a result of the changes that he proposes, a woman partner of one of those working men who is left a small quantity of savings or a small works pension that still accrues to them after her husband's working life will be completely
Mr. Darling:
I am not saying that. All bereaved husbands or wives will be entitled to an allowance for the six-month period. Those with children will receive the allowance for a lot longer. Those who are dependent on or entitled to benefits will receive them. My hon. Friend must face the fact that nearly 40 per cent. of women who currently receive the benefit are in the top half of the income bracket. Others are working and earning quite good wages. I am determined to ensure that bereavement benefits bring help to those who most need it. That is what the reforms are designed to do.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire):
Can the Secretary of State say at what level of earnings a widow or a widower who has children will begin to lose benefit under his new proposals?
Mr. Darling:
If the hon. Gentleman cares to consult the various income support tables that we publish each year, he will be able to find that level easily.
Mr. Terry Rooney (Bradford, North):
I welcome the statement, particularly the £10 disregard on income support and the doubling of the lump sum. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, contrary to reports, the new bereavement allowance will not be means-tested? Will he confirm, too, that the generous current contributing conditions for the lump sum will remain the same?
Mr. Darling:
The contributory conditions will not be affected, and the benefit will not be means-tested.
Mr. Chris Pond (Gravesham):
Does my right hon. Friend realise that many of us share his puzzlement that the Opposition now oppose means testing, and champion the national insurance principle? Does he recall that, when the previous Government made the change from unemployment benefit to jobseeker's allowance--a major breach of the national insurance principle--they changed the signing-on rules so that those who had previously not worked for 10 years and were aged 50 or over would not have to sign on, but those in that position after 1996 would have to do so? Can he clarify whether those bereaved in later life will be required to sign on?
Mr. Darling:
It is the case that, as a result of reforms introduced by the Conservatives, widows had to sign on a week after losing their husbands. As a result of my proposals, at their introduction women aged over 55 will not have to sign on for work, because I do not think it reasonable that they should have to do so.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough):
May I refer briefly to a constituency case that touches on the Secretary of State's statement? A woman in my constituency was widowed about four weeks ago. She is in her mid-50s, and her husband was in his late 50s. She receives about £60 a week in bereavement allowance, and she works eight hours a week as a cleaner. She would like to work more to supplement her diminished income, but fears that she cannot do so because her widows allowance will be
Mr. Darling:
If the hon. and learned Gentleman would care to write to me, I will look into that case. If the situation is as he described, it occurs under the system that we inherited. His constituent ought to be receiving £64 a week, which is a taxable benefit, and it is not clear how she is losing the benefit to which he referred, but I will look into the case if he writes to me.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury):
After the complexities of the transitional period are out of the way, how many more people than at present does the Secretary of State estimate will face means tests?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |