Social Security

With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the debate, which has been interesting, important and short. I was particularly interested to hear the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart), who reminded us in an interesting and fluent contribution that benefit dependency has been on the increase in the past eight years. People are now on benefits who do not want to be on them; they would rather be in work. He also reminded us that benefit uprating has been conducted more often by Conservatives when in government than by other parties. He stressed that the Conservative party believes in welfare for those who need it—those who, for no fault of their own, need the support of the state and the taxpayer, who is, of course, happy to lend that support—but we need fresh thinking to ensure that those who can work and want to work are given the opportunity to do so and have the obstacles that are in their way removed. My hon. Friend also warned about the perils of excessive means-testing, which is on the rise. He also talked about the ongoing tragedy of occupational pension schemes going bust and the consequent increase in the number of pensioners who must rely on benefits to live in dignity in their old age. It was an enjoyable contribution, with some important points, which can also be said of the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne), who drew attention in a technically adept set of remarks to the fact that the tax credit disregard, which has been raised from £2,500 to £25,000, appears to be an uncosted commitment and that he has sought in vain, using the method of asking parliamentary questions, to find out the cost to the Exchequer of that policy change. I really do hope that the Minister can tell us and not shuffle us off to other Ministers at the next Treasury questions. My hon. Friend also talked about savings, which are, of course, very pertinent to a debate on benefits uprating. If the savings culture is as damaged as he said—I think that he is right—more and more pensioners must rely on the very benefits that are uprated by the order. He spoke about the need for the Government to find more intelligent savings policies. Those points were well made. He also touched tantalisingly on pathways to work and how benefits recipients might escape from benefits into work. He certainly touched on incapacity benefit reform in an instructive way. He talked about the experience of Holland and the lessons that DWP Ministers might learn—the Opposition are certainly learning them—about active intervention in the labour market to get those who are desperately keen to get off benefit back into work. Although we share the same objective as Ministers, today’s debate has shown that the Opposition have radically different solutions and means to achieve that common objective.