Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

If we asked the person in the street, ““Do you think that benefits, even universal credit benefits, should be paid to someone who has got £50,000 in the bank?””, they would give us a pretty robust response. I represent a constituency with a lot of deprivation. Average earnings are about £20,000 a year—£50,000 is a king's ransom to the people whom I serve. Most people could never dream of having so much money in cash. They might have it locked up in their house, but they could never dream of having that kind of money in ready cash. It would be an astonishing position to be in. If I went down Dover high street and said, ““Do you think that people should get universal credit if they have £50,000 in the bank?””, the response would be demonstrative, pretty conclusive and probably pretty rude—it would be expletive-laden. In my constituency, when I knock on a door, like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), and say, ““What are your concerns?””, after expressing vehement concerns about the number of overseas visitors, 1 million of whom have taken jobs in recent years, and about the 5 million people who could work but do not, people move on and say, ““And that person down the street has a plasma TV and so on, and they have not worked a day in their lives.”” We have discussed this important and serious issue. We need to encourage people to take responsibility and to work, and not encourage them through amendments such as amendments 23 and 24, which would allow people to claim benefits despite having £50,000 in the bank. This whole strand of thinking is symptomatic of a way of thinking that has caused the number of working-age people in relative poverty, after housing costs, to rise from 6.5 million in 2001-02 to 7.9 million in 2009-10. That is a staggering rise. We have to bear it in mind that in those years this country enjoyed the most massive boom, yet a whole load of our countrymen slipped further into relative poverty. It is not just a question of intergenerational poverty or of households that have not worked for ever and ever; it is a question of going into relative poverty. The message sent by amendments 23 and 24 is not one of responsibility. It is not a message that says, ““Look, we are on your side. You're hard-working. We will support you.”” The message sent by the philosophy of universal credit is one of responsibility: ““If you work hard, you will be better off, and you will not be subjected to the dependency culture.”” That has to be one of the most important and essential messages that the Government can send, and it is why the Bill will, in my view, be the most important Bill in this Parliament. I hope that the House will indulge me on one more amendment—amendment 33, which deals with pensions. If a man aged 66 is married to a woman aged 45, how can it be fine for that woman not to be incentivised to work? I am deeply troubled by this. I put this issue to the right hon. Member for East Ham, and the Minister asked him whether he supported the principle, and thrice the cock crowed, yet he would not deny it—or, indeed, not deny it. It was wrong to table an amendment defending that principle, and to say, when an argument was made saying, ““How can it be right?””, ““Ah well, isn't it bad of the Government to sneak it into a schedule.”” The House deserves a better argument than that for why previously people were not incentivised to work, and why the Government are wrong to take action on it. The Government are right to take action, and they are right to send the message that work should always pay, and that, if someone is of working age, they really should work. We have a massive mountain to climb: there are 5 million people in this country who could work but do not, who have been encouraged to live in a dependency culture, and who would be worse off if they went into work. There is much evidence that that sucked in 1 million people from abroad and overseas to fill the 1 million or so jobs created during the recent boom, while we cast 5 million people on to the slagheap of welfare dependency. I suspect strongly that encouraging the 5 million people who could work but do not, and making work pay for them, will solve the problem of people being sucked into the UK from overseas. The problem might well solve itself, however, through a demand for employment from our countrymen. When that day comes, and if universal credit achieves it, it will be a great day for this country. It is fundamentally wrong that we should sell the pass on the hopes and aspirations of millions of people in this country who could be working, achieving and fulfilling their potential, but who for too many years have been thrown on the slagheap of hopelessness, dependency and failure. I am a Tory because I like people to succeed; I like people to do well; I want people to make money; I want them to be rich; I want them to be captains of industry; and I want the economy to grow even quicker, and I think that the universal credit is the way to help more people to achieve and succeed in their hopes and aspirations, to get into work and to do really well.