Title (Hansard, 29 January 1975)

§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke
The Bill is now a much improved Bill from that which first appeared some time ago. We wel- 574 comed the fact that the Bill, when introduced, was an uprating measure and an attempt to keep the level of benefits in line with the ever-accelerating rate of inflation. At no stage did we make any attempt to oppose the uprating. I hope that the Government will bear in mind our comments in Committee pointing out that the effect of the uprating was not likely to be too successful in keeping benefits ahead of the rate of inflation expected by the time that the benefits come into payment from April to December next year. Nevertheless, there are some welcome reliefs for beneficiaries, and on that account the Third Reading will be anxiously awaited by people outside.
Meanwhile, the House has turned what would otherwise have been a routine up-rating Bill into a worthwhile piece of legislation, and some worthwhile reforms have been forced on the Government which will have their effect outside. First, there is a small but significant change concerning disregards of children's income so that in future the small earnings of children of school-going age will not reflect on the supplementary benefit paid to their parents.
The changes made in respect of disabled housewives are by no means small or insignificant. The Government have been obliged by the House to make provision for disabled housewives and to include them in the Bill. We still hope that that will have the effect of driving the Government into making that benefit payable to disabled housewives at the same time that it is payable to other disabled people, because we believe that the timetable is indefensible and that we should not keep them waiting.
We are convinced that it is only as a result of the changes which the House has forced on the Government that disabled housewives can expect a rate of invalidity pension which will be at the same level as that paid to other disabled people. The Government's toying with the idea—this was implicit in what they said in Committee when they would give no undertakings—of paying disabled housewives a lower rate has, I hope, been abandoned.
We have made some worthwhile changes in the impact of the earnings rule upon retirement pensioners, which will 575 have a significant effect upon their enjoyment of life. The Bill contains an uprating of family allowances, which is welcome.
I am disappointed that, because of the tight money resolution, the obduracy and delays of the Government and their failure to implement their election promises, the Bill does not leave the House with any hint of the introduction of family allowances for first children, or any steps towards the family endowment scheme which the House anxiously awaits. Apart from that one major defect, I accept that there is a great deal of good in the Bill as it now stands. It will have a significant effect on the social life of the country, and the Opposition wish to delay it no longer.

§ Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
I have sought to take an active part at each stage of the Bill. I congratulate the Government on having introduced a measure which will confer many benefits which are desperately needed, but I join my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in expressing a sense of disappointment at the wasted opportunities and the indecision that lie behind the Bill.
British social security is a house built on sand, partly because of inflation. The Bill deals with money values. On almost every page the obligations and entitlements are expressed in cash terms. Even while we are speaking the values are melting away. The Government have not found an answer to that. The Bill has been overshadowed by our economic difficulties which result from society being so terribly divided. Social security could be one of the ways by which society could be drawn closer together, but to achieve that the Government would have to answer certain fundamental questions which they have not answered.
The Government have not answered fundamental questions on the relationship between benefits and taxation. They still do not know what they intend to do about family endowment. They have made useful strides forward on disability, partly under pressure from the Committee, but on pensions they still do not know whether pensioners get their 576 entitlement because of need, contributions or citizenship.
We had an interesting, even exciting, debate on the earnings rule, but once again the House is left in a state of indecision. It is to be phased out up to a point, but the decision whether to get rid of the earnings rule, unfortunately, still has to be taken. Then there are the administrative tasks lying ahead of the Department. The reforms which are so long overdue are bringing the Department to the verge of breakdown. Ministers are yawning. They show no sign of the sense of urgency they should have.
While we welcome the Bill, we have to express reservations and a deep sense of disappointment at the opportunities wasted.

§ Mr. O'Malley
The impudence of the hon. Members for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) is astonishing. I know that it is not possible to go outside the terms of the Bill and I shall not do so, except briefly to refer to the poor record of the previous Conservative administration in social security matters. When we took over, the level of retirement pensions—which the Bill increases and which we increased on 22nd July—had fallen to its lowest ever point in terms of the national average wage since the end of the war. The Government by the Bill are implementing the first increase in family allowances since 1968, in spite of a pledge given by the late Iain MacLeod which was not kept.
For the hon. Members for Rushcliffe and Kensington to speak to the Government about the Bill in the terms they used is impudent. The hon. Member for Kensington has more years than has the hon. Member for Rushcliffe and should know better. He is supposed to be an impartial observer of the scene, but he has not shown much impartiality tonight. I wish that he would say honestly what is the record of the Conservative Government and acknowledge that much is put right by the Bill.
Our uprating measures will cost in total almost £1,150 million. That includes £207 million for the first increase in family allowances since 1968 and £13 577 million for the first increase in supplementary disregards since 1966—a Labour Government being in office in both those years.
Pensioners can look at this Bill and agree with the fact—not the opinion—that the achievements of the Government in social security provision are unmatched by any Government since the war and are far superior to any proposals brought forward both in the 13 years of Tory rule between 1951 and 1964 and in the years between 1970 and 1974. The Government have also promised a second uprating next autumn—and that is compared with the more than two and a half years between upratings which occurred under the Tory Government in the 1950s.
The Government are keeping their manifesto commitment, contrary to what the hon. Member for Rushcliffe has said, not only in the letter but in the spirit, and that we shall continue to do. We are proud of our record in social security and pensions provision, and all the knocking from the Opposition cannot hide that fact from the electorate.