§ 10. Mr. Tony BanksTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to amend the relevant legislation in order to restore the age limit for widows' pensions to 40 years.
§ Mr. BanksIt did not take the Minister very long to come up with that reply, and I am very disappointed with it. Is he aware that about 2,000 women were widowed between September 1987 and April 1988, and therefore fell foul, retroactively, of the changes made in the social security provisions? All those widows will lose about £32,000 each. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going around bragging, at every dinner to which he can get an invitation, that the country's coffers are overflowing, what justification is there for him to deprive the country's bereaved of what is justifiably theirs? If the Minister will 638 not reconsider his terse reply, will he at least drop the mean-spirited approach that the Government adopt towards widows whose cases have been upheld by the appeal tribunal? The Government are trying to reverse such decisions? That is mean-spirited, and the Minister should have a heart.
§ Mr. ScottAn important case is shortly to go before the social security commissioner and it would be unwise of me to comment on it. The whole thrust of the policy is to focus on older widows and widows with children. About 55,000 of them benefited as a result of our reforming the system.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-BowmanDoes my hon. Friend accept that it does no service to younger widows to exempt them from the necessity of earning a living? Nothing can be better for their morale than to get out and come to grips with life again.
§ Mr. ScottI very much agree with my hon. Friend's point that widows should be encouraged back into employment. Also, I am advised that about 90 per cent. of widows aged between 40 and 44 remarry.
§ Mrs. FyfeDoes the Minister accept that it may be difficult for many widows to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) if they live in constituencies such as Glasgow, Maryhill where the official unemployment rate is 22 per cent.? Furthermore, is it not insulting to tell widows that their only hope, if they cannot find work, is that they had better find themselves husbands? How would the Minister like to be told, in similar circumstances, that he had better find himself a wife?
§ Mr. ScottI am saying that we are helping older widows and widows with dependent children. It is right to give them our highest priority. It is worth reminding the House yet again that about 55,000 widows benefited as a result of our reforms.
§ Mr. McCrindleWas not the change made on the supposition that it should be easier for younger widows to obtain employment? That must still apply. However, will my hon. Friend note that a number of employers continue discriminating against women because they are—to use their word, not mine—"older"? Will my hon. Friend take the initiative in persuading employers that, particularly as the number of teenagers coming on to the labour market falls, older women represent a particularly important source of future employees, and that age discrimination is not acceptable?
§ Mr. ScottI agree with my hon. Friend. Any employer taking such an attitude is being very short-sighted. As we get into an increasingly tight employment situation, with a reduction in the number of young people coming on to the labour market, wise employers will be looking throughout the age range for skills and experience.
§ Mr. FlynnWill the Minister reconsider his appalling answer in the light of the experience of Mrs. Valerie Jones of Cwmlas Llanbradach? Her husband died tragically of cancer a year ago, 35 days before her 45th birthday and two months before this law came into effect. Her appeal was upheld by the social security tribunal, and the Government are appealing against that decision.
The DSS and the Government believe that Mrs. Jones should go out to work. Tragically, she herself is now 639 suffering from cancer. She is one of the millions of victims of the Government, who have pursued and cheated people relentlessly under their social security legislation. In pursuing this woman to appeal to save a few pennies, the Government stand condemned 2,000 times over of mean, pitiless theft of the widow's mite.
§ Mr. ScottI believe that the hon. Gentleman has been carried away by his oratory. His description of the system is a travesty of the truth. As I have said, an important case—that of Mrs. Doreen Whitbread—is going to the social security commissioner soon: an early hearing is being arranged. I think that we should await that decision.