Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West)

As a maiden speaker I feel it might not be entirely appropriate for me to offer congratulations to the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) and I will therefore leave such felicitous offerings to those more experienced than myself. As the new Member for Oldham, West I have the considerable advantage and the challenge of representing a constituency with very distinct and social economic needs. I must confess that I lack the legal expertise which characterised both my immediate predecessors. In the course of his brief tenure Mr. Bruce Campbell used his wide legal knowledge for the unfailing advantage of many of his constituents, while before him Mr. Leslie Hale, in the course of a long and illustrious career in this House, set a pattern of eminence in the representation of his constituents which it would be presumptuous for a new and young member such as myself even to seek to emulate.

It is not only the intricacies and complexities of the legal brain that I lack. Leslie Hale's reputations as the fastest speaker in the House of Commons is another of his accomplishments which I am well advised not to challenge. It was not for nothing that he was known not only for his rapid delivery but also as one of the most brilliant and wittiest speakers, even in this talented Chamber. I am fortunate that the needs of the area with which I am concerned, South-East Lancashire, are sufficiently clear and pronounced that they do not depend so much on my personal artistry for their expression as upon their own unspoken advocacy.

There can be no doubt that first and foremost among these needs must be placed the overriding necessity to bring effective measures to bear against the widespread and enervating poverty of the region. Since my constituency contains an above proportion of elderly and of chronically handicapped persons, largely because of the ravages of byssinosis and other disabling industrial diseases, the people of Oldham and Chadderton can be expected to take an unusual degree of interest in this Bill. I am bound to say that instead of the usual acclamation of three cheers I would be surprised if they managed more than two for these proposals. Take the first, the pension for the over-80s. As laid down in the Bill at a level of £3 for a single person in this age range and £4 17s. for a married couple, it is not only below the supplementary benefit level but 40 per cent. below the present retirement pension which now stands at £5 for a single person and £8 2s. for a married couple.

This means that so far from relieving an elderly person or couple from the need to claim supplementary benefit to obtain what the State has already established as their minimum entitlement, they will still be obliged to do so if they lack other income, for fully two-fifths of the benefit due to them. This part of the Bill is sadly a long way from representing a new deal for the over-80s. From the point of view of the remedying of poverty in advanced old age it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the provisions of this part of the Bill are either otiose or inadequate, for, where a person in this age category has a private income or private pension large enough to render them ineligible for the receipt of supplementary benefit, then from the point of view of the remedying of poverty for the purpose of concentrating resources on those in greatest need, a principle dear to the heart of hon. Gentlemen opposite, these provisions are superfluous.

If they are designed to help those whose present income is only just above supplementary benefit level then a more effective means of tapering the abruptness of the cut-off point would surely be by further widening the disregards on capital and other income. For those whose current level of income is below supplementary benefit level, either they are now receiving supplementation of income or not. If they are this Bill in no way absolves them from that continued necessity. If they are not—and it is this group which might expect to be helped most provided they can be found—it is difficult to see why they should be gratified to receive a noncontributory benefit as of right when they have so far resisted a non-contributory entitlement of greater value, if the supplementary benefit has the tarnished aura of charity because it is not preceded by a contributory history. It is not clear why the former benefit which is similarly handicapped and now introduced by this Bill should be any more gratefully received.

To put it another way, perhaps the philosophy behind this part of the Bill is that those persons who through no fault of their own were excluded from the benefits of the National Insurance Act, 1948, now deserve special assistance since they have reached an age where the burdens of infirmity may well be expected to impose unavoidable additional costs. If so, again I would argue that the limited expenditure under this Bill could have been more purposefully applied if directly tied to a definition of infirmity irrespective of age. Many people now aged 80, in chronic ill-health, and those below that age are considerably more in need of this supplementation than many who are over 80 and still remain in the robust vigour of good health. This could thus be paid as of right if the definition of infirmity were made dependent on a general practitioner's identification of a person as housebound.

In what context should this first part of the Bill be placed? If it is not too controversial a supposition to introduce into a maiden speech, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the primary motivation is to arrogate a reputation for compassion early in the lifetime of this new Government on the cheapest possible ticket. The £14 million to be expended on pensions for the over 80s is inevitably a rapidly declining commitment. In reviewing this Bill it is the dog that did not bark which is the most conspicuous.

Poverty in this country is centred largely on two main groups, low-paid wage earners and the general body of the retired elderly. For the former we still await the announcement of that early, substantial increase in family allowance foreshadowed by the Conservative manifesto and numerous Conservative policy statements. For the latter, we still await a Government decision about the level they intend for the ordinary National Insurance retirement pension. The Government should be reminded that once again this requires amplification about whether it is merely intended to maintain the traditional relationship with national average earnings.

Do the Government propose to emulate the ambition of the previous Administration in raising the level of the retirement pension from 19 per cent. to 40 per cent. of national average earnings and then to 60 per cent. of previous earnings for low paid workers? It is only in the context of such professed intentions that this commitment to such a small and limited minority group as is embraced in Clause 1 can be seen to contain any independent validity.

Turning to the proposals on pensions for widows aged between 40 and 50 in Clause 2, I am relieved to be able to revert to the more usual tenor of a maiden speech in congratulating the Government on their wisdom in following Section 28 of the National Insurance Act introduced by the previous Administration. My sole concern here is to question the consistency of Clauses 2 and 4. Is it not incongruous on the one hand, rightly in my opinion, to taper eligibility for the widow's pension below the age of 50 and yet on the other hand sharply and arbitrarily to limit the benefit for mentally and physically handicapped and extreme disability involved in constant attendance allowance?

What of those with disability which is more moderate but which still severely penalises or, indeed, entirely eliminates their earning capacity? Even without the need for constant attendance, permanent disability arising from accident, illness or congenital disability invariably entails a considerable increase in daily living expenses, as well as a loss of earning power. For those with very poor work prospects, the previous Administration drew up a long-term invalidity pension, calculated in the same generous manner as the proposed earnings-related retirement pension.

How, then, do this Government propose to fill the benefit gap between minor short-term sickness and liability to constant attendance? What is really needed is a clear Government commitment in principle to a comprehensive disability pension scheme payable as of right, though varying in amount, to those in work as well as those out of work and without regard to age. Even if every over-80 pension and the constant attendance allowance is to be restricted in scope, one is pleased to note the Government's conversion in both these cases to benefits as of right.

I hope that this conversion signifies, as we await the report of the Finer Committee set up to consider the problems of one-parent families, that the Government agree in principle that any new allowances payable to these families should also be not discretionary but payable as of right. I also trust that it signifies the Government's agreement, for example, that the maternity grant of £25 should be paid as of right to mothers irrespective of contributions under national insurance. If even such limited additional grants as of right were established so early in the lifetime of this new Government in the crucial field of poverty concerned with the problems of one-parent families, an issue which is only too likely to become a major issue before the House soon, then vitally important precedents will have been set today.

I cannot leave the constant attendance allowance without some brief comment on its size. In the absence of a high level long term invalidity benefit, which was proposed in the now defunct National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill, it is the grossest euphemism to suggest that £4 even begins to approach the cost of covering constant attendance. For a 48-hour week, the minimum cost of attendance for a severely disabled person in London is at present £20, and a week consists not of 48 hours but of 168.

I have confined my remarks mainly to the issues of principle arising from the Bill. There are other matters of detail which are also open to discussion and controversy, which I have deliberately omitted. For instance, should a minority non-medical attendance on the attendance allowances board be made mandatory, since disability involves a distinct social component? Should the constant attendance allowance be paid in certain cases without waiting for the expiry of the six months' minimum eligibility period? Should provision be made for representation of a claimant before the attendance allowance board by his general practitioner?

Such detailed matters of application I defer to the Committee stage, since I feel it best to concentrate on such insights into the Government's strategy in social security as are revealed by this Bill. In this light, I can only conclude that my constituents in Oldham and Chadderton, while by no means wishing to look a gift horse in the mouth, will search in vain for more than minor patching up of an essentially untouched central structure.

See this speech in context