Clause 7 - Power to provide for payments
Age-Related Payments Bill
2:30 pm
Mr Nigel Waterson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Eastbourne, Conservative)
As much as it grieves me to say it, I largely agree with the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). The more I examine the clause, the more I wonder whether we should have a Division on it. As I said in my remarks on amendment No. 7, the clause sticks out like a sore thumb. We have the Government's stated intention of the one-off ad-hoc—whatever phrase they want to use—payment to pensioners. We all have views on the real motivation behind that. However, buried in the Bill is the power to make payments on almost any grounds as long as the recipient is over 60. We know that people over 60 are four times more likely to vote in an election than 18 to 25-year-olds, so it remains to be seen whether there is any connection. I suppose it depends who they vote for.
We are very suspicious of the clause and I share many of the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the process. If the Minister wants to get it through without a Division, he will have to be more forthcoming. The most we got out of him during his introduction to this far-reaching clause was that it would be implemented if the Government judged that there was a need. That is not good enough. He must specify the need that he
is talking about and what bases he has in mind. If, as just a vague twinkle in his or the Secretary of State's eye, there is the idea that at some time in the future the Government might want to shove a load of money in the direction of the over 60s, why on earth are we debating it at all? If that need arises, we can go through this process all over again. We are pretty flexible; we can always turn up for another day and do all the things involved in producing laws.
The Government are asking for a blank cheque. What do they have in mind? As we see the inexorable rise of means-testing, will the Government become more and more hooked on giving one-off gifts—bounty—to older people and pensioners in our society, rather than doing the sensible thing and adopting our policy of restoring the link with earnings?