|
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Mr. Willetts, let's deal first
of all with the promises. Given your record, the Conservatives record
in government, why should pensioners believe that they are going to be
better off under you next time.
DAVID WILLETTS: Because what we've proposed
is a very carefully costed package, the figures agreed with the House of
Commons Library, which shows that you can both consolidate all the money
in the special payments into the basic pension, plus, there is three-hundred-and-twenty
million pounds extra on top from elsewhere in the Social Security Budget,
so pensioners will have an income that is at least as good, if not better
than what they have at the moment, and above all, it will be guaranteed,
it will treat them with respect, it will be part of the weekly basic pension.
HUMPHRYS: Let's look at the list
that you've announced today. It doesn't seem to amount to very much when
you break it down, does it really? Breast cancer screening, you say that
you are going to extend that for sixty-five to sixty-nine-year-olds, depending
on trials, but the government is already doing precisely that.
WILLETTS: Yeah, but, and what we're
doing though, both on breast cancer and the other things we've announced
is that we're saying, when we identify areas where policy discriminates
against people just because of their age, we Tories want to break down
those barriers, and what we're finding, both in the benefit system, and
in the health service, is there are still barriers which people face, getting
the right service, getting the right level of benefit, just because of
their age, and that's unacceptable.
HUMPHRYS: And the government's
recognised it and is not going to have it. It's going to change it.
WILLETTS: Well, but I think the
trouble with this government is that because of all their rhetoric of new
Britain, young Britain, cool Britannia, the pop stars at number ten, all
that type of stuff, they don't understand or respect what it is that concerns
older people, particularly pensioners, and we are showing that we have
been listening, we have been learning, and we Conservatives value and respect
pensioners and these policies, both on pensions and on the health service
show that we're serious.
HUMPHRYS: Sounds as if you've been
listening to the government, because as I say, on breast cancer screening
what you're proposing is precisely what they've already decided to do -
it's not new, is it?
WILLETTS: It depends on how the
pilot project scheme will go......
HUMPHRYS: .....exactly.
WILLETTS: ....but, what we know
is that the problem with cancer treatment in this country, and we do unfortunately
have a record on cancer that is worse than most other advanced western
countries, is almost entirely to be explained by the treatment which older
people get in hospital, so there is indeed, yeah there's a deeper question
here about how you help older people - but if I look at how this government
has treated older people in the past three years, look at the way all the
New Deal money, for example, went to eighteen to twenty-four olds, they
don't understand, or value, or respect them.
HUMPHRYS: Mmm. But as I say, they
already acknowledge this. Anyway, let's move on to the next thing, mixed
sex wards, which you don't like, neither does the government, neither do
most people it seems, and your government promised, Virginia Bottomley,
I remember her telling me about it years ago, five, six years ago, that
they were going to put an end to it. Urgent moves were needed, that's
exactly what she said. John Major apologised for it all a couple of years
later because it hadn't happened. It still hasn't happened, but this government
is now saying, it is going to do it, you didn't do it, this government
says it's going to do it, now you say again you're going to do it, and
present it as something new.
WILLETTS: Yeah, but you say the
government now it is going to happen, one of the troubles......
HUMPHRYS: .....he says it's going
to happen.
WILLETTS: .....one of the troubles
is that already the timetable has slipped. I remember Baroness Jay, when
she was a Health Minister, saying that by now they would have eliminated
mixed sex wards. Now they're talking about some date after the next election.
HUMPHRYS: Two-thousand-and-two,
which may not be after the next election, probably will be but may not
be.
WILLETTS: Yeah, who knows. But
what we're saying is, yeah, we've been listening, we've been learning,
we've been listening to pensioners, and I'm not going to defend everything
that happened in the past, what we are saying is, pensioners tell us over
and over again that they don't think that they get a fair crack of the
whip under this government. So William Hague has said to us, he wants
us all to review the policies in our area, to make sure that they do not
discriminate against older people.
HUMPHRYS: Fine, except that you've
come up with policies that are those that have already been adopted by
the government, so, there isn't any difference. They are going to do it.
WILLETTS: Well, the policies that
we have been announcing on the basic state pension, that's not what the
government has done......
HUMPHRYS: ....we'll come to that
in a minute
WILLETTS: ....and the policies
which I've announced today in the areas of benefits, saying that we should
get rid of the discrimination against older carers, that is a policy that
sadly is not being implemented by this government, I wish they would, to
be honest, and we would support them if they did. And on war widows, where
we're saying that war widows should not lose their pension if they remarry,
there the government absolutely has an opportunity straight away to do
it, the amendment has been tabled in the House of Lords, the government
has been defeated on it, all they need to do is to say, when the current
Welfare Bill comes back to the Commons, they will not try to reverse that
provision. So yeah, if the government does these things, that's fine by
us.
HUMPHRYS: But, you, you could have
done that by yourself, William Hague, who was then the Social Security
Minister back in 1995 said, and I quote, we looked it up this morning -
it would be wrong to change the rules for one very small group, one very
small group in isolation - he didn't think it was a good idea then.
WILLETTS: Yeah. Well what's happened
is very simple. What's happened is five years on, five years later, listening
and learning from older people, what we have found is there is a whole
range of areas where they don't feel they are properly treated with respect.
So, yes, I am not going to defend our policy of five years ago, but I
am proud of our policy today.
HUMPHRYS: Mmm. Well, let's look
at the other thing that you're proud of, the basic state pension, the changes
there, you gave the impression very clearly last week, that pensioners
would be five-pounds-fifty a week better off. They're not going to be
five-pounds-fifty a week better off, are they?
WILLETTS: What we said is that
there will be an increase in the basic state pension that is a minimum
of five-pounds-fifty for a single pensioner under seventy-five, and goes
up to ten-pounds for an older pensioner. We made it perfectly clear all
along, because pensioners have been over-sold too many gimmicks by this
government, we made it perfectly clear all along, that most of this money
came from consolidating the various special schemes.......
HUMPHRYS: .....all but forty-two
pence of it.
WILLETTS: ...no, but the, an extra
three-hundred-and-twenty-million pounds that comes from, for example, saving
on the bureaucracy of administering the special schemes, a complete waste
of money that will instead go into the basic pension. So it is true, most
of the money is coming from consolidating the existing schemes, but there
is extra money on top, and I think that that's why we can be confident
that all pensioners will be better off.
HUMPHRYS: And the extra money on
top is forty-two pence a week, you made great fun of the sum, as indeed
did an awful lot of other people, the seventy-five pence a week that they
got on top of the pension, you are offering them another forty-two pence
a week, making it sound a great deal of money.
WILLETTS: What we are doing is
- it will vary according to the circumstances of individual pensioners
but it could be significantly more than that. And to be honest John, even
if there was not an extra penny, even if there was not a single extra penny
of money rather than the three hundred and twenty million, even if we were
simply taking the money that goes into the special payments and putting
that into the basic pension, I think that would be an improvement because
it would treat pensioners with respect, whereas the current special scheme,
they all have to apply for and is complicated to administer do not. So
I - even if there were no extra money, I would still say this was a better
policy.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, important expression
this, with respect, because as you say that is what they want and quite
right too and William Hague made the point earlier this week, not five
years ago but just four days ago he said the basic state pension in effect
is a return on years of contributions, these people have worked for it,
they have paid their contributions over the years and they are damn well
entitled to it, that's the view they take, quite right too. 'We want to
show respect' he says. Now if that's the case, how come that you are not
promising to do what they want above all and that is a substantial increase,
not forty-two pence, a substantial increase in the basic state pension
and restore the link with earnings which your government chopped and which
made so many of them......if you are really listening to them, that's what
you'd do isn't it.
WILLETTS: Well we are talking about
a substantial increase in the basic state pension..
HUMPHRYS: No you're not, it's forty-two
pence..
WILLETTS: ..well minimum of five
pounds fifty, up to ten pounds and that is an increase that includes the
recycling of the existing...
HUMPHRYS: ..that's smoke and mirrors
isn't it.
WILLETTS: ..but on the earnings
I know that many campaigning pensioners would like to see the earnings
link restored, you are quite right, neither the Conservatives nor the Labour
Party, nor even the Lib Dems actually in their manifesto proposed that
because it is not affordable and would not be well targeted. So what pensioners
have to look at is not what for them would be the ideal, you have to look
at the practical options that are on offer. They can either have all Gordon
Brown's special payments or they can have what we propose in their carefully
costed package which is an increase in the basic state pension that is
more than consolidating the special gimmicks. That is the real choice they'll
face in the next election.
HUMPHRYS: So respect doesn't actually
mean much extra money, it means a few pence extra, it just means packaging
it up in a different way, that's really what it's all about.
WILLETTS: Well I think..you say
it just means packaging it up in a different way, the thing that pensioners
feel is that if they are to have extra money they will want it to be part
of the contributory basic pension as an entitlement..
HUMPHRYS: ..they want more money..
WILLETTS: ..yes they do want more
money as well, you are quite right, but the money they do get..the complication
of these schemes, the way they are so badly targeted. I am sure that Gordon
Brown didn't even intend this but he has got a scheme where people in nursing
homes and residential accommodation who are on income support don't get
the winter fuel payment, but the affluent pensioners, the two hundred and
twenty thousand who are above income support levels do get the winter fuel
payment. It's a nonsense. He's created a nonsense because every budget
he stands up and wants to announce a new scheme with a new change to the
benefit system, it's too complicated and simplifying it and putting it
as part of the contributory pension is a lot better than what they have
at the moment.
HUMPHRYS: There's one group of
pensioners - the worst off as well - who are actually going to be worst
off still under you because at least under Labour people on the minimum
income guarantee will have that increase, that benefit paid in line with
earnings, it will go up in line with earnings. You won't allow that will
you?
WILLETTS: That is simply not true.
We made all along, clear in our package, that the extra money that goes
into the basic pension is to go to all pensioners. It will not be taken
off pensions..
HUMPHRYS: ..talking about the minimum
income guarantee..
WILLETTS: ...yeah the minimum income
guarantee is income support as it was in our day, renamed as is often
with New Labour you look behind you..
HUMPHRYS: ...but the question I'm
asking is whether you are going to increase that in line with earnings
in the future, that's the crucial point.
WILLETTS: What I am..in the package
which is the uprating for 2001, is based on Labour's spending plans for
the year 2001/2002 and only differs from Labour's spending plans where
we have specified. The 2001/2002 year which is for what this applies..
HUMPHRYS: ..a one off..
WILLETTS: ..will have the increase
in means tested benefits that ensures that all pensioners are better off
than they are..
HUMPHRYS: ..for that year. What
about subsequent years?
WILLETTS: Well in the long term
how you up-rate the value of the income support, the minimum income guarantee
is indeed a matter for decision...
HUMPHRYS: Oh right, so that's exactly
the point I made.
WILLETTS: But Labour are not themselves,
they are not guaranteeing that all through the lifetime of the second Parliament
what they will do, when they will produce their spending plans, we will
produce our spending plans.
HUMPHRYS: But their policy is to
increase it in line with earnings, you are not going to do that.
WILLETTS: But what Alastair Darling
was claiming was that poorer pensioners on means tested benefits will lose
out because they will not get the value of this increase, that is untrue.
This will go to all pensioners and means tested benefits will be increased
so as to ensure that the value..
HUMPHRYS: ...for that year but
there's no commitment from you to continue to do that.
WILLETTS: But there is a commitment
for the future..
HUMPHRYS: The answer is no to that
isn't it, let's be clear about that.
WILLETTS: The commitment to the
future is that then this larger, more substantial basic state pension will
be uprated in line with prices and it will be a larger sum that is uprated
so that every year the uprating will be bigger because you are uprating
a bigger sum. It's another reason why pensioners gain from this package.
HUMPHRYS: Right, let's be quite
clear about this. The poorest pensioners could, because you are not prepared
to give this commitment, in the long run be worse off.
WILLETTS: Neither Labour ministers
nor us as a responsible Opposition have said that in the long term you
can guarantee that the minimum income guarantee will rise in line with
earnings rather than prices. That is a decision to be taken beyond the
year 2002.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, so the upshot
of all that is that you're telling the many pensioners who will be watching
this programme that under a Conservative government they would be better
off. There's no ifs, ands and buts, no sleight of hand, no repack, they
will be better off?
WILLETTS: Yes.
HUMPHRYS: Well now, that is a bit
strange isn't it, because what you're supposed to be doing, what you're
going to have to do if you get into office is to cut taxes during the lifetime
of the government, no ifs, ands or buts about that either, that is an absolute
commitment and yet you're going to pay extra money to pensioners. Of course
you're also going to pay extra money to the Health Service, to schools,
all the rest of it, but extra money to pensioners. Bit of a tricky one
to pull off that isn't it?
WILLETTS: And we've managed it.
HUMPHRYS: Managed it? - you're
not in office yet.
WILLETTS: Yes.
HUMPHRYS: You are telling us how
you might manage it.
WILLETTS: No because let me tell
you, because you're quite right. I want to see the social security budget
coming down and I'm committed to bringing down the social security budget,
and that's what I want to do, and what we've done in this package for pensioners
is we've identified very clearly elsewhere in the social security budget
where the extra three hundred and twenty million pounds comes to help pensioners.
I comes from the abolition of the New Deal for lone parents, it comes
from the savings on bureaucracy, other measures, adding up to .....
HUMPHRYS: ...oh come on, savings
on bureaucracy, the number of times - can I just remind you of something
one of your colleagues said about savings on bureaucracy - Stephen Dorrell.
He said when the Labour - the then Labour Opposition said we're going
to save on bureaucracy in the NHS and all the rest of it, he said that's
a mirage, you can't do it.
WILLETTS: Well we - I tabled parliamentary
questions to ministers to establish how much it cost to administer the
winter fuel payment scheme and how much it cost to administer the special
free TV licence scheme. Those figures add up to forty million pounds.
We're saying if you abolish the schemes that releases forty million pounds
and you can put that into the basic state pension. Though if you disagree
with the figures you'll have to .......
HUMPHRYS: Well, that will pay for
your war widows bit, but you've got - I've been making a list here, you've
got forty million for war widows, twenty million for carers' benefits,
forty million...... three-hundred-and twenty million for the new pension
- still an awful lot of money...
WILLETTS: Yes, and what we've identified
is substantial savings in the social security budget by saying for those
lone parents for example, instead of Labour's hopeless New Deal which does
nothing to get them into work, we will expect of single parents whose children
are of secondary school age because it's in the interests of their children
that they be actively seeking work...
HUMPHRYS: ..is it?
WILLETTS: ..we will end - it is
in the interests of their children..
HUMPHRYS: Family friendly policies.
So much for them.
WILLETTS: Well, I was very struck
by ...
HUMPHRYS: ... be out of work and
looking after the kids.
WILLETTS: If you look at the evidence,
if you look at education attainment of the children, if you look at future
employment, if you particularly look for the daughters at their own risk
of becoming a teenage mother, you see that if their lone parent works when
they're of secondary school age then the chances for the child are much
better. So we think it's only responsible to act on ......
HUMPHRYS: ..but sure, but...
WILLETTS: ... and that's one-point-two-billion
pounds of income support that goes to single parents.....
HUMPHRYS: If they all find jobs,
if they all, every single one of them, every single one of them finds a
part time job that would fit in with where they live and where the school
hours and all that, a bit optimistic that isn't it?
WILLETTS: Well, all that we're
expecting them to do is to find the jobs that the married mothers with
working husbands are doing. Again, we're going to say, what we're going
to say to them is, look at the sort of jobs which are being done by
the women in your area, that is what we'll expect job centres to be referring
them to, and those will be the reasonable offers of work, and if you don't
do that indeed you will sadly lose your income support.
HUMPHRYS: And you're also assuming
that they will be paid enough, so that they don't have to get benefits.
You're asking a great deal - making a great deal of assumption about this
aren't you?
WILLETTS: All I say is that the
assumptions that we're making are a jolly sight more sensible and practical
than the assumptions that Labour have made in the New Deal for lone parents,
that's ninety-million pounds that just goes, and I will use the word again
John, it just goes into bureaucracy. It literally is bureaucracy, it goes
into letters that are sent out to lone parents inviting them for interviews,
it goes into the postage, it goes into the bureaucrats who send out the
letters and they're no more likely to get a job than the people who don't
get the letters.
HUMPHRYS: The idea that you're
going to save one-point-two-billion pounds on this scheme alone is fairly
preposterous isn't it. It's making an enormous assumption.
WILLETTS: What we're saying is
that over a lifetime of a parliament we will tackle it in a sensible way,
we're not being - we're not doing anything rash.
HUMPHRYS: So, it's not going to
all happen immediately then?
WILLETTS: What we'll do is bring
down the age at which parents get their income support unconditionally.
From the age of the child being sixteen or eighteen as it is at the moment,
down to eleven a year at a time. We've identified other savings as well.
HUMPHRYS: Well, just before we
leave that one, you're not going to say one-point-two-billion pounds, certainly
not in the first year, not in the second, maybe by the end of.....
WILLETTS: We're talking about increasing
savings that will reach one-point-two billion pounds, and they are substantial
savings, they're much larger savings than the only extra items of social
security expenditure that I've announced, apart from this self financing
package for pensioners which is forty million pounds to help war widows
and twenty million pounds to help carers who are discriminated against
at the moment. Comparing those two specific announcements that tackle
the real and genuine grievance with the very large savings totalling well
over a billion, adding up eventually to three-point-two billion it's clear
that we're committed to making overall savings in the social security budget.
HUMPHRYS; You didn't pick out of
that little lot the way you're going to save money, the ninety million
pounds you're going to pinch out of the social fund, that fund that helps
the very poorest people buy shoes for their children and the like, and
that's a pretty mean cut isn't it?
WILLETTS: Yes, that was a tough
decision to take, but we took it because....
HUMPHRYS: People are going to suffer.
WILLETTS: Yes, and we didn't want
you to be able to say, and the critics to say, hang on the figures don't
add up, they haven't shown where they'll get the savings from. It was
a tough decision, but our view was that the government had put over sixty
million pounds extra into the social fund this year, it was increasing
way on top of inflation, and that if we can put more money to pensioners
through guaranteed weekly payments in their basic state pension it is possible
to make off setting savings elsewhere. And we've come clean on it and the
figures have all been agreed with the House of Commons library, and it
is a package where the figures add up. And by the way you haven't given
me an opportunity yet to identify other areas where there are savings to
be made, there are entire benefits such as the Industrial Injuries Benefit
which we say should be shifted away from an indiscriminate subsidy to employers
whether they are having high rates of industrial injuries or not, and instead
we say that that should be a responsibility on them to take out private
insurance. We want to see a much bigger effort on welfare fraud, where
there's seven billion of fraud and the Government are pathetic on tackling
it. There are big savings that we can deliver.
HUMPHRYS: Maybe. You can't be
absolutely sure.
WILLETTS: We will.
HUMPHRYS: David Willetts, thank
you very much indeed.
|