Cost of Living
Malcolm Wicks Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)
Welcome to our debate, Mr Deputy Speaker; it is good to see you again.
My intention today is to talk about aspects of family life and how they relate to the “cost of living” theme. However, as a former Energy Minister, I am bound to say that I have been stimulated by the debate to make a few other remarks. Let me offer some friendly advice to the Secretary of State: his soundbite of the speech—that he is in favour of the “solar many” rather than the “solar few”—may not go viral. Indeed, I think it represents a formidable rewriting challenge for his speechwriters, if I may say so.
I will not get too cross with the Secretary of State for saying, as a bit of political knockabout, that the last Labour Government made no strategic decisions at all. Empirically, that is incorrect, as I think of the formidable legislation on climate change, which was supported throughout the House. For the first time, Parliament—the Labour Government were in power—decided to legislate to reduce carbon emissions. That is probably the most radically ambitious piece of legislation ever to go before this House. As I recall—I do not work for News International, so I do have a memory—it was also the Labour Government who set renewable energy targets, although they were more than just targets. [Interruption.] I hear a Member mumbling “Europe” at me from a sedentary position. I do not know whether it was a Eurosceptic, but yes, of course Europe is relevant; our party believes in Europe. We subscribe to European targets and during the period of the Labour Government we became the biggest country in the world in terms of investment in offshore wind. So much for us not having any strategic direction!
Malcolm Wicks
I will give way in a moment—if the intervention is a good one.
As a Government, we also tried to push forward carbon capture and storage—a formidable endeavour, and I congratulate the Norwegians on the progress they have made. It would be good to hear from the Government at some stage where they think we are on CCS because it is a vital part of our low-carbon objectives, given that despite renewables and nuclear, we will continue to invest in and use a great deal of fossil fuels in the future.
We also need to talk about nuclear energy. The withdrawal of the German consortium has been a formidable blow to our plans for nuclear energy, but I put it to the Secretary of State that, despite what he says, the last Labour Government’s decision to allow a new generation of civil nuclear reactors was a crucial strategic decision. As I recall—again I draw on my memory—one reason why Parliament took rather a long time to reach that decision was that one of our major parties, and I think it was the Liberal Democrats—
Malcolm Wicks
I am a kind person, and I suppose it was major until recently. That party was adamantly opposed to nuclear energy. I ask the Secretary of State whether he has now made a strategic realignment in his own mind to support nuclear energy. I hope he has. I think the fact that the Prime Minister has appointed Liberal Democrat Members to this important role of Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change shows that he maintains a sense of humour—one that he will need in the weeks and the trials, which is a term I use in the generic sense, to come.
While I am speaking about energy policy rather than family policy, which I shall come to in a moment, I want to emphasise the importance of the global context. We cannot discuss this issue only domestically. If I am right, the International Energy Agency projects in one of its central scenarios that global energy demand, mainly from non-OECD countries, will rise by about 40% by 2035. We must view our issues within that global context, we have to take energy security seriously and we have to build up what I have always called home-grown energy as much as we can, alongside reducing energy demand—hence the importance of nuclear and of renewable energy.
Dr Huppert
To rewind, let me say that the Climate Change Act 2008 was an excellent Act, and it had cross-party support. I am delighted that it was enacted. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Governments have to take a lead in showing that they can use less energy? He will remember the 10:10 campaign, designed to persuade people across the country to reduce their energy usage by 10%. Does he regret the fact that his Government voted down a Liberal Democrat proposal that the entire Government should sign up to that? Will he congratulate this Government on signing up to it and on reducing energy usage by 14% in their first year?
Malcolm Wicks
What I am proud of is that across a range of fronts, including transport, where we saw the development of hybrid cars, for example—I do not say that the Labour Government were responsible for them, but we encouraged them—energy demand reduction in industry and in the service and retail sector, and, of course, literally on the home front, with our domestic dwellings, we made many efforts to reduce energy demand. We need to do deal a great deal more. Irrespective of what party we come from, the first item on the agenda for energy policy has to be energy efficiency. It is the cheapest and cleanest solution and the most secure, as we are not dependent on foreign shores for reducing energy demand. That is vital.
Malcolm Wicks
I will give way one more time, but then I shall move on to discussing what I thought was to be my main subject today.
Simon Hughes
To clarify for the right hon. Gentleman, who raised the issue, the Liberal Democrats are opposed to nuclear power. We recognise that there is no majority in this House for that position, so a deal was done in the coalition agreement that allows the Government to pursue nuclear power provided that there is no subsidy—direct or indirect—for it. My view is that that means it will not happen because it has always needed to be subsidised.
Malcolm Wicks
A very senior Liberal Democrat Member says that nuclear will not happen, while the Liberal Democrat Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change says that it will. I suspect that there may well be more rows in that party in the weeks and months to come—for other reasons, too—but an interesting divide has been opened up.
Let me move on from nuclear energy to the nuclear family—and other families, too—as the main focus of my speech today. I start with the proposition that although we are all currently concerned with how to develop a strong economy in really difficult times of economic austerity, equally important for the well-being of our society—I do not think I exaggerate—is what we might call the strong family. Whether families are based on marriage or cohabitation or whether they be two or one-parent families, it is important that they are strong, but many families are struggling and need our support.
Many issues that we debate in this Chamber—education, for example—depend as much on what I call strong families and strong parenting as on other measures the state can provide, such as support for schools and colleges, Sure Start and so forth. I have always taken the view that parents are as important as teachers for education and that families are as important as schools. Many do very well.
How family life has changed in this country is an issue we need to understand, as the family of today is not the family of 1945, and social policy needs to follow the grain of understanding these changes to family life. Not so long ago, a child left school at 14, 15 or 16 and became an economic asset to the family. Now, of course, as some of us know to our cost, our children are financially dependent on us often right into their early to mid-20s—and for good reasons, because of the development of higher education and the need for children to equip themselves for a more sophisticated society.
The strong family, then, is an important theme, and I want to touch on two policy consequences flowing from it. The first is child care and the related issue of parental leave, which is a welcome feature of the Queen’s Speech. We await the detail of the Government’s proposals on parental leave and we will need to scrutinise them. The importance of these issues relates to my theme of family change. Gone are the days when it was assumed that the father would go out to work full time and the mother would stay at home to look after the children—often, in the past, quite a number of children. The fact that those days have gone is very welcome—as is the water brought over to me by my ever-so-kind Whip. I do not want to get away from the idea that the Labour Whips are tough and fearless and nasty, but they can be kind too.
As I said, those days have gone, and the rise of what many people call the dual-worker family—the rise of women and mothers in employment—has come about for good reasons. It reflects a growing equality in our society, and the high educational achievements of our girls and young women. It also reflects the fact that people are now demanding a higher living standard than was experienced by their mothers and grandmothers. In a high-cost society, two incomes are more desirable than one.
Malcolm Wicks
May I pursue my theme for a while? The hon. Gentleman must remind me later that I was going to give way to him.
This is not a painless revolution. I do not want to compete with the Secretary of State’s soundbite, but for many women and men there is what might be called a care-career collision.
Malcolm Wicks
The alliteration is better.
What I mean is that the time when young men and women in their mid-to-late twenties and thirties are working hard at their careers, and when their employers are watching them, is precisely the time when they think about the need to have children. That is a dilemma and a difficulty that we have not entirely thought through.
One consequence of the fact that women as well as men are working hard during their period of maximum fertility is the inability of many women to have families of the size that they would like. There is interesting evidence to that effect in a 2006 study by the Eurobarometer, the most recent that the Library could find for me. It states that in the UK in 2006 the mean ideal number of children for women—as it is an average, a funny statistic emerges—was 2.5, but the actual number of children achieved by women aged between 40 and 54 was only 1.9. As I have said, it is possible to laugh at such statistics, but we can see what lies behind them. Many women, and men, who would have preferred to have, say, three children end up with two, many who might have wanted two end up with one, and others may not be able to have children at all.
I am not suggesting that there is some Utopia in which everyone can achieve their ideal family size, but I do believe that there are economic and employment pressures that make achieving an ideal family size difficult in Britain and, indeed, throughout Europe. That ought to concern us, not least at a time when data show that birth rates are below replacement level in this country.
Another consequence of the care-career collision is the sheer hassle and difficulty that many families have to undergo in order to organise substitute child care. The growth of child care is wholly beneficial—it has improved the lot of families and, in many cases, children—but whenever I discuss the issue with younger families today, I have the impression that there is barrier after barrier. Often it is not just one substitute child carer whom parents need to employ. Because of career patterns, children may have to be dragged out of bed early and sent from one carer to another. What happens when a childminder is ill? What happens when the mother herself, who should be working, knows that her child is ill? Many parents have to resort to fibbing to their employers that they themselves are ill, rather than their children.
What I am saying—not too controversially, I hope—is that I do not believe the development of child care has led to some kind of nirvana. People may say, “It would be better if we had more child care, if the training and the quality of child care were better, and if it were cheaper”, and I understand their argument, but I want to challenge more fundamentally the proposition that we have reached a nirvana. I believe that family decisions made by men and women, by dads and mums, would be better decisions for families and for children if parental leave became a much more important feature of our employment and social policy. We have made some progress and I welcome that, but the average citizen of the 21st century will live until her eighties or nineties, and we are threatened with the possibility that many children born today will reach the age of 100. That is a long life span. Are we really saying that, during the two or three critical years after a child is born, substitute child care is the only way of ensuring the well-being of our children and their parents?
Now I will give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as I promised to do a long time ago.
Jim Shannon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, and congratulate him on a speech that we are all finding very thought-provoking and stimulating. One aspect of child care that he has touched on but not dwelt on is the role of the grandfather and grandmother. Has the possibility occurred to him, as it has to some people, that the increase in pension age will mean that they cannot provide families with the free child care that grandparents have provided in the past? Might that not also be a critical factor?
Malcolm Wicks
It could well be a factor. Certainly I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s main point that, although we often talk about the childminder or the nursery or the crèche, as I have been doing today, the role of the extended family—granny and granddad—can be vital.
To support my case that we need to take parental leave far more seriously, let me cite a recent, or fairly recent, pamphlet published in 2008 and written by a number of people, including Catherine Hakim. The publisher was Policy Exchange. Politically I am widely read, or rather the Library has briefed me widely. Catherine Hakim and her colleagues produced some interesting data. When parents were asked what, ideally, they would like, they did not all say “More child care, more child care”. Many simply wanted to spend more time with their own children when they were tiny. According to the report,
“Overall, a two-thirds majority of working mothers of pre-school and school-age children would prefer to work fewer hours or not at all, even if better childcare were available. Given the choice, what mothers prefer is to be at home with their children, not more and better childcare”.
That is an interesting finding, but I would qualify it by saying that we must not turn this into a debate about how mothers should be at home, as we are in danger of doing. Many mothers have educational qualifications that are superior to those of their partners, and careers that are blossoming. The debate about parental leave is not just about mums, but about dads as well. Too often in family and social policy, we talk about families as if they were just women and children and do not talk enough about fathers.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Malcolm Wicks
I will give way to all sorts of people shortly.
We need to draw on some of the experience of Sweden and other Scandinavian countries. We need parental leave which—almost in a social engineering way—enables and encourages dads as well as mothers to take parental leave.
Malcolm Wicks
I will give way to the Secretary of State. Perhaps he is going to answer my question about nuclear energy. He has had enough time in which to think about it.
Mr Davey
I have been listening closely to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. Before I became Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change I was in charge of employment relations in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and, indeed, did the work that took place before the announcement in the Queen’s Speech of legislation on flexible parental leave, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that that legislation will deliver many of the developments for which he is arguing. For instance, it will ensure that dads and members of extended families can be more involved. Shared parental leave, the extension to all of the right to request flexible working, and an increase in unpaid parental leave will tackle all the issues that he has raised. Those are the most radical proposals that have been made in this area, and they derive from the best practice in the world, which I believe is found in Sweden and Germany.
Malcolm Wicks
That is good, and when we see the Government’s proposals we can debate whether they go far enough and what our long-term ambitions might be.
On parental leave, perhaps we should be thinking of several years, rather than shorter periods. However, with dads in more and more families playing a much greater role than their own dads did, we must concoct the policy so that we give them, as well as the mothers, maximum encouragement to take parental leave.
The Secretary of State’s intervention—on an aspect of nuclear family policy, rather than nuclear policy, which he is shyer about—made a point that Government Members need to understand. Getting the right balance between work and family life—not just for parents but for carers of elderly people and many others—is not a distraction from economic growth; rather, it enables us to have a modern work force that will help promote growth.
Mrs Hodgson
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent and thought-provoking speech, especially on child care. Only one in five women earn more than their partners, the effect of which on the ability to take shared parental leave we should consider.
Malcolm Wicks
That raises the serious and fundamental question of why this inequality still exists. It also raises a more practical question, which I think my hon. Friend was implying: how can dads who are bringing in the great majority of the family bacon take much in the way of parental leave?
Malcolm Wicks
I understand that point, which raises the difficult issue of what financial allowance we can make for parental leave. We need to get to grips with this.
I turn to an issue that the House has discussed before. I put it to the Government that their policy on child benefit is a case study in unintended consequences—and I am being kind here. I speak as a great advocate of child benefit, which, along with the family allowance before it, has had its supporters on both sides of the House, right back to the pioneering work of Eleanor Rathbone, who wrote such important works on the importance of what she called family endowment. This Government’s decision to end the universal nature of child benefit by withdrawing it from people who earn above a certain income is a catastrophic strategic decision. It is a move towards potential means-testing that we need to be aware of.
Jake Berry
Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that people in my constituency, where the average salary is well below the national average—some of my constituents earn £14,000 or £15,000 a year—should pay tax to give child benefit to Members of this House, who are earning £65,000?
Malcolm Wicks
Yes, I am, because our welfare state, although a mixture of universal and selective provision, nevertheless needs that universal core if it is to command public respect. Those of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who have a couple of children, and who will suffer as a result of this provision, have costs, by definition, which the single person or the childless couple do not have. It is part of a decent society that we recognise those costs. It is also important that we do not move toward arguing, as the hon. Gentleman might want to argue, “Why on earth provide free education or a free health service to people earning £70,000? Why not cut that out?” That is a very slippery slope.
Malcolm Wicks
That is the logic of the position and, to be fair, many on the free-market wing of the Conservative party—such as the Institute of Economic Affairs think-tank—have been arguing for decades against universal provision and for a move towards a residual welfare state just for the poor, guarded strictly by the means test. That is the logic of some of these arguments.
I want to make two more specific points that I think colleagues understand. As I said, this policy is a case study of unintended consequences. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Treasury Ministers and officials did not set out to say—I am being generous now—“Let’s design a child benefit policy so that a family in which mum and dad earn just under £50,000 combined will maintain child benefit, but if there is only one earner bringing in over £60,000, that family will lose child benefit.” No sensible Treasury policy would have reached that conclusion, but because this one was rushed and ill-thought-out, that is the consequence. I do not know what the constituents of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), some of whom will be affected by this policy, will make of that. Where both members of a couple are earning a lot of money—nearly £50,000 each, following the revision, so they will have almost £100,000—they will keep their child benefit. However, if their next-door neighbours consist of a mum at home looking after the young ones, and a father earning over £60,000, his child benefit will be lost. Not even the hon. Gentleman, in his loyalist rash of enthusiasm, would defend that, surely. Would he?
Jake Berry
Surely the logical conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument is that all benefit should be universal. Does he think that all benefit, such as council tax benefit, should be universal? If there is no means test and people get the benefit regardless of their earning capacity, even if they are among the richest people in the country, that is the logical conclusion of his argument.
Malcolm Wicks
As I said earlier, any sensible social policy balances universal and selective provision. Many of these higher-income groups are paying substantial amounts of tax and thereby contributing to the community chest.
The story becomes yet more bizarre if we consider the second unintended consequence. Following the reaction against the Treasury decision to introduce a cliff-edge, resulting in the sudden loss of child benefit, Treasury officials were told to think again, and they came up with the idea of a taper. Those whose income is above the magic number will still get some benefit, but slowly but surely, it will be tapered away. As a consequence, it is estimated that 500,000 more people will have to go through self-assessment or PAYE. This Government, who are good on the rhetoric of cutting red tape and the “back room”, as they call it, have come up with a policy so bizarre that 500,000 more self-assessments or PAYE assessments will have to be made. I put it to them that it is time to admit that they have got this one wrong, to think again and to restore the child benefit, which is such an important policy if we are to build stronger family life.