Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Teresa Pearce (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 30 November 2011. It occurred during Opposition day on Living Standards.


Living Standards

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. There is wage stagnation at the bottom of the income ladder. People are seeing their pay frozen at the same time as they face higher food, fuel and energy costs. There is a quiet crisis going on behind the front doors of the homes in my constituency, where families are struggling week in, week out to make ends meet. Their financial affairs can be thrown into total crisis by even the smallest unexpected bill. Today, therefore, I want to talk about how the Government have decided what side they are on. They have driven on with that course, no matter what. It has to be said that we in this House are the privileged few, and surely the moral duty of those with privilege is to defend those who have little or no power. But that is not what I have witnessed since I came here in May 2010. What I have seen is a systematic, focused political attack by the Government on the poor, the weak and the voiceless. In the May 2010 emergency Budget child benefit was frozen, housing benefit was capped, the health in pregnancy grant was abolished, and Sure Start grant was restricted to the first child. The Library said that 72% of those cuts fell on women. In October 2010 the same thing happened: more cuts—cuts to local government, cuts to Departments whose work affects women, and nearly half a million jobs cut from the public sector. When it comes to cuts, it seems to me that it is ““women and children first””. That leads me on to yesterday's announcement. In June 2010 the Chancellor announced plans to increase child tax credits above inflation as a measure to prevent rises in child poverty. The spending review in October reaffirmed that pledge. Yesterday the autumn statement said that that decision would be reversed. The Daily Telegraph said today that the Treasury admitted that the cuts in tax credit would ““theoretically”” push 100,000 children into poverty. Let me tell the House that the child poverty in my constituency is not theoretical. It is heartbreakingly, grindingly real. So why do the coalition Government think that it is fair, or morally right, to hit hardest those who have the least? It is not just me who thinks this way. The Children's Society has said that it is ““deeply concerned”” that the Chancellor"““has decided to compound the hardship felt by low-income families.””" It added:"““Children in low-income families need to be protected from rising living costs. Instead, the Chancellor has condemned thousands of low-income families to a winter of discontent, with many more to come.””" The Working Families charity has said that"““today's measure will lead to higher levels of in-work poverty, or to more parents being priced out of work.””"


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
536 c1007-8 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Children Disadvantaged Benefits rules Women Families Economic situation Personal income Low incomes Poverty Public expenditure Low pay Public finance Welfare tax credits Taxation Unemployment Standard of living Cuts
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk