| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 716
it, but all the Conservative Members in England who pushed through for Scotland what they now find unacceptable.Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : Not true.
Mr. Taylor : I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. A few Conservative Members--three, I think--paid attention to what was being done north of the border.
The Government are attempting to ameliorate the problems associated with the poll tax. They are trying to deal with the reality of people's inability to pay. Every time Ministers try to come up with a solution, they throw up more problems for themselves. The tax is not based on ability to pay. However much the Government try to adjust it, they cannot do it. It will not work.
Throughout all the debates it has been pointed out that one other country, Papua New Guinea, was foolish enough to precede the Government down this path. However, that is not true. Papua New Guinea did not bring in a poll tax. It was debated there in 1906 but was rejected as too unfair and difficult to introduce. Instead, a local income tax was introduced. Ministers would be wise to follow that example.
6.20 pm
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : I particularly welcome the uprating of the rule on savings because the old system was a disincentive to savers. We must increase saving levels in Britain-- [Interruption.] --and rather than sniggering, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) should reflect that the previous Labour Government, instead of giving incentives to savers, had negative interest rates and taxation at 98 per cent., at the highest rate, on savings.
We had a ludicrous state of affairs. That reflects Labour's commitment to savings. We must increase saving levels because the higher they are, the larger the pool of investment for industry-- [Interruption.] --and the more
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. There is clearly nothing wrong with the microphones in the Chamber. The problem is the barracking that is going on underneath them.
Mr. Oppenheim : Opposition Members do not like hearing pertinent facts about the policies of Labour in power.
A high level of savings provides a larger pool of capital for industry to invest, which puts downward pressure on interest rates. That is why countries such as Japan, which have been economically successful, have concentrated their efforts on persuading people to save. We in Britain have learnt that lesson late, but I am glad that action is being taken to redress the balance.
The new regulations do not help many people who do not qualify for rebate, but who are suffering as the result of high levels of community charge. Media cover to date has concentrated on Conservative areas that have problems of their own, problems which are largely irrelevant to my county of Derbyshire.
Some Conservative county councils receive little by way of Government grant. Surrey, for example, gets only £60 a head. In addition, some of those areas are paying
Column 717
substantial sums--as much as £75 a head --into the safety net. They may complain that they are subsidising Labour areas such as Derbyshire.We in Derbyshire do not have that excuse because not only are we getting a massive amount by way of Government grant--three or four times Surrey's level--but in my constituency we are also benefiting from the safety net at levels ranging from £51 to £58 a head. Unfortunately, the media have concentrated on Conservative areas, which have one set of problems, and ignored the fundamental problems in Labour-controlled counties such as Derbyshire.
Derbyshire has no excuse for having a high community charge because it is generously treated by the safety net and has a huge grant, much higher than almost every other shire county.
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde) : Is my hon. Friend aware that the situation to which he refers in Derbyshire is reflected precisely in Lancashire, where Government grant of £533 a head is not sufficient to dissuade the county council from increasing its expenditure by 17 per cent., equivalent to a 30 per cent. increase in the old rates? The result is a community charge £60 to £70 higher than it should be.
Mr. Oppenheim : My hon. Friend makes the point well. It is a shame that the media have not paid more attention to areas such as Lancashire and Derbyshire, where the real problem comes from very high county council spending.
Mrs. Fyfe rose--
Mr. Oppenheim : I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not give way because time is short. Opposition Members have intervened on many occasions during the debate and the hon. Lady has already intervened, and I see the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, (Mr. Nellist) bursting at the seams to take part in the debate.
Many people have told me that they would consider a community charge in the county of £250 or even £300 to be fair, but not £400. Many who will not qualify for rebate cannot afford £400. The community charge is at that level in Derbyshire because of the policies of the Labour -controlled county council.
Mr. Skinner rose--
Mr. Oppenheim : I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has just come into the Chamber, while many of his hon. Friends have sat patiently through the whole debate. No doubt he will have a word with me outside in the Lobby after the Division.
Mr. Skinner : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Oppenheim : Had the hon. Gentleman been here for the whole debate, I should have happily given way to him. But he wanders into the Chamber from the Tea Room or wherever else he has been and expects to make an intervention.
Mr. Skinner : Will mammy's boy give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Member who has the floor has made it clear that he does not intend to give way.
Column 718
Mr. Oppenheim : We have a ludicrously high community charge in Derbyshire because of the irresponsible and profligate spending policies of Derbyshire county council. My constituents are expected to pay a community charge close to £400 a head, despite benefiting from the safety net and from one of the most generous Government grants available to any shire council, because the county council has decided to have a £34 million contingency fund, equal to almost £50 per charge payer. Having done its best to keep rate rises low last year--election year--it is setting the community charge as high as possible this year so that it can blame the Government.
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) rose--
Mr. Oppenheim : In addition, the county council has spent £1 million a year on a public relations department that produces nothing short of socialist propaganda. Just after the community charge level of nearly £400 was announced, the county council threw an expensive party, at the charge payers' expense, to celebrate the release of Nelson Mandela. Many people are happy that he has been released, but they do not want to contribute to a beano at which councillors can celebrate it.
In addition, those councillors have spent £600,000 on an equal opportunities and race relations department ; £140,000 on twinning arrangements mainly with towns in China and Russia ; and nearly £15 million on a dubious so-called community education programme that most people believe is of little educational benefit.
Derbyshire county councillors have no interest in efficiency and in keeping costs down. That is why-- [Interruption.] --since 1981, the number of staff employed by the county council has increased by 8,000, a 20 per cent. increase, and the largest increase of any shire county. The county council leadership seems to believe not that it is running a council to provide services for the people of Derbyshire-- Mr. Barnes rose --
Mr. Oppenheim : --but that it is running a huge, bloated job agency for its friends in NUPE and COHSE.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Although there are specific motions before the House, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) seems to be spending much of his speech on items that are not relevant to those motions.
Madam Deputy Speaker : That is the most genuine point of order that has been put to me in my three years in the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is quite correct, and perhaps the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) will now address his remarks to the regulations and the question of their annulment.
Mr. Oppenheim : The purpose of the regulations is to reduce the burden of the community charge on poorer people. I am suggesting other ways of reducing that burden. The massive, wasteful and profligate spending policies of counties such as Derbyshire are a significant factor in increasing the burden. Were those councils more sensible in pursuing proper policies, the burden on community charge payers would be substantially reduced. I shall give an example. When district council leaders in Derbyshire got together and produced--
Column 719
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I have given a ruling. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to follow it and return to the subject under discussion.Mr. Oppenheim : I always abide by your rulings, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The regulations will prove to be important in making the community charge fairer. On the other hand, we must retain the principle of accountability in relation to the charge, with everyone making a contribution towards the costs of local government.
We must go further and do our utmost to make the community charge fairer. Most people now realise that not everyone pays the same amount because, after all, there is the rebate system. On top of that, throughout England and Wales, 70 per cent. of local government spending is funded by business or directly by the Government. The funding that comes directly from the Government is financed primarily by income tax, which is disproportionately paid by better-off people. We must do as much as possible to make sure that the community charge is fairer.
Local government also has an important responsibility to ensure that it reduces wasteful spending and does not put unnecessary burdens on poor people who cannot afford to pay them. We do not yet have the accountability that we should, because many people voted for county councils last year under the old system without realising what the new system would mean. As the system develops and is fine tuned, it will introduce a great deal of accountability. Until we have greater accountability--which we may not have for two or three years--it is important to defend less well-off people who do not benefit from rebate or benefit only partially. In a county as irresponsible and wasteful as Derbyshire, the only way to defend people is to cap the council.
6.31 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : The poll tax and the rebate regulations that we are discussing become law in three days--on April fool's day. I am almost tempted to rest my case there, but as I have a few minutes, I shall push on.
During the past two or three weeks we have watched Tory Members of Parliament race around in panic. They were compared to headless chickens. I think that that is unfair. Headless chickens are a model of sobriety compared to the way Conservative Members have panicked in the past few weeks both inside and outside the Chamber. However, their concern was synthetic.
Conservative Members were not worried about low-paid workers presently in low-rated property who will be pauperised by the poll tax. They were not worried about women throughout the country and in every industry who earn on average two thirds to three quarters of the wage of a man but have to pay the same poll tax as a man. They were not worried about young people, 80 per cent. of whom, when they leave school, find jobs that earn less than the Council of Europe decency threshold of £150 a week but who pay the same poll tax as higher paid workers. They were not worried for the 11 per cent. of West Indian families and 29 per cent. of Asian families who have six or more adults in their household and will face bills in three days' time of £2,000, £2,500 or £3,000.
They were worried about Conservative seats. The Daily Express predicted that 81 Conservative Members would lose their seats because of the poll tax alone. I do not know
Column 720
about the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), but if the Prime Minister were run over by a bus tomorrow morning, half that lot on the other side would vote for the bus driver to be the next Prime Minister in grateful thanks.The regulations before us are supposed to make a fundamental difference to the mass opposition to the poll tax throughout the country. We should remember that only 19 per cent. of the population support the poll tax ; 81 per cent. are against it. The regulations will do nothing of the sort. Many families, particularly the 3 million families who are already in serious debt, and arrears for mortgage, rent, gas, water and electricity, must find tonight's debate a joke. What the hell does it matter if the rebate threshold is increased from £8,000 to £16,000 if one is already deep in debt? If one had that level of savings, one would not be in debt in the first place. For millions of families, tonight's debate is irrelevant.
Everyone in the country should apply--I shall use the same date as the Minister used--before May 27 for the rebates to which they might be entitled from every local authority in England and Wales. The reason why they should do so is that those who will pay should not pay any more than they have to. Those who will not pay should not owe any more than they have to. What is more, anything that gives the councils a bit more work to do in the next few weeks so that they cannot get round to court orders suits me down to the ground. The rebates are paltry. To take my own borough of Coventry--
Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke) : What about Wandsworth?
Mr. Nellist : I shall come to Wandsworth in a minute. The hon. Gentleman has just walked in from the bar, obviously after a good lunch, as they say. He should pipe down and let us get on with the serious debate.
In Coventry, the poll tax is £394. That is £7.56 a week. Therefore, the maximum rebate is £6.04. Everyone has to pay a minimum of £1.52 or 20 per cent. For those under 25, that is a net loss of 88p a week. For those over 25 there is a net loss of 85p a week. For couples, there is a net loss each of 88p.
What about those in work? Someone under 25 in Coventry who takes home more than £70.85 a week receives no rebate whatever. Someone over 25 who takes home more than £78.75 a week receives no rebate whatever. A pensioner between the ages of 60 and 74 with an income of more than £85.55 a week receives no rebate whatever. A couple with two children under the age of 11 with a net income of more than £177, including all income from family credit, child benefit or anywhere else, even out of two low-paid jobs of, say, £88 or £89 a week, receives no rebate whatever. That is notwithstanding the regulations that we are discussing.
Young people in Coventry and throughout the country on such levels of low wages will owe from next Monday 2 April a month or a month and a half of their total annual income just to pay Maggie's tax. A hell of a lot ain't going to do it.
The regulations cover two main areas. First, we have the concession of raising the savings allowed from £8,000 to £16,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) dealt with the perfect example of those who thought--probably until tonight--that they would gain. Someone with £15,500 in the bank thought until the
Column 721
Budget that they would get no rebate. When they heard that the figure had been increased to £16,000 they thought they were okay. He dealt with the example of a pensioner with a small occupational pension which took her £10 over the applicable amount, and with £15, 500 savings. Even if she lived in an area where the poll tax was £611, there would be no rebate. That is bad enough, but most hon. Members, particularly the Tory headless chickens, do not realise that, if the poll tax was £350--let us remember that three quarters of all councils in England and Wales have set a poll tax higher than that--that pensioner is limited to a maximum of £4.51 a week in rebate. When the Tories next do their surgeries, they will not have a lot of grateful pensioners coming along to say, "Thanks for doubling the amount." We have gone into all the reasons for that.I should have still voted against the poll tax, as the Minister knows, but it would have been a bit better if he had done what several of his hon. Friends suggested and lifted the £3,000 at which people start to lose rebate to about £8,000. Parallel to that--no one else has argued for this tonight--he should have increased by £20 or £25 a week the applicable amount of other items such as works pensions which are disregarded before the loss of rebate. We heard from the Chancellor about thrift. But pensions are only deferred wages. It is a way to set aside wages for the future. That is thrift. But people are being penalised by that lower limit of weekly income. As the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said in response to a question that I put to the Minister, the idea that for every £250 above the savings limit of £3,000 one receives £1 a week in interest is wrong. No Tory Member could point me to any bank, savings institution or other high street institution to which ordinary people have access--I am not talking about Lloyd's--that gives 20 per cent. interest and would give £1 a week for every £250. Millions of people have been conned by that.
The second area covered by the regulations is income support. From Monday, one of the three penalties, other than gaol, which the Government and local authorities can use to force people to pay is benefit arrestment. It is worth noticing--it does not seem that any Scottish Member will get into the debate--that Scotland has had 12 months of the poll tax but not one person has had his or her benefit arrested in Scotland by exactly the same powers as are available here. That is because of the huge number of people affected. In Scotland, people do not worry about debates such as this, because they have their own rebate system--more than 1 million people have not paid the tax. The Scottish are successfully implementing their own rebate system.
Mr. Wilson : It is true that no hon. Member representing Scotland will have the opportunity to participate in the debate. That is unfortunate, but I know it is not the fault of the Chair. However, that does not give my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) the right to misrepresent the situation in Scotland. An enormous amount of suffering has been caused in Scotland by the poll tax. The vast majority of people included in my hon. Friend's fanciful figure are not involved in non-payment campaigns. The greatest recruiting sergeant for non -payment or underpayment in Scotland is poverty. Inability to pay and poverty is what it is all about. I will not allow anyone, on either side of the House, to claim as trophies people in my constituency who are unable to pay the poll tax and who are not involved in any campaign.
Column 722
The poll tax is an evil imposition, but one must get the politics of it right. The way to defeat the poll tax is to defeat the people who have imposed it on us.Mr. Nellist : I do not necessarily disagree with my hon. Friend. The vast majority of people in England who will not be paying will be unable to pay the tax. My hon. Friend says that the figure I gave is fanciful, but it is based on the returns of Strathclyde, Lothian and other regional councils of those who have not paid since last April, who are now more than five months in arrears and who have stopped paying the tax. I maintain that more than 1 million people in Scotland are unable to pay that poll tax.
The regulations raise the amount that can be deducted from income support to £1.85 for a single person and £2.90 for a couple. It is deplorable that people already on the poverty line and in receipt of income support should have anything deducted from that benefit. One third of claimants in this country are already deeply in debt. On average, those in debt owe £84 for fuel, £135 for housing, £132 on purchases, £210 on loans and £119 in other debts. They owe a total of £680, and for them to be driven further into debt by deductions from their income support is absolutely disgraceful.
There is a small silver lining in the cloud. If the poll tax is £500, as it is in Tory Maidenhead and Basildon, those on income support must pay 20 per cent. towards it--£100. That means that, even with the increases announced today, it costs less to have the poll tax taken out of one's benefit than to try to pay it. I am sure that quite a few people will follow that line.
In recent weeks, I have received an enormous number of letters and they have made me proud of the things I have said inside and outside the Chamber. I have received, for example, a letter from a former beach commando who was strafed and bombed for five and a half years during the second world war. In the past two days, I have received letters from pensioners living in Cheshire, Exeter, Wallsend, Birmingham and Tamworth who tell me that they cannot afford to pay. They say that they are pleased that someone is standing shoulder to shoulder with them in their battle.
I make no apology to those Tory Ministers who were egged on and organised by Dr. Julian Lewis in their attempts to smear those who will not pay the poll tax. It will not work.
A couple of years ago, the Prime Minister said that the poll tax was the flagship of her third term of office. From Monday, millions of people will show that it ain't no flagship, it is her Titanic. She is going down with the ship.
6.43 pm
Ms. Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood) : Tonight we are discussing one set of regulations that try to modify a deeply unjust tax. It is no good, however, fiddling around at the margins--that will not help. The fundamentals behind the tax are unjust and cannot be put right. The country has begun to realise that such is the Government's problem. The other regulations relate to taking away money from those on benefits who get into debt.
The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim)--I am sorry that he has left the Chamber--failed to give way to anyone and made a disreputable attack on Derbyshire county council. I do not know about that county council in detail, but we all know that Tory authorities have set their poll tax 31 per cent. above the
Column 723
Government-set figure, and that Labour authorities have set it 34 per cent. above that figure. We know that the Government figures are wrong, and statements from associations representing Labour and Tory local authorities back our claim. To say that the debate centres on Labour councils is equivalent to lies and fibs.The hon. Member for Amber Valley also attacked the equal opportunities policy of Derbyshire. Clearly the hon. Gentleman is not in favour of black people and women having equality in the county. He also attacked the party given to celebrate that lion of a man, Nelson Mandela, on his release from imprisonment, and community education. His attack on the county council was disreputable in all respects. The first set of regulations relates to deductions from those on income support to meet their arrears on poll tax. We know that those on income support are already being ripped off because the 20 per cent. contributions that they must pay towards the poll tax in their local area is based on the Government's figures, but the real rates of poll tax are much higher. Everyone on income support will be poorer because of the poll tax and the Government's implementation of it.
The principle of deduction from income support is a worry, because we are taking money from people who are given the minimum on which it is calculated they need to live. The people who are unlikely to be able to pay the poll tax are those who are already in debt for other things. The level of debt in Britain is higher than it has ever been ; our level of indebtness is higher than that of any other European country.
People on low incomes, low-paid workers and people on benefits are being squeezed by the Government so that they can give more in tax handouts to their rich friends. Loan sharks and creditmongers have pushed their credit at those on low income and many people are now suffering deeply as a result of indebtedness. Many people are already paying money out of their income support to pay off debts that they have collected.
The regulations mean that a deducation of £1.85 a week can be made from a single person--nearly £100 a year--and £2.90 a week from a couple--nearly £150 a year. Given that those deductions will not cover the debt, it will carry on in subsequent years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has made clear. The deductions can be made, providing a person is left with at least 10p per week in income support. Deductions might already be made from that support to pay for housing, rent, fuel and water debts as well as the overpayment of benefit, whether it was the fault of the recipient or not. A person's income support might also face a deduction for the social fund.
Under our system, a maximum of 25 per cent. of a person's income support can be deducted without his or her consent. That deduction is made from the minimum which it is judged people need to live on. Today the Government are suggesting that, on top of that 25 per cent., £1.85 or £2.90 can be taken from that benefit, provided that 10p a week is left in income support.
Tonight the House is being asked to approve regulations penalising those on little, who are already in debt. Those people are facing a deeply unjust tax and they are now to have money compulsorily deducted from their
Column 724
income support. Will Conservative Members vote for that? What will they say to their constituents? When they vote this through and find out how unpopular it is, they will try to distance themselves and pretend that, for some reason or other, they do not really support the change.The other regulations implement the Chancellor's misleading concession in the Budget. There is no doubt that he misled elderly people with savings into believing that they would receive a rebate on the poll tax. I do not believe that the Chancellor knew what he was doing, as the figures he quoted do not make sense. He said that 250,000 people would benefit, at a cost of £120 million. From my desk in the Cloisters, I heard a Tory Member with a marginal seat who rang his agent to say that 500 people in a certain area would get £400 each. Suddenly, different figures were given by the Department of Social Security. We are now told that 195,000 people will benefit at a cost of £35 million. Where did all the other money go?
I think that the arrangements were cobbled together in panic. I do not believe that the Department of Social Security was properly consulted. Opposition Members tabled an amendment to the Social Security Bill on this very point, and were told by the Minister that there was no possibility of a concession. Shortly afterwards, the Chancellor made such a concession and messed it up--probably because he did not properly consult the DSS, any more than he thought about Scotland or the needs of its people.
The concession on capital limits has been a mess from beginning to end. It has misled Tory Members into waving their Order Papers because they thought that they had obtained some relief ; more seriously, it has misled many elderly people who have more than £8, 000 in savings and who thought that they would be given significant help with their poll tax. That is wrong : the poll tax is wrong. It is wrong to mislead people in that way.
I believe that even the Government's so-called concession will blow up in their face. The anger of those elderly people when they find out what really went on will cost the Government politically even more dearly than the poll tax is costing them now.
6.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard) : I should dearly like to answer all the detailed questions that have been asked during this short debate, but time does not permit it. Some, in any event, would be dealt with more appropriately by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), however, asked one question that needs to be passed on to the trustees of the independent living fund. The hon. Gentleman also asked about information from local officers. I assure him that local office managers have approached the divulging of information with proper care, although of course they were able to answer his inquiry in a proper way as well. We have nothing to hide in that regard. Today's debate has centred on two issues--tariff income and capital, and deductions. Hon. Members' concern about tariff income and capital limits is understandable, because community charge benefit is not the simplest benefit in the world to explain. Nevertheless,
Column 725
there has been some misunderstanding about the £1 of weekly benefit per £250 of capital, and of the fact that the deduction represents a very generous taper of 15p a week.Let me give some examples, as a good deal of misleading information has been given. Let us take a married couple in their 50s. The husband is disabled, and is cared for by his wife. Their rent is £23 a week, their community charge is £400 each and their savings stand at £13,000. Their total weekly income is £138.90, not including income from the capital. That couple will receive £6.96 a week in community charge benefit.
Now let us take a single pensioner in her 80s, paying a rent of £25 a week and a community charge of £400. She has £12,000 in savings and a total weekly income of £47.15, not including income from her capital. She will gain £5.89 a week in housing benefit, and £1.73 a week in community charge benefit.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) pointed out, however, the prayer is against the provisions for deductions. The enforcement of community charge arrears is, as she will appreciate, a matter for local authorities, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has already explained how that will work. I feel, however, that I must clarify the misrepresentation that has been repeated today by the hon. Members for Ladywood and for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) about the 10p a week. It is entirely misleading to say that the Department intends to take large amounts of benefit away from people in order to leave them with only 10p a week on which to live.
Ms. Short : We did not say that.
Mrs. Shephard : That was the implication, and neither hon. Member corrected it.
Mr. Meacher : What we said was that large sums could be deducted in poll tax arrears, as long as people were left with 10p in income support. We did not use the words "in order to leave". Does the Minister not consider that disgraceful?
Mrs. Shephard : I should like to continue my explanation, because I still think that the hon. Gentleman is giving a misleading impression. He is giving the impression that the 10p is all that people will have to live on. The fact is that benefit can be reduced to 10p a week only if the income support was very low in the first place because the claimant had other income--for example, from other contributory benefits. The 10p minimum level of income support is retained precisely to retain for the claimant automatic eligibility for free NHS dental treatment, prescriptions and vouchers for glasses. It is important to clear that up.
As an amount is included in income support for the payment of 20 per cent. of community charge, we think it only right that a separate deduction should be made to pay any community charge arrears, as would happen if the claimant were in work. Deductions can be made from income support to meet debts relating to housing costs and fuel or water charges : clearly that is necessary for the claimant to retain tenure of the property and the supply of essential services. From April, those deductions for arrears will be limited to a maximum of £5.55 a week. If the income support being paid is not enough to meet the debts and the community charge arrears, the regulations provide that the other deductions shall take precedence over
Column 726
community charge. Obviously, deductions from income support for housing, fuel and water costs must be given a higher priority, to protect claimants and their families.Mr. Rooker : The debt deduction from income support will be possible only if a liability order has been obtained from the courts, and that will involve court costs. The local authority will add them to the debt, which will mean a minimum of £60 on top of the 20 per cent. payment. How will that money be collected?
Mrs. Shephard : As I have said, the enforcement of orders will be a matter for local authorities.
Mr. Rooker : Who will pay the court costs?
Mrs. Shephard : I really cannot answer the hon. Gentleman in any better way ; that is the position.
It is extraordinary that Opposition Members should choose to ignore the positive aspects of the regulations. Perhaps, on the other hand, they prefer not to know about them. According to an advertisement about the community charge that was issued recently by the Labour-run Association of Local Authorities,
"a few might find themselves entitled to a rebate".
That is misleading, as one might expect ; but it is misleading on two counts. It will be not a few, but a large number, and it is not "might" but "will". The increase in the limit of the savings that people can have while still receiving help with the community charge has been widely welcomed.
Let me repeat that the increase will help 195,000 individual charge payers, of whom 150,000 will be pensioners. The backdating arrangements and the publicity will ensure that people will be able to benefit, provided that they apply before 27 May. The regulations also provide special arrangements for specific and vulnerable groups--although Opposition Members, of course, did not mention that. The £40-a-week payments announced in December for war widows whose husbands served before 1973 will be entirely disregarded, and the disregard for war disablement pensions will be doubled to £10 next month. All lump sums from the Macfarlane Trust for haemophiliacs with an HIV infection will be totally disregarded, and the disregard for regular and charitable payments will also be doubled. That move has been widely welcomed by charitable and voluntary organisations throughout the country.
The sums allocated for the benefit are very generous indeed. The planned expenditure on community charge benefit for next year is £2.5 billion. The more generous taper of 15 per cent. instead of 20 per cent. will bring a further 650,000 people on to the benefit, and half of all benefit claimants will be helped. Help is to be given to 10 million people in all-- one in four of the population.
The regulations are sensible, fair and generous. I commend them to the House and invite the House to reject the prayers.
Question put :--
The House divided : Ayes 190, Noes 298.
Division No. 148] [7 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Allen, Graham
Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Armstrong, Hilary
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Barron, Kevin
Beckett, Margaret
| Next Section
| Home Page |