| Home Page |
Column 977
Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you agree that, when we reached Question No. 10, which referred to Langbaurgh, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Stockton and North Tyneside, the reason that you were unable to call me to make a point about the extremely high-spending Labour councils was because no Labour Members--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I cannot give an explanation of my discretion in these matters.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would sit down for a minute. I can give no bonus points for the sort of behaviour in which he constantly indulges, but I shall hear him now.
Mr. Banks : My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that I wish to apologise to you for my outrageous behaviour in challenging your partiality in calling the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) on a question about homelessness in Greater London. As you know and I know, the hon. Gentleman is the chair of the London group of Conservative Members of Parliament--
Mr. Speaker : Order. As a matter of fact, I did not know that. However, I do know that the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) represents a Greater London seat.
Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I think that I was on my feet before the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)--
Mr. Speaker : Order. That may be so, but I have discretion in these matters.
Mr. Dykes : Indeed, Mr. Speaker. Despite all your long years of distinguished service in the Speaker's Chair, were you not deeply shocked by the hysterical display of petulant anger when you called my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey)--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I am frequently deeply shocked but I try not to show it.
Mr. Derek Conway (Shrewsbury and Atcham) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker--I thought that you might like a genuine one for a change. We have discussed before the closure of the side galleries following the demonstration by those opposed to the Gulf war. Now that feeling about the British position in the Gulf is perhaps less emotive among those opposed to it, will you reconsider the decision to close the galleries? That is especially important before Budget day, when there is so much pressure for seating. The officials in the Admission Order Office are helpful to hon. Members, but their hands are tied until the ruling is rescinded.
Column 978
Mr. Speaker : That matter is constantly under review. The House would expect me to take action to protect hon. Members, but I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West) : On a completely different and important point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has just been announced on Baghdad radio that Iraq is willing to abandon all claims to Kuwait, to discuss reparations and to release all prisoners of war as soon as a ceasefire is arranged. I realise that that is a preliminary announcement, and we are always dubious about what is said, but if that information proves valid, we might want a statement at 7 o'clock or later this evening. Can that be conveyed to the appropriate Minister?
Mr. Speaker : I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having brought that welcome piece of news. I hope that it turns out to be true. I am sure that what he has said will have been heard by those on the Front Bench.
BALLOT FOR NOTICES OFMOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 15 MARCH Members successful in the ballot were :
Mr. Tam Dalyell
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : For debate on Friday 15 March, I have selected the subject of the ecological consequences of the Gulf war and the actions that are being taken by Her Majesty's Government and members of the coalition to cope with oil slicks, Gulf oil fires, dysentery, typhoid and other related problems in Iraq, and with casualties on both sides. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order. That is the old procedure. The hon. Gentleman is empowered to say that.
Mr. Lewis Stevens
Mr. Gerald Howarth
BILLS PRESENTED
Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland)
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, supported by Sir David Steel, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mr. Bill Walker and Mr. Brian Wilson, presented a Bill to make provision in the law of Scotland as to the legal capacity of persons under the age of 18 years to enter into transactions, as to the setting aside and ratification by the court of transactions entered into by such persons and as to guardians of persons under the age of 16 years ; to make provision in the law of Scotland relating to the time and date at which a person shall be taken to attain a particular age ; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 March and to be printed. [Bill 95.]
Hare Coursing
Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Peter Griffiths, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Steve Norris, Mr. Robin Squire and Mr. Andrew Welsh, presented a Bill to make hare coursing illegal : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 March and to be printed. [Bill 96.]
Column 979
Zoo Animal Welfare
4.37 pm
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for the welfare of zoo animals.
I should say at the outset that the Bill has nothing whatever to do with working conditions in the Palace of Westminster.
The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 was a major and welcome step forward which has had a significant beneficial impact. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) and for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn), as well as to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who played an important role in promoting and improving the Bill.
British zoos are not particularly bad by international standards. Anyone who has visited zoos in developing countries will no doubt have seen harrowing scenes of animals in cramped unnatural conditions. I well remember not long ago going to a zoo in China and seeing a lioness in a dark, damp, concrete cell 6 ft by 12 ft being taunted by people throwing cigarette ends at her. In the same zoo I saw a lone panda, supposedly China's national animal, in a completely unsuitable concrete pen without a companion and with no greenery whatever.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : No bamboo shoots?
By contrast, good British zoos and safari parks make a genuine effort to look after their animals properly. Glasgow zoo is a good example of one that is attempting to take account of the animals' natural habits and instincts and to keep them occupied and stimulated, and I welcome those efforts.
Despite certain improvements as a result of the 1981 Act, major problems remain. They have been highlighted by an admirable organisation named Zoo Check, and by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' 1988 report, which was based on a large survey of British zoos. The problems they revealed relate not only to obvious shortcomings such as inadequate and cramped accommodation. Astonishingly, the RSPCA survey showed that only two zoos were required by their licence to ensure suitable social groupings of the animals that they kept. The RSPCA reported several instances of single representatives of highly social species, which is a very cruel practice.
Many zoos had failed to undertake the improvements required by their licences within the specified period, which shows the serious shortcomings of existing legislation. I will highlight one or two of them. Currently, most inspectors come from within the zoo industry, which is not always a good idea. Also, inspections are made only every four or six years, and they should be made annually. Mandatory standards should be established and enforced by law, and the implementation of inspectors' recommendations should also be mandatory in the granting of licences. Too often in the past, local authorities have ignored recommendations when granting licences. My final point relates to the role of local authorities as licensing bodies. That is an unsatisfactory arrangement in many respects, because of the conflict of interests. Many local authorities own zoos, or lease land property to zoos--and often they are keen to keep open zoos as a local
Column 980
attraction, rather than to prioritise the welfare of the animals that the zoos contain. Consequently, they are frequently unwilling to take action where animals are kept in unsuitable conditions. The Bill's main aim is to encourage amendments to the existing law, but I hope that, in the longer term, more thought will be given to the whole question of zoos. They were originally established to allow research, but that is no longer their prime purpose. Zoological research is often more satisfactorily undertaken in the field. Subsequently, zoos were considered primarily as places of entertainment and perhaps of education.However, the superb wildlife programmes that are now shown on television make it no longer necessary or desirable to keep animals cooped up in cages just to entertain or educate. One must question the educational value to children of seeing animals cooped up in cages in an artificial environment, in conditions that cause them extreme stress. If we are to use animals for our entertainment, it is incumbent upon us to keep them in humane conditions.
In this day and age, the only real justification for zoos is as centres for the conservation of endangered species. I hope that the Government will consider that argument in relation to London zoo in particular. It has already received large sums of Government money, and is actively lobbying for even more. Such grants should be made conditional on major improvements, with the aim of turning zoos into centres for conservation, which could educate the public about the problems that lead to certain species being endangered. I hope that zoos in this country and throughout the world will develop in that way in future. If they do, they will carve out for themselves a valuable role in conservation and education.
Animals are not machines, but sensitive beings capable of feeling unhappiness. Man is the most powerful species on earth, and we have a duty of care towards weaker animals. If we are to keep animals in zoos, and if we consider ourselves to be a civilised society, that must be done in a way that respects the animals' psychology. I commend the Bill to the House.
3.45 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) rose--
Mr. Speaker : Does the hon. Gentleman intend to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Dalyell : Yes. I do not think that the ten-minute Bill procedure is the right way to go about this. I also take exception to a number of the implications in the speech that we have just heard. For instance, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) referred to Glasgow zoo. Whatever may have been the case many years ago, Graham Law and others have made enormous advances--
Mr. Dalyell : The general implication was that there was considerable dissatisfaction. I listened to what the hon. Gentleman was saying. The truth is-- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has the right to oppose the Bill.
Mr. Dalyell : The truth is that many zoos are trying to make great progress. The hon. Gentleman did not name
Column 981
any that were not. I give the example of Glasgow, which the hon. Gentleman himself mentioned. Many years ago, the bears had only 0.4 hectares of space, and kept strutting up and down. Now, they have 3 hectares. A whole series of challenges has been made for bears at that zoo ; it is not true to say that the conditions are cramped. Most zoo owners are very enlightened, and are doing their best to improve matters.Secondly, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the local authorities. Thirdly, and more important, he attacked the keeping of animals for research purposes. Contrary to his implication, the captive breeding programmes are very important. I pay tribute to those--for instance, Roger Wheater in Edinburgh--who have pioneered the system. We need not legislation but resources if we are to return to the desired system of proper landscaping : the Hagenback system. Fourthly, if parliamentary progress is to be made, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman persuade some of the Ministers to devote more resources, to, for example, the natural parks system set up by the Scottish Natural Heritage Bill, which some of us are discussing in Committee every Tuesday and Thursday. That is the way to conduct research, and to implement what Markowitz and others have achieved in the field of animal psychology.
If the resources are there, the House should be discussing a number of other matters. We should currently be considering how to save many of the birds and animals that risk extinction because of what has happened in the Gulf--for example, the green turtle, the hawksback turtle and the Socotra cormorant--as well as the coral ecosystems. That is where the resources should go.
Column 982
Finally, I oppose the Bill on the ground of what the hon. Gentleman said about inspections. If he is to talk of annual inspections, a representative of the Government had better say what resources will be devoted to the appointment of more inspectors, who will be capable of coping with the problems.Perhaps my deepest objection is that we need not the hon. Gentleman's Bill, but legislation on the importation of birds for the bird trade, which reeks of a cruelty beyond anything in our zoos.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : That is true.
Mr. Dalyell : I am glad to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and others, who know a great deal about the subject. I am not a universal expert, but I know rather a lot about zoos. I took some soundings, because I did not know what the hon. Member for Amber Valley was going to say ; on the basis of what he has said, especially by implication, I for one oppose his Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Gerald Bowden, Mr. David Sumberg, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. Andrew Mackay, Mr. Kenneth Hind, Mr. Lewis Stevens, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Cecil Franks, Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. David Evennett.
Zoo Animal Welfare
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision for the welfare of zoo animals : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 March and to be printed. [Bill 93.]
Column 983
Social Security
3.52 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton) : I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House for us also to consider the following motions :
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 11th December, be approved. That the draft State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Amendment Regulations 1991, which was laid before this House on 18th February, be approved.
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved. That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1991, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
That the draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment Regulations 1991, which was laid before this House on 21st February, be approved.
That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved. That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Regulations 1991, which was laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.
Mr. Speaker : Will that be for the convenience of the House?
Mr. Newton : It is just possible that hon. Members may also agree that the main interest of the House and perhaps the main focus of the debate will be on the draft rating order.
However, in line with my duties to the House, I must first refer to the purpose and content of the other orders and regulations, although I do not propose to refer to the order concerned with state scheme premiums which is entirely technical, not to say dense. However, I am prepared to say something about that order if pressed.
The draft contributions re-rating order is, as always, concerned with national insurance contributions which determine people's entitlement to pensions and other important contributory benefits and which are the source of finance for more than half of what is spent each year on social security. A notable feature of the draft re-rating order is that, for the eighth year in succession, we propose no increase in the main rates--the class 1 rates paid by employed people and their employers.
As the House will already be aware, this time I have been able to propose a reduction in the rates of national insurance contributions payable by employers. I propose to reduce the standard rate from 10.45 per cent. to 10.4 per cent. and, perhaps more important, to reduce the lower rates, which are currently 5 per cent., 7 per cent. and 9 per cent. in respect of employees earning up to £175 a week, to 4.6 per cent., 6.6 per cent. and 8.6 per cent. respectively. Those changes will reduce employers' costs by about £250 million. I remind the House that they are likely to be especially helpful to employers--often smaller employers--whose employees are among the less highly paid, and will go a considerable way towards offsetting any
Column 984
additional costs that employers meet as a result of changes to statutory sick pay made by the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991. The House will be aware also that there are boundaries for contribution liability, called the lower earnings limit and the upper earnings limit, and they will change as usual. The LEL applies to employers' and employees' share of contributions, but the UEL applies to the employees' share only. The order does not set those two earnings limits ; that is done by a set of regulations to be laid after the benefits uprating order has been approved. However, the LEL, which is linked by law to the nearest pound below the retirement pension rate, will be £52 a week, and the UEL will be £390 a week. The effect of the increase in the lower earnings limit will be to reduce most employees' contributions by 42p a week, or by 30p if they are in contracted-out employment. The effect of raising the upper earnings limit is that those having earnings of £390 or more a week will pay an extra £3.18 a week or £2.50 if they are contracted out. A few minutes ago, I mentioned the proposed reductions in the rates of contributions paid by employers. Additionally, as on previous occasions, the re-rating order provides that the earnings limit below which they pay lower contribution rates will be increased. From April, employers' contributions will be 4.6 per cent. in respect of employees earning between the lower earnings limit and £84.99, 6.6 per cent. for those earning between £85 and £129.99, 8.6 per cent. for those earning between £130 and £184.99, and 10.4 per cent. for those earning more than £185 a week.In 1991-92, class 1 contributions, which are the ordinary contributions that most people make, are expected to yield more than £35 billion. As is the case with contributions made in all classes, that revenue will be apportioned between the national insurance fund and the national health service.
I shall now say a word about self-employed people, who pay national insurance contributions in two portions--the flat-rate class 2 contribution and the profits-related class 4 contribution. We do not propose any change to the class 4 rate, which will remain at 6.3 per cent. in the coming year. The profits limits for class 4 contributions, which determine the level of annual profits on which contributions are payable, will once again be increased to £5,900 and £20,280 respectively. The upper profits limit is exactly 52 times the class 1 upper earnings limit.
We propose also to increase the class 2 contribution by 60p, to £5.15, per week from next April. That class 2 rate is broadly linked to the class 1 lower earnings rate, and its increase reflects the proposed rise in that limit. The result of all that is that self-employed people with profits at or below the present upper limit of £18.200 will pay about £28.35 less in class 4 contributions per year, and that will largely offset the increase of £31.20 in their class 2 contributions. Those with higher profits will pay up to £102.69 more in class 4 contributions. Self- employed people are expected to contribute nearly £1.4 billion overall in contributions in 1991-92.
Certain categories of people--for example, those who are not gainfully employed or who are receiving contributions credits, such as people who retired before the age of 60--can pay class 3 contributions if they wish. They are voluntary contributions. We propose to increase class 3 contributions by 60p, making them £5.05 per week.
Column 985
As usual, the Government Actuary's report on the effect of our proposals on the national insurance fund has been laid with the re-rating and uprating orders. It is estimated that the total income received by the national insurance fund will be around £33.5 billion in 1991-92. Total expenditure, including administration, is estimated at £34.5 billion. However, although expenditure is likely to exceed income, the balance is expected to remain comfortably above the minimum recommended by the Government Actuary.The changes in national insurance that I have just described will determine the contributions of the vast majority of people, but I should like to say a word about one interesting corner of the system which is of particular interest, although to only a limited number of hon. Members--the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1991, which deal with the special rate of class 2 contribution that is paid by share fishermen. I notice that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is pricking up his ears. He is one of the hon. Members whom I had in mind. I refer to the 13,000 people who are jointly engaged in a fishing enterprise and who are paid wholly or in part by a share of the profits from the catch. Unless they are working under a contract of service, they are regarded as self-employed for national insurance purposes. Unlike self- employed people generally, however, under a long-standing arrangement, share fishermen can receive unemployment benefit and industrial injuries benefits. They earn their entitlement to these benefits by paying a special, enhanced class 2 contribution. This consists of the standard class 2 contribution paid by the majority of self-employed people, with an additional amount related to the costs of the extra benefits payable to them.
Hon. Members--including the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire--will recall that one of the measures contained in the Social Security Act 1990 was the removal from the scope of the national insurance fund of industrial injuries benefits, which are now met from general taxation. Clearly, therefore, it is inappropriate for share fishermen to pay extra in contributions for benefits that are no longer funded from these contributions. From April, we propose that share fishermen should no longer pay this extra amount, although I hasten to reassure the House that this change will have no effect on their rights to benefits.
To make the position clear in financial terms, I should explain that, with additions for both unemployment benefit and industrial injuries benefits, the share fishermen's contribution currently stands at £6.15. By removing the addition for industrial injuries benefits, but adding the normal increase in the standard class 2 contribution, which this year is 60p, the share fishermen's contribution rate from April will be £6.20. This means that, for a very modest increase of 5p a week on their contributions, share fishermen will continue to receive their extra benefits in the same way as before, as well as benefiting from the coverage given by standard class 2 contributions. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire might pop up to say what good news that is and what a generous Government we are.
Column 986
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) : Hope springs eternal. Although this welcome rationalisation reconciles the longer-term problems faced by share fishermen, they also face more urgent short-term problems, such as the eight-day tie-up period during which they are excluded from unemployment benefit. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at that as a matter of some urgency, to try to bring about some short-term relief in the coming year?
Mr. Newton : From long experience in the House, perhaps I should have known that it is impossible to do good work without somebody seeking to get one to do more. I shall, of course, look at the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but I hope that he will understand me when I say that I shall do so without commitment. That matter has the air of a point that somebody has looked at fairly closely several times previously--
Mr. Kirkwood : To no useful effect.
Mr. Newton : As I have said, I can make no commitment--only an expression of good will in the hon. Gentleman's direction. I turn with some relief, which I suspect is shared by the House, from the rather tedious details of national insurance to the Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order, which represents changes that are part of a wider package of shorty- term sickness provisions for those in employment, other elements of which are contained in what is now the Statutory Sick Pay Act. As the ground was well, not to say exhaustively, trodden during the debates on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill both in this House and in another place, I shall not take the time of the House this afternoon by going over it again in great detail. I simply state briefly and factually that the order increases the lower rate of SSP by the full retail prices index increase of 10.9 per cent. from £39.25 to £43.50 a week and leaves the higher rate unchanged at £52.50 a week.
At the same time, the earnings threshold between the two rates will increase from £125 to £185 per week, thus extending the coverage of the lower rate across the whole range of earnings for which employers pay lower rates of national insurance contributions. Those proposals will reduce public expenditure on SSP by about £100 million in 1991-92. [Interruption.] In view of the faint sounds of muttering from Oldham, I should like to remind the House once more that the majority of employees will see no effect on the total payments that they receive when sick. That is because of the way in which occupational sick pay under employers' schemes interacts with SSP. To pre-empt one of the points which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will undoubtedly make, not all employees are covered by such schemes, either because they are among the 9 per cent. of employees who work for an employer who does not have an occupational sick pay scheme or because they do not satisfy the qualifying conditions of their employer's scheme. But I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that those who do not satisfy the qualifying conditions, and possibly a significant proportion of the others, will be mainly employees who are modestly paid or who work part-time and will generally be on the lower rate of statutory sick pay. Their entitlement once again will be fully protected in real terms by the increase that is proposed in the order.
Before I finish dealing with SSP, I should refer to the Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Regulations,
Column 987
which are also in the package before the House. As hon. Members will realise, those regulations are in consequence of the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991, passed earlier this month. The regulations enable small employers who experience abnormal sickness in their work force to revert to an SSP reimbursement rate of 100 per cent., instead of 80 per cent., after an employee has been sick for a spell of six weeks or more.I do not intend to go over the background to those provisions today, because they were the main focus of our recent debates on the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991, but I can confirm that, as foreshadowed in that debate, the regulations provide for an employer to be defined as a small employer where his contribution payments in the preceding tax year do not exceed £15,000. Small employer's relief--that is, 100 per cent. recovery-- will apply once an employee has been entitled to SSP for six weeks in a period of incapacity for work. The regulations also modify the provisions on the position of new employers. Before I move on, I want to say a few words about the proposals for statutory maternity pay. As I said in my uprating statement, the considerations which apply to statutory maternity pay are different from those which apply to statutory sick pay. In particular, there is much less occupational cover for maternity than for sickness. So we propose to move away from the link which currently exists between the flat-rate element of statutory maternity pay and statutory sick pay. Indeed, the main benefits uprating order increases the rate of statutory maternity pay by £25 a week to £44.50 per week, which is a full £1 above the retail prices index increase of 10.9 per cent. In other words, a real, additional £1 is being added. Indeed, a real, additional £1 is also being added to the state maternity allowance, which will go up by £4.90 to £40.60 a week. The effect of that is a real increase in benefit for some 315,000 mothers-to-be. That is a modest improvement but a useful and welcome one, which has been less noted than I should have wished.
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) : The Secretary of State should have made it more generous.
Mr. Newton : It is £5 million, if I remember rightly, so it is a significant sum, nevertheless.
I will touch only briefly on the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order, which is in line with my statutory duty under the Social Security Act 1986. It requires occupational pensions schemes which are contracted out of the state earnings related pension scheme to give post-award increases in guaranteed minimum pensions earned since the 1988-89 tax year of 3 per cent. from 6 April this year. On child benefit, as I made clear in my uprating statement and am happy to have another opportunity to make clear today, the benefit is and will remain a strong element of our policies for family support. As the House knows, I decided that the right course of action this year was to give practical recognition to the fact that all families with children face additional costs compared to families with none, by proposing an additional payment of child benefit of £1 a week for every family with children.
That will be paid for the eldest eligible child in each family, and will go to around 7 million claimants, in most cases the mother. The net cost will be over £250 million a year. As the extra £1 will go to every family and will indeed
Column 988
be larger than a retail prices increase would have been in one-parent benefit--which is itself defined as an increase for the eldest eligible child--I decided that, on this occasion, it would not be right to make a separate increase in that benefit as well. The extra payment for all families with children complements the real terms increases in income-related benefits which we have introduced over the past three years to focus additional help on the less well-off families with children. Families on income support and family credit will also, of course, have their benefits increased From April to compensate them for price increases in the usual way. Taken together with the earlier real increases, it means that spending on income-related benefits for families with children is expected to be worth some £400 million more in real terms in 1991-92 than in 1987-88.The Draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment Regulations are the legislative means by which the extra £1 a week will be implemented. They provide for £1 extra per week to be paid for the only, elder, or eldest child for whom a family is receiving child benefit at any time. For the sake of equity, there are provisions to ensure that every family receives one extra amount of child benefit each week.
Historically, there has always been a link between child benefit and other benefits for children. When child benefit for the first child in a family was increased from £1 to £2.30 in April 1978 by the previous Labour Government, there was a corresponding decrease of £1.30 in the rate of other benefits for that child. We therefore propose to make further regulations to be laid before Parliament in due course to ensure that the general principle, that benefit rates for children should be based on the overall level of child support, continues to apply. We propose that benefits payable under the Social Security Act 1975 in respect of children be adjusted where the child in question is one for whom the increased rate of child benefit is payable.
The draft uprating order provides for an across the board increase from £9.65 to £10.70 in the dependant's additions to contributory benefits. The effect of the proposed overlapping benefit adjustment to which I have just referred will be to reduce the amount of such a benefit by £1 where the increased child benefit is in payment ; £1 is, of course, the amount by which child benefit is increased.
Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) : I am pleased to see the Secretary of State in good health. If the worst came to the worst, and he were to fall under the proverbial bus, can he tell those in receipt of child benefit anything about the reports in The Independent on Sunday of serious splits in his ministerial team, of the think tank and of Mr. David Willetts coming up with other ideas? Can he reassure us that, if he were to leave his present position, child benefit would remain safe?
| Next Section
| Home Page |