| Home Page |
Column 579
House of Commons
Monday 6 November 1995
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[ Madam Speaker -- in the Chair ]
Oral Answers to Questions
SOCIAL SECURITY
Incentives to Work
1. Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what incentives to work will be included in his reforms of unemployment benefits. [39682]
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): A key theme of my reforms has been helping people to move back into work. I recently introduced an extra £10 per week in family credit for those working 30 hours or more and I have announced the jobseeker's allowance, the back-to-work bonus and the pilot earnings top-up scheme to make work more worth while for unemployed people without dependent children and with limited earning power. The eight areas in which we plan the pilot are published today and the draft rules of the scheme have been placed in the Vote Office.
Dr. Spink: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of the areas in which he intends to pilot the earnings top-up scheme. Will he use pilot schemes whenever possible, as they represent an excellent way to introduce new schemes? Will he contrast the Government's excellent and very measured reforms in social security with those of Labour and with Labour's announcement this week that it will consider reforms at any cost? Will he reflect on what that cost might be?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the earnings top-up pilot and for the principle of piloting. He is right to say that we have been reforming the welfare state systematically, spelling out our principles and our policies, testing them in practice and inviting public debate. That is in clear contrast with the Labour party, which if today's news reports are to be believed--we await confirmation from the Opposition Front Bench--has torn up its entire stance on social security for the third time--a triple U-turn on the part of the Leader of the Labour party.
Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that he is now the main recruiting sergeant to the dependency culture against which the Government so often rail? Does he appreciate that, by limiting the jobseeker's allowance to six months, he is providing an incentive for the wives of the unemployed to join the dole queue as well? And does he agree that the most important way of helping people back into work and ensuring a more equal household income level in Britain would be
Column 580
to reverse that reform which so penalises working wives that they find it profitable to give up work and join their husbands on the dole?Mr. Lilley: No, I do not accept the hon. Member's point, if only because we are extending from 16 to 24 the hours that partners of unemployed people can work so as to give them added incentive to stay in work. Family credit often acts as a bridge when one partner is out of work. All the studies show that many people leave family credit because they are unable to stay in work during that period. The spouse then returns to work, so both partners are working.
Mr. Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of incentives to help people off benefit is among the most important tasks of his Department? Will he also reflect on the fact that, unless those reforms reduce the overall cost of social security, we shall still be moving in the wrong direction, and that the Labour party's determination to tear up the report of the Commission on Social Justice and go further can mean only that Labour is determined to spend more money than ever?
Mr. Lilley: We are awaiting clarification from the Labour party. The Commission on Social Justice proposed £7 billion additional spending financed by an equivalent amount of extra income tax raised through the abolition of allowances. We are now told that that was not radical enough, but we are not sure in what direction. My hon. Friend is right to say that helping people back to work is a key part of what we are doing and one of the Government's great success stories.
Widow's Payment
2. Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances the widow's payment will be uprated. [39685]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State continueto keep the level of the widow's payment under review.
Mr. Flynn: Why is the widow's payment, which replaced a payment that was uprated annually, still stuck at £1,000, when, if it had been increased in line with earnings, it would now be £1,881? Why is the maternity payment still £100, when it should be £141? Meanest of all, the additional payment to pensioners over the age of 80 should by now be £3.55, but it is still a miserable 25p. Will the Minister make it clear that any handouts to the super-rich in the Budget will be paid for by continuing to cheat the poor, the elderly, the sick and widows?
Mr. Heald: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do not entirely accept his figures. The widow's payment is a tax-free lump sum, paid to help widows to adjust to new circumstances and, importantly, it is payable immediately. It complements the widow's pension and widowed mother's allowance, which have been uprated annually.
The Labour party seems to be having another look at welfare and social security issues. The hon. Gentleman, who is a senior Back Bencher, once said that, when he became Prime Minister, things would change in a very different way. Perhaps he would like to give his advice to Labour Front Benchers. As it would cost £1.7 billion to implement the upratings that he wants--equivalent to a
Column 581
penny on income tax--perhaps Labour Front Benchers will tell us whether this is the latest move in the Labour party's abandonment of sensible economic policy.Charitable Donations
3. Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review his policy in respect of the withdrawal of benefits from people in receipt of charitable donations. [39686]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): As with all policy, the treatment of charitable donations when calculating entitlement to an income-related benefit is kept under continual review.
Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware that my question is prompted by an earlier written question to him, transferred to the Benefits Agency, concerning an adjudication made in respect of a local charity, the Chelsey Austin appeal fund. That has now been satisfactorily resolved, and I pay tribute to the local newspaper, The Press and Journal , for the important role that it played in drawing attention to the unfairness involved. As there are implications for Scottish trust law and for the calculation of capital for charities of this kind, will the Minister confirm that such information will be made widely available throughout Scotland, so that such an error does not recur?
Mr. Evans: The simple answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. Unfortunately, in the case that he raised there was a technical defect: the adjudicating officer had not noticed that Parliament has passed an Act this Session altering the requirements for a Scottish trust to be in writing. We value the special provisions relating to charitable arrangements when calculating entitlement to income-related benefits. The trust to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a classic example of special arrangements, made locally, to provide medical and other special equipment.
Benefit Take-up
4. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what efforts he is making to encourage the take-up of benefits. [39687]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): The Department is involved in a wide range of national and local initiatives to ensure that accurate and accessible information is available. These are often undertaken in conjunction with local interest and advice groups, including in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Mr. Banks: I am obliged to the Minister. I am as opposed to social security fiddling as anyone in this House, but I am equally opposed to income tax fiddling--some of which takes place not a million miles from this House. Will the Minister explain why, according to the Department, a total of £2.73 billion-worth of benefits went unclaimed in 1992, including £12 million-worth in my borough alone? What is the Minister doing to ensure a proper take-up of social security benefits by those
Column 582
entitled to them? And why do we have figures only for 1992? How much was unclaimed in 1994, and what is the Minister doing about it?Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the scale of the figures: £9 out of every $10 is claimed. It is the Government's job to provide benefits and to provide information about them. That is done in a variety of ways--including, as I said, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, where a video has been made to encourage benefit take-up. It was launched in July and I had the opportunity to watch it last weekend. It is helpful and is being requested by benefit offices all over the country. We put information about benefits across in a wide variety of ways and spend about £26 million per year advertising them.
Asylum Seekers
5. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about social security payments to asylum seekers. [39688]
Mr. Lilley: I have put forward proposals on social security payments to asylum seekers and to other persons from abroad. The proposals are intended to reduce the number of unfounded asylum applications made in the United Kingdom, and to ensure that those entering this country on the understanding that they will not be a burden on the taxpayer cannot gain access to the benefit system just by submitting an asylum claim. Those proposals are with the Social Security Advisory Committee which, following public consultation, will report with recommendations in December.
Mr. Marshall: While everyone in this country welcomes the assistance given to genuine asylum seekers, many people are appalled at the way in which this country has become the soft touch in Europe. Does my right hon. Friend accept that at least £300 million of taxpayers' money goes to asylum seekers--such as Mr. Abdelkader Benouif, who is helping the police with their inquiries into a mass bombing campaign in Paris? Should not such individuals be sent packing from this country instead of being subsidised by the taxpayer?
Mr. Lilley: I confirm my hon. Friend's point about the scale of expenditure on would-be asylum seekers. I cannot comment on individual cases, but under the changes that I propose it would no longer be possible to extend one's stay in this country almost indefinitely by making appeals against refusal to grant asylum. After a rejection, any further appeal would have to be made without resort to benefits--in the same way as a British citizen who is refused income support does not continue to receive that benefit pending the appeal.
Mr. Gerrard: As the law gives a right of appeal, is it sensible to put people on to the street? Appeals can take a year or 18 months to be heard. What are people supposed to live on during that time? If an appeal is successful--and people do win appeals--will the benefit be backdated to the point at which it was withdrawn?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. In respect of appeals, we are putting asylum seekers in the same position as British citizens who are refused benefit--who do not continue to receive benefits while appealing against refusal. It would be odd to
Column 583
continue the present situation indefinitely. I look forward to hearing whether the Labour party intends to oppose our changes. So far, Labour has refused to reply to my letter asking for its position on that issue.Benefit Fraud
6. Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what initiatives have been taken to target those who fraudulently claim benefit. [39689]
Mr. Lilley: I announced in July my new strategy to move from detection to prevention and deterrence of fraud and abuse. The plan includes extra checks on benefit claims, matching of information on the Department's computers and the introduction of benefit payment cards in place of order books and giro cheques, starting next year. Over a five-year period, those activities will shift the focus of anti-fraud effort from detection and investigation to prevention and deterrence.
Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that stealing and fiddling benefits are appalling acts which cost the country hundreds of millions of pounds? The country will welcome my right hon. Friend's initiatives--particularly those which use new technology, the benefit payment card and the fraud hotline. When I visited the social security office in Preston a few months ago, I met someone who was working hard to crack down on fraud in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to all staff throughout the country who are dedicated to cracking down on benefit fraud, sometimes at personal danger to themselves?
Mr. Lilley: I certainly pay tribute to the work successfully carried out--particularly by officials in my Department--to detect and prevent fraud. Last year, the amount of fraud prevented by the Benefits Agency as a result was a record of more than £700 million. Obviously we want to move to prevention and deterrence in the future, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support.
Ms Lynne: Although I welcome any clamp-down on benefit fraud, may I ask the Secretary of State to tell the House why the Conservative Government stopped home visits in the 1980s? Can he further tell the House what he will do to make the Benefits Agency more efficient? Is he aware that £540 million was lost last year in over-payments of income support, the majority of which were due to official error?
Mr. Lilley: I seem to recall that the change in policy occurred during the Lib-Lab Government, at the behest of the International Monetary Fund, which demanded the immediate removal of a large number of bureaucrats. However, we are looking forward, not backward, and we are introducing these changes to improve the position and to clamp down on fraud. I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who has criticised his own party for going slow on the effort against fraud and said that the Labour party has been linked to freeloaders for too long. I am glad that at long last the Labour party is beginning to support us in the changes that we are making.
Mr. Ashby: I am grateful that my right hon. Friend has now realised that benefit fraud is far more widespread and far greater than his Department had hitherto realised, but will he get the fraud officers in his Department to realise
Column 584
that it is a serious crime and that they should concentrate more on prosecuting and convicting offenders than on recovering the money? Can we see the police more involved in benefit fraud inquiries as well?Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are successful in securing a conviction when we take a case to the courts--some 95 per cent. of cases result in conviction. It is important that people should realise that they run the risk of conviction, but it is also important to get the money back from those who have wrongfully taken it. Those people may continue to have a lower level of entitlement to benefit, from which deductions can be--and are--made, and we get substantial sums back as a result.
Mr. Wicks: Does the Secretary of State accept that, after 16 long years of talking tough but acting soft, we would welcome a tough clampdown on social security fraud? Does he accept that one of the major reasons for fraud is the failure of social security recipients to declare earnings? Does he agree that we need moral leadership here today and that we have a golden opportunity to implement the Nolan report in full, including the declaration of earnings, so that, when it comes to the poorest--
Madam Speaker: Order. The question is totally outside the question on the Order Paper. We are talking about social security fraud.
Mr. Wicks: If honesty is good enough for the poor, is it not good enough for the House of Commons?
Mr. Lilley: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his role on the Opposition Front Bench and I have listened with considerable interest to the valuable contributions that he has often made on our topics in the past. I am sure that he will enrich the contributions and that in future they will be in order, but the point that he is making is rather trivial: people should obey the law and the rules--we are in all favour of that.
Social Security Reforms
7. Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the long-term effect on public spending of the social security reforms that he has announced so far. [39690]
Mr. Lilley: The major reforms that I have announced in the past two years are expected to reduce public spending by £4 billion per year within the next Parliament and £14 billion per year in the longer term.
Mr. Amess: Has my right hon. Friend received any support from any other political party for his important reforms to save money from the social security budget? Can he tell the House how the Labour party will be able to spend an extra £4 billion on social security other than by raising taxes?
Mr. Lilley: I am afraid that I cannot tell my hon. Friend that I have received much support from the Labour party in the process of reforming social security policy. Indeed, it has opposed almost every change that we have introduced. As a result, should there ever--heaven forbid--be a Labour Government, they would start off with a need to find an extra £4 billion per year in the next Parliament, and three times that much in the next century.
Column 585
We still await some response from the new Opposition spokesman on social security, whose presence--though not, so far, his contribution--I greatly welcome today. I hope that he will tell us whether the inspired stories appearing in almost identical words in all today's newspapers are true--that the Labour leader has effectively torn up the results of the Commission on Social Justice established by his predecessor and has told his new shadow spokesman to start again from scratch--and why he has rejected a report that his own leader said was the most outstanding report since Beveridge.Mr. Miller: One of the reforms announced by the Secretary of State which he claims will have an impact on public spending is the use of computers--for instance, the link between computers in the Department and those in income tax offices. Does he agree that a precursor to any such reform must be radical extensions of the powers of the Data Protection Registrar?
Mr. Lilley: The elements that we are currently introducing in our computer systems rely on the matching of data already held in the social security system. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, it may be sensible to go further once those systems are in place, but that would have to be squared with the privacy and data protection rules first.
Mr. Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in planning public expenditure, his Department should try to concentrate help on those who need it most? Does he believe that that is the policy that he is pursuing?
Mr. Lilley: That is at the heart of what we are doing. We spend a huge sum on social security--£15 per working person every working day- -and we must ensure that that huge sum goes where it is most needed. At the same time, we must enable people to make provision for themselves, and we must increase the vitality of the economy so that more and more people secure jobs and are not in need in the first place. We are doing that more successfully than almost any other country on the continent.
Mr. Chris Smith: Is not the real cause of the ballooning social security budget the Government's own economic failure? Is it not true that, despite all the cuts, benefit expenditure has risen by £30 billion since 1979 and the number of people dependent on benefits has doubled during that period? Instead of seeking more and more victims for further cuts--from war pensioners to mortgage payers to single parents--should not the Government bend all their efforts towards creating a thriving, investment-rich economy that will lift people off benefits altogether, and into work?
Mr. Lilley: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post as social security spokesman. He has a hard act to follow--that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), for whose ability and integrity I never hid my admiration. I am confident that the hon. Gentleman will rise to the same heights and earn my equal respect. I am doubly confident as I am a constituent of his during the week and he will be eager to earn my vote.
The hon. Gentleman will, however, have to do rather better than today's question in future. He will have to emulate his predecessor and do his homework. He will then discover that we are being more successful than any other country in reducing unemployment. We have more people in work than any other major country in Europe. The countries that are suffering most from high and rising
Column 586
unemployment are those which are pursuing the very policies that Opposition Front Benchers are dedicated to imposing on this country: a national minimum wage, and the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty--unless they tore that up before lunchtime as well.State Pension Age
8. Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of reducing the age of basic state pension to 60 years. [39691]
Mr. Heald: The annual cost in today's money of reducing state pension age to 60 would be £13.4 billion in 2030.
Mr. Jessel: As £13.4 billion would be equal to nearly 10p in the pound in income tax, would not Labour's proposals amount to an enormous burden on future generations? Why will Labour not come clean about that?
Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Commission on Social Justice suggested equalising the state pension age at 65; the Opposition Front Bench then suggested 63; the Labour party conference then suggested 60, at a cost of £13.4 billion. Now that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has been given a blank cheque to go out and change all the Opposition's policies, perhaps a state pension age of 56 will be suggested next.
Mr. MacShane: Does the Minister agree with his colleague the Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, who believes that Members of Parliament should retire at 60, and would he care to name those Ministers who would leave the Government this afternoon?
Mr. Heald: As a young Minister I certainly have no intention of retiring. I think that the hon. Gentleman was pushing his luck.
Poverty
9. Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are now living below the official poverty line; and what was the figure in 1979. [39692]
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): No Government of any political persuasion have ever set an official poverty line. Since 1979, average incomes have risen by more than a third after allowing for inflation. The average incomes of all family types have risen and pensioners' average incomes have increased by some 50 per cent.
Mr. Sutcliffe: Is it not the case that, under the Tory Government, the poor get poorer while the rich get richer, particularly Tory Ministers and Tory Members? Why is it that the poorest 10 per cent. of society have seen their real incomes drop by 17 per cent. while the top 10 per cent. in society have seen their incomes rise by 62 per cent.? Does the Minister think that that is fair?
Mr. Burt: There is no doubt that there has been a great disparity in incomes in recent years. One reason is the number of couples in families who are both working; the
Column 587
other is that there has been wider dispersal of incomes and differentials. As the hon. Gentleman is sponsored by a print union, he will know all about increasing differentials.Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole concept of a poverty level is a total misnomer, particularly when Opposition Members use it as a moving target and especially when the living standards of all groups have improved significantly over the past 16 years? That is evident from the massive increase in consumer durables among all income groups, including the bottom 10 per cent. Does that not show that the concept of a poverty line is nonsense?
Mr. Burt: The idea that poverty can be defined accurately and translated into benefit levels and minimum wage rates is a political El Dorado. Those are not my words, but those of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and they substantiate my hon. Friend's point. It is exceptionally difficult to set such rates. However, studies show that the bottom 10 per cent. by income in the United Kingdom is not a fixed group but moves in terms of expenditure and opportunities. The best thing that can be done is to increase incentives for work and improve job opportunities--and no Government could have done more than we have to do exactly that.
Mr. Denham: Will the Minister confirm that among the poorest people in Britain are the perhaps 600,000 pensioners who live on less than income support rates? Will he also confirm that, in preparing his Department's contribution to pre-election tax bribes, he is banking on those pensioners not claiming the support to which they are entitled? Is Britain now really a country in which pensioner poverty has to pay for the Prime Minister's aim of tax cuts for the wealthy?
Mr. Burt: I welcome the hon. Gentleman and congratulate him on his rise to the Front Bench. He will be aware that, since 1988, reforms to the social security structure have directed £1 billion towards the neediest pensioners--the people about whom he is most concerned. In general, the situation of pensioners is far better than it was in Labour's last years of power. There are far fewer pensioners than ever before in the bottom decile of incomes because of the improvements that have been made to pensions, the additions, and so on. As always, however, the position of the poorest pensioners will remain a matter for concern and care by the Government. We shall have an economy designed to support them rather than one which will fall to ruins, as would be the case if the Opposition followed the plans that they have announced.
Social Fund
10. Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest assessment in percentage terms of the cost of administration of the social fund. [39693]
Mr. Roger Evans: The cost of operating the social fund in 1993-94 was 41 per cent. of the amount of money paid out and recovered. Since the start of the scheme we have paid loans to the value of £1.5 billion for an outlay of just over one fifth of that amount--£329 million.
Mr. Pike: Would it not be common sense to reduce administration costs from that appalling level of 41 per
Column 588
cent. and give grants to the people most in need, as those on income support who qualify for assistance from the social fund are the most desperately poor people in this country?Mr. Evans: On a number of occasions, the hon. Gentleman has raised the argument--I understand why he does so--for a system of grants more similar to the old system that the social fund replaced. The difficulty with the old system was that the cost doubled every two years between 1980 and 1986 and that it proved to be inequitable, as 80 per cent. of expenditure was going to 17 per cent. of eligible claimants. The social fund is a real improvement in terms of giving more help by way of loans to more people. The multiplier effect, if I may describe it as such, is about fivefold. It does not follow that the administration costs of a grant scheme, if it is to be administered firmly, need be any less.
Mr. Bradley: Does the Minister not realise that, with half the costs of the social fund being swallowed up in administration, it is the poorest who are not receiving any help at all? Did he read the Family Welfare Association report, which was reported in The Guardian last week and which said that 116,000 items of urgent need were turned down last year because people were unable to repay as their benefits were low? Many more people did not even bother to claim because they knew that they could not afford to repay as their benefits were low. Will he urgently review that position to ensure that the poorest in our society are not further punished because of the social fund's administration costs?
Mr. Evans: The figure of half which the hon. Gentleman put to me is wrong; I have given the correct figure. Yes, of course we read and studied the report to which he alluded, but he gave a misleading impression. Only a small proportion of applicants are refused social fund loans on the ground of inability to pay. About half a per cent. of loan decisions were refusals on that ground--that is fewer people. Most of those who were refused on such a ground were already paying back one or more loans from the fund. There must be a reasonable limit to the amount advanced.
Independent Living Fund
12. Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to make changes to the independent living fund; and if he will make a statement. [39695]
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: We have no plans at present to change the successful arrangements under which the independent living fund enables 16,000 severely disabled people to live in the community at a total annual cost of around £100 million.
Mr. Brown: I am glad to learn that my hon. Friend has no plans to make any changes. Will he take it from me that the independent living fund is a way of giving independence--very much true independence--to disabled people? It has been one of the most successful methods of financing disabled people to go about their own lives. Will he undertake to continue to regard the fund as one of the most prestigious methods of financing true independence among disabled people?
Mr. Mitchell: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to the interest that he has taken in
Column 589
the funds on behalf of his constituents. During the recess, I visited the funds that are headquartered in Nottingham and attended a meeting of the board of trustees. I pay tribute to its work. It keeps in regular touch with its clients and its administration budget is extremely low, at around 1 per cent.Disabled People
13. Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action the Government are taking to tackle discrimination against disabled people. [39696]
Mr. Burt: The enactment of the Disability Discrimination Bill will mean that, for the first time, it will be unlawful to discriminate against disabled people in employment, access to goods, services and premises. There will also be a power to set minimum standards of accessibility for public transport vehicles. A national disability council will be created to advise the Government on the elimination of discrimination. The Bill will represent a huge advance for disabled people.
Mr. Banks: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Government on the Disability Discrimination Bill, which I hope will complete its passage later this week. Does my hon. Friend agree that, now that the parliamentary debate is over, it is time for all of us who represent disabled people and for disabled people themselves to join him in getting on with the Bill's provisions, for the greater good of those who will benefit the most?
Mr. Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting matters in such a way. That is absolutely right. There has been dispute, both inside and outside Parliament, about whether the Bill is the right way forward, but now that we have argued and proved our case, we believe that the Bill represents a substantial advance for disabled people. The efforts of all who really care for that should now be put into ensuring that the Bill's implementation goes smoothly and that the provisions that we have introduced, which create substantial new rights for disabled people, work. I will consult extensively on the basis of the new regulations that will make the Bill work to do exactly that.
Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister rethink his original answer, when he claimed that the Bill would outlaw discrimination in employment against people with disabilities? Are not 96 out of every 100 firms employing 20 or fewer staff free to continue discriminating? How can that be progress, when the fastest growth in jobs is among small firms?
Mr. Burt: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises, the point is that 80 per cent. of all employees are covered by the Bill. I do not think that any firm, small or otherwise, that discriminates against disabled people is getting a good deal. Disabled workers have an excellent record of both achievement and attendance at work. The new opportunities in employment being opened up to disabled people will make their continued employment even more secure.
There should be no discrimination. The Bill will help to change attitudes, but what it crucially does that other legislation does not do is to recognise the needs of those who will be supplying employment services to disabled people and create a balance between the needs
Column 590
of those firms and the rightful aspirations and expectations of disabled people. I repeat that 80 per cent. of all employees will be covered by the Bill, which represents the significant advance of which I spoke earlier.DUCHY OF LANCASTER
Deregulation
28. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress he has to report on his deregulation initiative. [39712]
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): We are using the powers of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act, which was passed just over a year ago, to repeal unnecessary United Kingdom primary legislation. I am also visiting the Governments of our European Union partners to build a consensus agreement that we should have fewer but better European regulations.
Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's deregulation measures, pioneered by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, have been a great success? However, is it not true that the desire to regulate still lies deep in the socialist soul and that business men, let alone people going about their daily lives, ignore that fact at their peril?
Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and very much agree with him. Nothing is closer to the desire of all true socialists than the early introduction of the social chapter--which I understand is likely to cost, if fully implemented, about £10 billion a year, in addition to the already sizeable social security budget.
Mr. Skinner: Has not the right hon. Gentleman got a cheek talking about deregulation when sitting next to him is the Deputy Prime Minister, who only a few months ago persuaded the Prime Minister to set up another Government unit with civil servants, with a desk diary of £150,000, with two jobs--Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State--and with a personal hairdresser thrown in? If we are to talk about deregulation, let us start with the Treasury Bench--and the sooner, the better.
Mr. Freeman: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State is doing an excellent job and will continue to do that job for a long time yet.
Mrs. Lait: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the lottery has had an adverse effect on the betting and gaming industries, especially in tourist towns such as Hastings? What initiatives does he plan to take to level the playing field and deregulate those industries in a responsible manner?
| Next Section
| Home Page |