| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim): And the Ulster Unionists.
Mr. Butler: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. Conservatives always hope to receive the support of the Ulster Unionists, but we cannot take it for granted.
Whom would the Bill catch? It would catch intruders. I have already referred to people looking for customers for drugs, but that is only one example. It would exclude from school premises all other people seeking to prey on children. It would deal with the regular problem of excluded pupils seeking to come back to school premises and create a nuisance, sometimes leading to criminal damage. Such people could be dealt with before they committed any further offence. It would also deal with parents who come on to school premises legitimately, but who intend then to work out a grudge against a teacher or the head teacher. It would also deal with people coming on to school premises out of school hours--a prevalent and increasing problem.
Whom would the Bill not catch? It would not catch the rambler or walker who was on school premises unknowingly. It would catch only those who were knowingly on premises that were clearly educational, designated under the relevant Act. It would also not catch any legitimate visitor.
Who wants the measures passed? I hope that all hon. Members present today are here to show their support. The Secondary Heads Association certainly wants it.
I was told over the telephone yesterday to "go for it." The National Association of Head Teachers issued a press release that says:
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Butler, Mr. David Jamieson, Sir Jim Lester, Sir Donald Thompson, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. Matthew Banks, Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva, Mr. Den Dover and Mr. Nigel Evans.
Mr. Peter Butler accordingly presented a Bill to create an arrestable offence of unlawful intrusion into designated educational premises: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 February, and to be printed [Bill 111].
Sir Donald Thompson (Calder Valley):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not wish to quarrel with your decision on the point of order made earlier by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), but it has been the practice recently for hon. Members to obtain a Minister's statement from the Vote Office as soon as he stands up in the House and fax it to their friends. Consequently, those friends have the whole statement 10 or 15 minutes before the Minister sits down. I assume that that is not the practice that you are trying to end.
Madam Speaker:
No. The practice that I deprecate is a Minister giving information to Conservative central office or Conservative candidates before giving it to the Scottish Grand Committee. That is it in a nutshell.
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley):
I beg to move,
I am proud that, despite the pressures on public spending, all basic benefits have been uprated every year since I have held office. Of course, it was not always so. Under the previous Labour Government, benefits were not uprated fully in 1976 for past inflation, and pensioners were robbed of £1 billion in today's money. Pensioners may therefore find a recent statement by the shadow Chancellor somewhat disturbing. In a speech last month, in which he spelled out his new, macho approach to public spending, he said:
The fall in unemployment since the previous election is another source of pride. Unemployment is down by more than a million since April 1992, and is now declining even faster. Expenditure on benefits for the unemployed is therefore falling, and is set to fall further. Expenditure on other groups has risen, but three quarters of the growth in spending in this Parliament has been on people who are elderly or disabled, or the long-term sick. Spending has grown on the elderly, because people who reach retirement age can now expect to live for two years longer than people who reached retirement age in 1979. People live longer under the Conservatives.
Spending on disabled and long-term sick people has grown because we give more generous benefits. We are proud of the fact that we give four times more help to disabled and long-term sick people than did the previous Labour Government.
The two sides of the House have had their disagreements on analyses of past social security spending, but we can now both agree about future spending levels. In his speech on 20 January, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) committed the Labour party to our planned expenditure levels, Department by Department and year by year. It was an amazing tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the Opposition clearly believed that his figures were right to the last penny. It means that we can have a rational debate about how we should keep within those budgets, on which both sides of the House agree, and we can both be measured against the same yardstick.
I shall spell out the measures that we intend to take to keep within the published targets for my Department. It will be up to the Opposition to say whether they would implement those measures, or what other measures they would introduce to achieve the same savings. In total, the measures which I announced in the Budget debate just before Christmas, but for which we must legislate, will save nearly £300 million in the second year of the spending round, rising to £1 billion in the longer term. So either the hon. Member for Peckham must enact £1 billion-worth of my savings measures, every one of which she has condemned, or she must replace them with alternative measures that save as much. I think that she will find that, when the shadow Chancellor told her to keep within my budget, he was handing her a live grenade with the pin pulled out. We shall wait to see how she deals with it.
The largest of the changes that I announced was the proposal to equalise benefits for lone parents with those available to married couples. It will apply to new claimants only, who will receive the same family premiums and child benefit rate as couples. Existing lone parents will keep their present higher rates unchanged in cash terms. That equalisation is fair and, ultimately, it will save £500 million a year. It requires legislation, which we shall introduce early in the new Session.
I have written three times to the hon. Member for Peckham asking her a simple question: would she implement those changes to equalise benefits for lone parents with those for married couples? If she will not, and if she decides to pay £500 million more to lone parents than we plan, she can get it only by reducing benefits for married couples, for single people without children, for the disabled or the elderly, because they are the only other categories who receive benefits under our budget.
Let us have no pretence from the hon. Lady that she can conjure up £500 million of savings from expensive schemes designed to get lone parents back into work. It is socially desirable to get them back to work, especially from their point of view, and I welcome the fact that the Labour party has copied some aspects of our Parent Plus scheme. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but we are frank enough to admit that it will probably cost money. We have budgeted some £20 million for the scheme.
"The NAHT considers it imperative that the provisions of this Bill are introduced. Of course it would not completely free schools from the problem of intruders, but the fact that it will be an offence to trespass would serve as a deterrent for many and enable the police to support schools more effectively than at present."
I believe that teachers, parents and pupils want the measure enacted. I have already invited any hon. Member who doubts that to ask their own teachers, parents and pupils. I hope that the House will also want to see the Bill enacted. Subject to the election, I hope to be here to see it become law by the time schools return for the next school year, in September 1997. I therefore seek leave to bring in my Bill.
3.46 pm
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
Madam Speaker:
I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
Mr. Lilley:
The main order uprates nearly all benefits in line with inflation. It is the biggest spending decision that we take in the Department every year. Even with inflation at only just over 2 per cent., uprating benefits will cost £1.7 billion in the coming year. It is right and proper to uprate benefits, because that meets our commitment to the neediest in society.
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Amendment Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
"We will keep a tough grip on the cash totals of departmental spending . . . there cannot be an assumption that totals will be automatically adjusted upwards in the event of changes in inflation."
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) can reassure pensioners and others about whether their benefits would be automatically adjusted upwards in the event of changes in inflation. I am happy to give her the opportunity to do so. Perhaps she will do so later, although I am not sure what value pensioners would put on an assurance from the hon. Lady, because she has changed her mind on everything, and her party's track record is not good. We shall wait and see.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |