| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Burns: As the right hon. Gentleman says, that is right.
As The Daily Telegraph said, which I am grateful the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed:
That is not the only example of Labour's cynical disregard of the facts. Let us take clause 35, for example. The clause allows regulations to be made that will permit a local authority to suspend payment of housing benefit and council tax in prescribed circumstances, particularly where entitlement is in doubt, pending resolution of a query or appeal. The official Opposition do not oppose that, because we were going to do it if we won the election. What does stick in our throats, however, is the fact that the principle of suspension of benefit was attacked by the Labour party when in opposition.
In opposition, only a year ago, the Secretary of State's predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, attacked the suspension of benefits when he said that the
Possibly the Secretary of State's greatest problem and the greatest swallowing of humble pie comes with clause 68, which is probably better known as the clause that dare not speak its name. In the right hon. Lady's "Dear Colleague" briefing note for Members of Parliament of 10 July, she mysteriously made no mention of the clause. In true news management style, no doubt under the guiding hand of the Minister without Portfolio, the letter extolled the virtues of the Bill, but nowhere in it was clause 68 mentioned--no doubt because, despite the public comments of the hon. Members for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), the Government wanted to try to hide in a 78-clause, seven-schedule Bill the proposal which is such anathema to true Labour.
Clause 68 proposes to set out the framework for implementing the previous Government's policy to reduce the rate of child benefit for lone parents to the level for couples. It is a move towards an even-handed treatment of one and two-parent families by reducing the additional child benefit of just over £6 to the same level as that paid to a couple with a child.
When this was announced in the Budget in November 1996, the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), not one to miss a flight of hyperbole, told the House that the cut in benefit to lone mothers
Dr. Gibson:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to interrupt his diatribe. Which party allowed people
Mr. Burns:
I find that intervention extraordinary. If the hon. Gentleman were to waste time studying the legislation, I suspect that he would not find any measures of that nature. Such things happen all too often, regardless of the Government of the day. I suspect that some sharp cookie looked for a way of avoiding national insurance or tax, and his attempt was discovered. To her credit, the right hon. Lady has announced that she will amend the legislation and mop it up. In the circumstances, that is probably the right way to proceed. [Interruption.]
The Minister for Welfare Reform is trying to cause trouble and mischief. The allegation was not that Asda had come up with this wheeze, but that some bright person had bought Asda tokens to get around the tax and national insurance regimes. We cannot blame Asda for that--just as we could not blame the national book token scheme if people were to abuse it. The right hon. Gentleman should shut up and listen to the speech because, despite his knowledge, he might learn something.
As I said before I was interrupted, the right hon. Lady was interviewed by Polly Toynbee in January this year. In that article, Ms Toynbee writes:
Mr. Burns:
The right hon. Lady's right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has protected her so often in the past. As she knows better than most, he has been particularly good to her in the past 18 months or so and rescued her from several scrapes. I suspect that the right hon. Lady owes him one, and will do whatever he bids.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman is ranging wide in his remarks. While I am on my feet, I must say that some hon. Members on the Back Bench have been extremely noisy during the debate. I ask them to be silent.
Mr. Burns:
On clause 68, it is no wonder that colleagues of the right hon. Lady, for example, the hon. Members for
The changes to child benefit will require secondary legislation. I suspect that old, true Labour will stick by its principles and make its views known when it has an opportunity to demonstrate on the Floor of the House its commitment to what it believes in.
I shall be grateful if the Under-Secretary who is winding up will tell the House when he expects regulations to cut the child benefit element of income support to be laid before the House.
I do not want to add to the Secretary of State's woes, but I should like, as it has come up once or twice during the debate, to raise the issue of clause 70, about which my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) spoke so eloquently. It is a nasty, vindictive little clause which was not proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden.
Clause 70 introduces a new time restriction for backdating benefit claims from the current three months to one month. It was not--as one would expect--in the right hon. Lady's "Dear Colleague" letter of 10 July, for the simple reason that it attacks pensioners and the most frail and vulnerable in society. Although I accept that a three-month time scale for claiming benefits is not unreasonable, restricting it to one month will devastate tens of thousands of vulnerable people. As the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has pointed out, it will mean, for example, that widows suffering the shock of bereavement could have only a month to make a claim for widow's benefit. How can the Government justify imposing such an intrusive requirement on widows in their grief?
I must confess that I am surprised that clause 70 is in the Bill, because the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), who is now an Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, has in the past criticised the previous Government for not ensuring that there is a high take-up of benefits, and this measure will reduce benefit entitlement and save £57 million from the most needy in our society. In the light of clause 70, previous comments by the hon. Gentleman are particularly hollow. He said:
"An Opposition attack on Government cuts in welfare backfired yesterday with the disclosure that Labour was contemplating similar efficiency savings".
The Times was probably even more explicit when it reported:
"Labour was accused of breathtaking hypocrisy yesterday after a shadow Treasury Minister privately suggested that the proposed £1 billion cuts in social security spending were 'perfectly feasible'."
The cynicism of Labour's position has been confirmed by the Bill, which is part of the cost-saving exercise.
"measures affect the genuine and the non-genuine alike".--[Official Report, 24 June 1996; Vol. 280, c. 39.]
For good measure, he added that the principle was "inhumane and unjust".
"is not fair to the families of women who bring up children on their own. They will be worse off. If that is what he thinks is a family policy, he does not understand how families work."--[Official Report, 28 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 501.]
In January this year, when pressed on that issue by Polly Toynbee of The Independent, the redoubtable right hon. Lady said--
"So, will she or won't she"--
the right hon. Lady--
"introduce Tory legislation to cut single parents' benefits? 'No, of course not', she says when asked."
So spoke the champion of lone mothers, the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham. What did she say this month? In a recent press release, her mouth awash with humble pie, she declared:
"Withdrawal of entitlement to lone parent family premiums in income support for new claimants will take effect in April 1998. Withdrawal of the lone parent premium rate of child benefit is subject to necessary legislation and is now expected to come into effect from June 1998."
The right hon. Lady can huff and puff as much as she likes, but she is hoist on her own petard by her previous statements. No amount of bluster and waffle can disguise the fact that she has been totally overruled, and, with no shame or pride, she is happy to implement her master's instructions.
"A high take-up is essential to ensure that the poorest in our society receive the meagre income to which they are entitled through the benefits system."--[Official Report, 16 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 1258.]
As I said at the beginning, the Bill is primarily that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. For that reason we will not oppose it tonight, but we reserve our position on a number of issues in Committee, not least clause 70, and we will want to study the fine print carefully.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |