| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on.
Points of Order
4.32 pm
Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It relates directly to my constituency and is of enormous concern to the people of Devon and Cornwall.
Yesterday, the Ministry of Defence announced that the refit contract for HMS Argyll would go to Rosyth dockyard in Scotland instead of to Devonport dockyard in Devon. That decision is contrary to expectations and is causing widespread concern. Are you, Madam Speaker, able to require the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the House to explain this bizarre decision and to reassure me that it was made for sound commercial reasons and not just because he had come under party political pressure from heavyweight Labour Scottish Members?
Madam Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman knows that I can deal only with procedural matters, not with matters of Government policy. I cannot bring a Minister to the Dispatch Box to give the reasons that the hon. Gentleman requires, but he is wise enough to know that there are other methods--Adjournment debates, parliamentary questions, and so on--by which to raise the matter and to try to elicit some further information.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you draw attention to the need for Members to be a little briefer in questioning Ministers during statements and perhaps even private notice questions? What we saw today was almost an abuse of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) tells me that 48 questions were asked.
Madam Speaker:
I did not count the number of questions, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. I have noticed in recent times that questions on a statement, not only from Opposition Front-Bench Members but from Back Benchers, are very long indeed. I sit here and listen to hon. Members making great comments about statements without coming to any point of view or asking a question. The House seems to be moving away from asking questions; hon. Members are too concerned with commenting on the statement that has already been made.
I have noted the hon. Gentleman's point. I noticed that the questioning from the Opposition took longer than the statement. I always keep a record of how long it takes to make a statement and how long it takes to reply to it.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock):
I beg to move,
In Northern Ireland, where the Government are effectively the housing and rating authority, there is a total disregard. That is to the credit of Her Majesty's Government. Hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies can take justifiable pride in the knowledge that every local authority in Scotland exercises in full its right to disregard war widows' pensions and war disability pensions when assessing for housing benefit or council tax benefit.
The overwhelming majority of local authorities in England and Wales now also exercise in full their discretion to disregard those pensions when making such assessments. That follows an effective campaign by the Royal British Legion, which reduced the number of local authorities refusing totally to disregard those pensions from 40 per cent. to some 45 or 46 councils, which remain resolute in the view that they should take the pensions into account.
I was interested to see today that Ian Townsend, the Secretary-General of the Royal British Legion, described it as "iniquitous" that some 6,000 pensioners out of 300,000 are disadvantaged in that way. It is clearly unfair and anomalous, and the House needs to remedy the problem.
A war pensioner can lose up to one fifth of his or her pension if he or she receives council tax benefit, and as much as 72p in the pound if he or she also receives housing benefit. A pensioner deafened by artillery fire in the second world war, for example, might receive benefit of £50.55 from the Department for Social Security in recognition of that disability, but he will lose £32.44 in reduced council benefits and keep just £18.11 to compensate for his deafness if his council refuses to disregard the pension that he receives for his war service and his disability. In effect, it is a local tax on war pensions, sometimes at nearly twice the highest rate of income tax paid by the richest in the land--in excess of 40 per cent.
You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that characteristically I speak en message. In the course of my research, I was pleased to see that for its November/December 1995 issue Saga Magazine approached the Labour party for an official statement, and that Labour party headquarters stated in respect of the matter:
We are now in government. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out, we have not been in government very long, and we cannot wave a magic wand to put right all the wrongs. Nevertheless, my ten-minute Bill provides a legislative opportunity to try to remedy the unfairness. I hope that I will have the Government's support in this attempt.
It is clearly unfair to the pensioners that there is not parity of treatment throughout the United Kingdom, and that they might have the misfortune of living in one of the local authorities which, unlike those in Scotland and the vast majority in England and Wales, do not recognise that war pensioners and war widows are special. I want us to act now so that not just 95 per cent. of local authorities in the UK disregard the pensions, but 100 per cent.
I will not list the 46 local authorities that are failing their pensioners. That would be invidious and would take too long. I ask hon. Members to make representations to their local authorities to ascertain whether their authorities are in that category. Hon. Members who represent areas
whose councils do give a total disregard might share my indignation. It is unfair not only to the pensioners, but to the council tax payers in those areas, as they are meeting their full moral obligation.
I hope that the House will support me and give me leave to bring in the Bill. There is unlikely to be any hon. Member who objects to it. I do not want hon. Members merely to acquiesce in the matter by their silence. That would allow some local authorities to continue to act unfairly. We must be proactive.
We--especially my hon. Friends--must impress on Ministers on the Treasury Bench that even if my Bill cannot become law, they should take the principle on board at an early legislative opportunity. The Government already do so in Northern Ireland as the Province's housing authority and the rating authority. Failure to disregard war pensions is clearly anomalous and grossly unfair to pensioners and to those good local authorities that have adopted the recommendations of the Royal British Legion and others, who recognise that war widows and people receiving war disability pensions are a very special category.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. John Austin, Mr. David Tredinnick, Mr. David Winnick, Dan Norris, Mr. John Burnett, Mr. John Cryer and Mr. Ivan Henderson.
That the Social Security (Lone Parents)(Amendment) Regulations 1997 (S.I., 1997, No. 1790) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.--[Mr. Dowd.]
Question agreed to.
4.35 pm
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to end the differential treatment of war widows and war disablement pensioners by local authorities; and for connected purposes.
The Bill will require local authorities to disregard totally war disability pensions and war widows' pensions when making assessments for housing benefit and levels of council tax benefit. It follows earlier initiatives in previous Parliaments by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who is in his place today.
"It is a cop-out on the Government's part. It should legislate to say that war pensions are either counted or ignored, and not give councils the discretion. Obviously, we would like war pensions to be ignored."
5 Nov 1997 : Column 335
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) for taking the trouble to come to the Treasury Bench this afternoon. He will recall the following words:
"The Labour party recognises the unfairness of the current situation, although you will understand that many decisions about what improvements might be made to the current social security system may have to wait until we are in government."
Those are the words that many of us, as candidates in the last election, were commended to include in our letters in response to the important representations made to us by veterans organisation about the issue.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |