| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Margaret Hodge (Barking): The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 20 minutes and, apart from attacking the fact that the Government are reviewing the welfare system, he has said absolutely nothing about the Opposition's views on welfare reform. At the very least, will he say whether he supports the Government's proposal on the new deal for lone parents?
Mr. Duncan Smith: Frankly, if the hon. Lady tries to persuade her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make us all offers to move over to the Government Benches, we will listen. The truth is that, believe it or not, the hon. Lady is in government. Those on her Front Bench are there to make decisions. When will they do so? The Government do not like the fact that I am simply saying that when they promise major reforms, and then do absolutely nothing, they are misleading the public. The longer we go on about that, the less they like it. We have been offered no reform.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay): Could it not be that, while the Minister for Welfare Reform said:
- "Women with children of school age should be under an obligation to look for work",
- "Compulsion is absolutely not the issue."
Mr. Duncan Smith: That is the point that I am coming to. The reality is that there is one dispute after another. The Secretary of State is arguing with the Minister for Welfare Reform about who should be in charge. He wants compulsion; she does not. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) that it is one endless internal dispute after another, which is why we are not getting anywhere with the reforms. There have been no reforms at all.
The new deal for lone parents is becoming more and more of a trumpeting exercise in publicity rather than a serious study about how people can get into work and how they can be assisted in doing so if they wish.
The Conservative Government proposed some changes to cut child benefit and the supplement to income support in their final Budget last November. The present Secretary of State attacked the proposals and immediately said that she did not intend to implement them once in government. She went further in an interview with Polly Toynbee of The Independent. When asked whether she would introduce the changes to lone parent benefit, she said, "No, of course not." On 28 November 1996, she said:
Mr. Duncan Smith:
The hon. Gentleman asked what our position is. Had we won the last election and been in government now, we would, without question, have implemented the changes. I have told the Government that.
I can tell the Liberal Democrats that the simple position is that we certainly shall not oppose any such changes if the Government introduce them. That is straightforward and our position is clear. We have not broken a pledge, unlike the Labour party--the party of the hon. Member for Rotherham. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should calm down--he is obviously being vibrated too much by his Whips Office. He and his hon. Friends have broken a pledge--the Secretary of State has broken it more than anyone else.
In the interests of clarity--[Interruption.] It is no good trying to protect the Secretary of State; I just want to hear from her about it. In 1996 and 1997, she made it absolutely clear that she would not implement the change. Will she tell us exactly what changed her opinion? If she disagrees with the policy in principle--as it seems from those quotes and from all the speeches that she has made and discussions that she has had--will she now give an undertaking that if, at any time, the Exchequer moves into the black and starts to repay debt, she will reverse the cuts? She might do so if she does not agree with the policy in principle and it is only about saving money. At some point in the future, will she change her opinion, or will she stand by the reductions in lone parent benefit that we proposed before the election and she attacked? Would she like to answer that question? No, she does not want to answer.
The Secretary of State's view that the Labour party in government would not implement the cuts was supported by the Prime Minister--her Back-Bench colleagues should remember that. When he was asked on "World at One" whether he would implement the cuts, he said:
It is no good Labour Members saying that, before the election, the Conservatives instigated a devious plot to change the spending totals; they knew what they were, and the present Secretary of State and the Prime Minister knew that.
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Duncan Smith:
I shall give way later.
Our position has been clear. Had we been in power after the election we would have stuck to our pledge and implemented the policy, because we believed that it was the right thing to do.
The most important result of the right hon. Lady's problems with her Back Benchers and her Department was that, at the last moment, the Chancellor decided to
cobble together a rescue package in the green Budget and buy off the animosity against those changes with the announcement about after-school clubs. What gave the game away was that, in answer to a written question about the policy on after-school clubs, the Under- Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), had written:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth)
indicated dissent.
Mr. Duncan Smith:
The Minister was absolutely clear that they were going to give the details of the package next year. They changed their plans simply because the right hon. Lady was in trouble, along with her right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. Mike Hall (Weaver Vale)
rose--
Mr. Duncan Smith:
There is no point in rising to protect them--the hon. Gentleman should stop trying to be an air raid shelter taking some of the flak for the Secretary of State. The reality is that the Chancellor suddenly managed to find £200 million from the lottery, £50 million from the Department for Education and Employment and £30 million from the windfall tax to pay for after-school clubs.
The announcement that 50,000 people were to be trained to be child carers was given as though it was something new, but it had already been mentioned in the Budget. During the Budget debate, I told the Secretary of State that it would be difficult to find 50,000 child carers from the welfare-to-work programme, given that numbers were falling fast because so many jobs were being found. In an attempt to find those extra 50,000 people, the Government have again decided to backtrack by opening up training to all young unemployed, whether or not they have been unemployed for more than six months.
There is a problem with that--[Hon. Members: "Yes, there is."] I am glad Labour Members admit that there is a problem. The interesting thing is that Labour Back Benchers do not seem to understand that the age limit has been set below 26 because of the minimum wage. It appears now that the Government will exempt all those under 26 from the minimum wage, so that they will not have to pay the extra sums that they know they cannot afford.
The Secretary of State and her right hon. and hon. Friends have worked it out very carefully. Will the right hon. Lady let us know whether they will train people over 26 if they cannot find enough people to train as child carers, regardless of whether the exemption on the minimum wage stands for those under 26? Will she tell us that, either in her speech or in an intervention now?
"The Secretary of State says that he is cutting benefits to lone mothers because they are at an advantage compared to married mothers. . . but it is not fair on the families of women who bring up children on their own. They will be worse off."--[Official Report, 28 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 501.]
Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon):
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that on the two occasions in this
"No. We believe that we can avoid that situation within the existing budget".
He knew what he was saying; he was referring to what the Secretary of State had said to Polly Toynbee in an article in The Independent. He was clear and unequivocal. He knew exactly what the Labour party was planning to do in government: stick to existing spending totals.
"We are currently developing a National Childcare Strategy which will help parents . . . I will make an announcement in the first part of next year."--[Official Report, 24 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 361.]
That is true, is it not? He wrote that at the same time as the Chancellor was rising to his feet to announce that there were to be after-school clubs.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |