| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.54 pm
Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk): I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak this afternoon. I apologise for arriving late for the debate; I was detained on constituency business.
I became interested in the cause of the disabled as a result of having as my secretary in the House of Commons somebody who suffered from considerable disabilities. It was through her that I learned a great deal about the problems faced by disabled people. As a consequence, I had the opportunity to try to help people in my own constituency who suffered from disabilities. I have therefore taken a particular interest in the subject.
In the past few weeks, as a result of press comments and discussions within disability organisations, there has developed a real concern that promises made to people who are disabled and others who are vulnerable are simply not being kept. I found in my post this morning a letter from a constituent. He has given me permission to read out the letter, which is a copy of his letter to the Prime Minister. He writes:
Mr. Alan Howarth:
Does the hon. Gentleman recall that when his Government introduced incapacity benefit in place of invalidity benefit they introduced tax on that key benefit for disabled people?
Mr. Spring:
I want to touch specifically on what is in the minds of people such as my constituents. I want to deal with the way in which the Government are handling the issue in light of their promises before the election. That is the issue at stake and the Under-Secretary of State, of all people, should know perfectly well that genuine anxiety is felt by many thousands of people who, as a result of the nods and winks by Labour when in opposition, now feel that they have been let down.
There is no doubt that the future of the welfare state is a matter of immense complexity in this and other industrialised countries. As a result of demographic changes, all societies will have to address the problem. All of us who live in this era of aging population have to grapple with it.
We all accept that reform of the welfare state is necessary. Before the general election, the Labour party clearly implied that that could be an easy exercise and that the great increase in spending on the welfare state arose from the level of unemployment. We all heard that from those who are now Ministers and from the then shadow Chancellor. People clearly felt, therefore, that, if unemployment came down--this was the linchpin of the whole thing--the most vulnerable and those in receipt of benefits would receive more help. That is a travesty of the
real complexity of the welfare state. That message is one of the reasons why so many of the disability organisations and so many in our society who feel vulnerable are writing letters like the one that I have just quoted.
Unemployment has indeed fallen, more so in this country than in any other, but it has not meant that people in receipt of benefit are likely, as a result of the Government's actions, automatically to receive substantially more benefit. That was a deceit perpetrated deliberately ahead of the general election to fan people's excitement and sense of anticipation about what a Labour Government would do, but people now realise that it is not happening.
Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen, South):
The hon. Gentleman talked about the fear and alarm felt by the disabled community, but it is Conservative Members who are fuelling the press reports. They do not know what is in the review--none of us on the Back Benches knows--but by emphasising cuts and taxation that may or may not be part of the review, the hon. Gentleman and his fellow Back Benchers are making the situation worse.
Mr. Spring:
With respect, it is Labour Back Benchers who feel affronted and who are talking to the press and appearing on radio and television to condemn the actions of Labour Front Benchers. The idea that it is Conservative Members who have created this situation is absurd.
Mrs. Gorman:
Is it not true that representatives of disability organisations appeared on radio and television at the weekend to express their concern, but that the Secretary of State had something better to do, even though she had arranged to appear? She should tell us what was so important that she could not face those people.
Mr. Spring:
My hon. Friend is entirely correct. We now know that, whenever Ministers are embarrassed, as over the formula one fiasco or the issue of benefit for single mothers, they are not willing to appear on television, despite supposedly being in favour of open government. That is precisely why there is so much anxiety among Labour Back Benchers and disability organisations.
With respect, I have to tell the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) that I have spoken to many individuals who work with disability organisations, and they certainly do not share her perception of the situation.
Mr. Hope:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) that the attendance allowance should be abolished, as stated in the No Turning Back group's pamphlet on benefits?
Mr. Spring:
My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) rightly takes the view that there should be a considered overall reform of the welfare state, without the huffing and puffing that we had from the Labour party while it was in opposition. Before the election, the Secretary of State made the most savage attacks on the previous Government because she felt that that would ensure votes and support. In practice, people are now turning against her.
I deal now with the consultation process. I asked the Secretary of State about meetings that she and her fellow Ministers had had with organisations representing
disabled people, and she mentioned the figure of 40. However, it is not only what happens at those meetings that matters, but the nature of the consultation process itself. If the right hon. Lady is going to make substantive changes to benefits, the disability organisations are rightly demanding that they are brought fully into the loop and consulted properly. It is one thing to have superficial meetings--I am simply quoting what has been said to me--but people do not feel that, at this apparently critical stage in the Secretary of State's thinking, they are being adequately consulted.
The main problem is that the Labour party thinks that, if it disseminates a message in a certain way, the reality will slot into place. The Secretary of State make an extraordinary announcement about her new deal for lone parents. We were told that it was a considerable success and that the results were very encouraging, although 8,651 lone parents were interviewed and only 433 found work. There was no demonstrable evidence that they would not have found work anyway, but the right hon. Lady and her spin doctors put it out as a wonderful example of the welfare-to-work programme beginning to operate when in fact the success rate was only 5 per cent. If the right hon. Lady continues like this, her personal credibility and that of the Government will be undermined.
Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset):
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way as it gives me the opportunity, through him, to ask the Secretary of State a question that many of us tried to ask during her speech. Does she have any evidence that even one person among that 5 per cent. who found work would not have found work in any case?
Mr. Spring:
Without proper control groups to make the comparisons, it is not possible to answer that question, but the spin doctoring nevertheless continued. It is to the Labour party's shame that it indulges in that practice.
Mr. Ivor Caplin (Hove):
Will the hon. Gentleman produce for the House the evidence that shows that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is right? There is none.
Mr. Spring:
The point is that control groups are needed to measure such things accurately.
Mr. Burns:
My hon. Friend talks about spin doctoring. Is he aware--I am sure he is--that the Secretary of State, in her infamous press release, failed to point out that, of the 8,600 or so people who were written to, almost 75 per cent. did not bother to reply? Of the 433 people who found work, the 13 in east Sheffield are in their 30s or late 30s--they had obviously wanted to stay at home until their children were of school age, then sought jobs and got them. It was the interviews on the "Today" programme--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
Order. I remind all hon. Members that interventions should be brief.
"As a Labour supporter for the whole of my adult life--I am now 66 years of age--I am quite frankly disgusted by the plans to 'Crack-down' upon the disabled members of our community.
The letter-writer, referring to his wife, then says:
I firmly believe that you have lost sight of the basic philosophy of Labour, that of caring . . . recent announcements of introducing taxation to Disability benefits have made me decide to write to you to protest most vehemently."
"Now, we read that she is likely to have her pitifully small benefit taxed."
Those fears may or may not be justified, but those fears are out there because of a number of developments that have recently occurred.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |