| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Caroline Flint: That is not the Government's fault. We all have such cases.
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Lady may mouth all she likes. I am determined to fight this on behalf of my
constituent, because the removal of disability living allowance and the mobility component is something which the Government--
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): The hon. Lady has no idea.
Mrs. Browning: I have every idea, and I say to the hon. Gentleman, as a carer for someone with this benefit, I will fight it, fight it and fight it on behalf of people who are vulnerable and who depend on that benefit. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady may say that I did not fight it, but I assure her that I did. Anyone who looks at my track record on what I have said and fought for in the House will see that. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We can have only one speaker at a time.
Mrs. Browning: Those benefits are there now. Labour Members should take a careful look at the benefits that were introduced and secured up until 1 May. Now, we are receiving letter after letter from worried, frightened people--[Interruption.] I invite the Minister to put the record straight tonight. The Secretary of State refused to give assurances today, as did the Prime Minister during Question Time last Wednesday. If what I am saying is wrong, if it is all based on rumour, tonight is the Government's opportunity to say clearly that disability living allowance for life means just that; that such benefits will not be means-tested or taxed; and that people can go to sleep tonight feeling much more comfortable than they do now.
Mr. Gorrie: The hon. Lady has raised the tone of the debate considerably during the last minute or two. Does she agree that the Opposition made a mistake in framing their motion by criticising the Government for reneging on their policies? Surely the thrust of the Opposition's argument should be that, from their point of view, the Labour Government are adopting Tory policies. If the Opposition had adopted the advice of the Bible and taken joy in a sinner that repenteth, they might have attracted more interest in the debate among Conservative Back Benchers.
Mrs. Browning: We will support Labour policies such as the move to enable more people with disabilities to get back into work. However, the Government are promising to do that while also threatening to remove the mobility component of the DLA--
Mr. Andy King: The hon. Lady is scaremongering.
Mrs. Browning: If I am scaremongering, when I sit down in four minutes' time the Minister will have the opportunity to say categorically that what I have said is wrong and that the Government will not do it. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head--I hope that his hon. Friend the Minister will not disappoint him tonight.
Mr. Alan Howarth: What evidence does the hon. Lady have?
Mrs. Browning: My answer is to quote from correspondence I have received from organisations that
have been involved in the so-called consultation on disability benefits. The Disability Benefits Consortium represents the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People; Disability Alliance; Disablement Income Group; and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation. The consortium writes:
- "Disability organisations are concerned about the lack of clarity and openness about consultation and decision-making processes around these reviews. On disability benefits, there will not be any Green Paper or formal consultation before key decisions are likely to be made. A series of seminars to discuss options on 'managing' expenditure on disability benefits have been arranged by some disability organisations at the request of Baroness Hollis. It is important to note that the disability organisations attending these seminars do not regard them in any way as part of a formal consultation process."
- "RNIB have never before sent out a briefing to MPs containing this level of detail. This reflects the seriousness with which we regard the threat to benefits which provide a vital lifeline to those who are often amongst your poorest constituents, and those who seldom make their feelings known to their Member of Parliament."
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): This is unbelievable.
Mrs. Browning: It certainly is unbelievable that so many organisations are so concerned that they feel they have to write to Members of Parliament.
RADAR, an organisation well known to many hon. Members, writes:
To cap it all, the Lord Chancellor's Department is considering proposals to abolish legal aid for personal injury claims--another move by the Government which will clearly have an effect on people with disabilities and will cause them a great deal of distress.
Having heard from those organisations and having read out a small sample of letters from, I remind the Government, the people--not the people's banquet or the people's lottery, but the real people who have very real needs--I will conclude with some final words from the Labour manifesto. It claims:
"Organisations which had met the Department in May"--
to talk about the benefit integrity project--
"believed they would be discussing findings from the . . . review."
Instead, they were informed that the project was already under way. The organisations that went to the Department included Action for Blind People, Disability Alliance, Mencap, RADAR and the RNIB. Those organisations went to the Department believing that they were part of a consultation, only to find that the decision had already been made and their views were not required, but that they could have an input into some sort of management.
"Britain will be better with new Labour."
[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] And the band played, "Believe it if you like." The manifesto said:
"New Labour is the political arm of none other than the British people as a whole. Our values are the same: the equal worth of all, with no one cast aside; fairness and justice within strong communities."
1 Dec 1997 : Column 73
There is nothing fair or just about the way that this Government treat the most vulnerable people in our society.
6.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): This has been a valuable debate, albeit all too short. I especially welcome the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King). The commitment of my hon. Friends to social justice and to an intelligent and humane modernisation of the welfare state contrasts with the absence of commitment to that project and the absence of ideas that have been apparent on the Conservative Benches.
Is it really surprising if I recall that the Rowntree inquiry into the distribution of income and wealth said that between 1979 and 1992, the poorest 20 to 30 per cent. of families failed to share in the growth of prosperity in the nation? Between 1975 and 1992, the hourly wages of the lowest paid fell. Society was increasingly polarised between work-rich and work-poor households. Society was polarised in housing tenure so that by the end of the life of the Conservative Government, 75 per cent. of people in local authority or housing association housing were among the poorest 20 per cent. of the population. That failure to enable the most disadvantaged in our society to share in the growth in the nation's wealth was a central dereliction.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley reminded us, the figures for households below average income show that whereas the top 10 per cent. of income earners increased their wealth by two thirds, the bottom 10 per cent. saw their income fall by 13 per cent. Under the Conservative Government, the rich got richer while the poor got poorer.
No one could seriously argue that it is not appropriate for a new Government taking office after 18 years in opposition to ask searching questions about the patterns of spending and administration that they have inherited. During the past 18 years, the previous Government denied that the state had a constructive and responsible role to play in welfare.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |