| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford): I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he accept that, in the past, this significant annual statement has been dealt with by the Secretary of State for Social Security, and that, at the previous week's business statement, it was customary for the Leader of the House to publish the date of the uprating announcement? I am mildly surprised that no answer was given to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), who raised the matter at business questions, and that we have had such short notice of it today.
Is the Minister aware of the written answer given by the Minister for Welfare Reform, who said that an uprating in line with inflation would cost £600 million above the 1996 budget assumptions? I should be grateful if the Minister will tell the House where that money will come from.
The Government have proved by their actions since 1 May that, although sticking to the previous Government's overall spending totals, they had room to manoeuvre in withdrawing the changes to housing benefit for over-25s. Will the Government repeal the measures for under 26-year-olds? Does the Minister agree that there is something illogical in the current policy? What is the difference between a 25-year-old and a 27-year-old? Perhaps he will explain that to the House.
In the repeal of the housing benefit rules, the Government have shown clearly that they could have honoured their pre-election pledges on lone parents, if they had been minded to do so. Will the Minister--as we are on the issue of lone parent benefits--confirm that the Government have continued the freeze for existing lone parent claimants, therefore effectively allowing that benefit to wither on the vine for current claimants?
Does the Minister agree with the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who said this week that, before the election, Labour described the abolition of help to lone
parents as "particularly spiteful"? Does he agree with the comments made by the Secretary of State for Social Security in the uprating order debate that
The Minister has also been trying to duck questions on the new deal on child care in the context of lone parents. I should be grateful for some answers on the child care issue, because there are so many unanswered questions. Will he explain what the charging policy for child care will be for the remainder of this Parliament? Will it be means-tested? I should be very grateful for an answer--an answer of substance, not a soundbite--to that specific question.
Does the Minister understand the irony in his statement that the Government's objective is
The Minister also talked about moving towards equality in pension opportunities between men and women. How can he reconcile that aim with the possibility that the Chancellor will remove the independent financial status of women in the United Kingdom?
The hon. Gentleman mentioned also the matter of reducing value added tax on fuel. Will he confirm that the Government--by reducing VAT on 1 September 1997, rather than on 1 October 1997--ensured that the pensions uprating was calculated on a lower inflation figure, costing the average pensioner just over £6 a year, whereas savings from the 1 September VAT cut are infinitely less than that?
Far better than most hon. Members, the Minister will understand that, since 1 May 1997, the Department of Social Security has been riven with differences of opinion between the Secretary of State and the Minister for Welfare Reform; there has been a plethora of reviews, which are getting nowhere, as even some of the reviews are being reviewed; and there seems to be utter chaos, with no one knowing exactly what others is doing.
Could the hon. Gentleman, just for once today, treat the House with some respect and answer the questions that have been posed to him so often in the past in Committee and in debates on the Floor of the House? We want meaningful answers to the questions arising out of the statement.
Mr. Bradley:
It is not the normal practice to announce when the uprating statement will be. In the past, the uprating statement has normally followed the Budget and it has been the Budget debate which has been announced. There is no problem there.
The published plans include an assumption of the cost of uprating. The assumption made for 1998-99 was too low, so the reserve will be used; it is designed for the shortfall between forecast and outturn.
It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman raises the single room rent limit. The Conservatives intended to extend the limit to apply to people up to 60, but they should welcome the fact that we did not proceed with that measure. We are continuing to evaluate the impact of the single room rent limit for the under-25s because there is a view that at that lower age, different circumstances apply compared with those for older people, some of whom may be forced to live in houses in multiple occupation or worse. We will continue that evaluation and report on it next year.
I can confirm that the higher rate for lone parents in receipt of child benefit will be £17.10, the higher rate for family premium in income support and the jobseeker's allowance will be £15.75, and in housing benefit and council tax benefit, the higher rate will be £22.05. The family premium for existing lone claimants on income support will still be £4.70 a week more from next April than is paid to two-parent families in the same circumstances. Existing lone parents receiving child benefit will still get an extra £5.65 a week on top of the basic child benefit. In terms of the new deal generally, it is our view that lone parents will be better off in work because of the national child care strategy. From the evidence we already have, they will be an average of £50 a week better off, which is far better than being dependent on very low benefits.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the tax credit system. The Chancellor announced in his pre-Budget statement that a working family tax credit was under consideration. We are considering all options; replacing family credit with a working family tax credit is only one of them. It must be pointed out, however, that most wage earners in low-income households with children are women. The proposed working family tax credit would build on the successful elements of family credit and would involve better help through the tax system for child care costs.
We are trying to create the economic conditions to ensure that pensioners have their fair share of the rising national prosperity which only this Administration are prepared to deliver. My statement, which will ensure that pensioners receive a 3.6 per cent. uprating in their pension, on top of the £20 for fuel costs, £50 for pensioners on income support, the reduction in VAT on fuel and other measures, including the abolition of the gas levy next year, is a package of help for pensioners which the Conservative Administration never even considered.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
Is my hon. Friend aware that in trying to meet the rising social security bill of £90 billion-plus, which will rise to £100 billion before the end of this Parliament, he would be in a much better position if, for instance, the Government realised, even at this stage, that it was necessary to increase taxes for people such as Members of Parliament and those who get even more money than we do? That is one approach which has, sadly, been excluded, but it will have to be returned to.
My hon. Friend talks about welfare to work and the new deal. It is difficult for me to understand that kind of language. I have seven villages in my constituency where pit closures took place three or four years ago. One thousand young men, who hitherto had training schemes under British Coal, no longer have training schemes.
Almost everybody is out of work in those pit villages. There is nowhere for those young men to go, as I hope the Minister understands. He is not saying, is he, that these people have got to get on a bike? I do not like that kind of language.
I want Ministers to understand that there are areas of Britain, including mine, where the idea of work being available is laughable for many people. Unless special measures are taken in that respect, we can talk about welfare to work only for areas where it is feasible. The Government should not rub the noses of people where there is no work at all in the idea of welfare to work. If the Minister will see the matter in that fashion, he may be able to deal with the problem generally.
Mr. Bradley:
My hon. Friend always talks passionately, and rightly so, about the problems of his constituency and I hear clearly what he says. On his first point, I will refer his remarks about taxation to the Chancellor.
"Cuts in lone mothers' benefits make the poorest families poorer"?--[Official Report, 19 February 1997; Vol. 290, c. 944.]
Will the Minister tell the House--as he and the Secretary of State for Social Security have singularly failed to do so far--what aspect of the issue is different now, compared to last winter, except that there has been a general election, and that the Labour party has milked the issue for all the votes possible by leading people to believe that Labour would not implement the previous Government's policy?
"to promote financial security in retirement"
for pensioners? How can he reconcile that objective with the raid on millions of personal pensions made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his July Budget, which was worthy of Mr. Robert Maxwell?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |