| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Oaten: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it might make sense to exclude from the new system people who were excluded from the benefit integrity project--those groups that were exempt? The written answer has not made any mention of that.
Mr. Goggins: The written answer goes on to explain that all those things will be handled sensitively and in consultation with the groups with which the Government have regular discussions. All those points will be taken into consideration as the discussions proceed. Crucially, the written answer mentions training and evaluation after six months of operation, so it is clear that the Government take this whole issue extremely seriously.
The BIP, to refresh the memories of hon. Members, was founded on the spurious claim that there was £500 million of benefit fraud within the DLA system. The project was drawn up, without proper consultation, by the previous Government and implemented by officials three days before the general election. It was targeted only at those claimants on the highest rates of DLA, which meant that claimants--
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Goggins:
I shall finish this point. Claimants could only lose, rather than gain, benefit.
Hon. Members:
The hon. Gentleman has only just walked in.
Mr. Hayes:
I would be the first to acknowledge that I have not been here for the whole of the debate, but a point
Mr. Goggins:
Several of my hon. Friends are suggesting that you have only just arrived--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
Order. I have been in the Chamber for a considerable time, and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would use correct parliamentary language.
Mr. Goggins:
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In any event, I am glad to have the opportunity of making clear to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) my belief that the Government have acted with integrity. They have exempted various categories that would otherwise have been caught by the benefit integrity project; moreover, crucially, they have created a partnership with disabled people's organisations, which Ministers have been developing over the past few months. Now they are winding up the benefit integrity project, and replacing it with a system that does not assume that every claimant of disability living allowance is a benefit fraudster, but ensures that the right amount of benefit goes to those who need it. That is a good example of the Government's attitude in taking seriously a hard-hitting Select Committee report based on evidence, and listening to disabled people and their organisations.
We have heard this afternoon, and in other announcements and statements, about action that the Government are taking to give further support to people with disabilities. The higher mobility rate of disability living allowance is to be extended to three and four-year-olds: £35 a week is to be provided for families who, surely, need that extra help. Pilot projects are already under way for the new deal for disabled people. That will bring into the workplace people who have been shut out and ignored for years--people who have been treated as though they were incapable of work, although many want and are able to work. The Government are also introducing the disabled persons tax credit and the disability income guarantee, which guarantees £128 a week for a single disabled person and £169 for a couple.
As we have heard again this afternoon, at the heart of Government policy is the aim of getting people off benefits and into work. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh)--who unfortunately is not in the Chamber now--was sceptical about that, but the fact is that 400,000 more people are in work now than at the time of the general election, and 53,000 people under 25 are in work who otherwise would not have been. Those are incredible statistics. Young people who were formerly dismissed and excluded are now working, mostly in unsubsidised jobs, as a result of the new deal. So far, the Government have halved the number of young people who are long-term unemployed. I do not think that these are grounds for scepticism; I think that they are great grounds for optimism.
The aim of returning people to work will be furthered by the extension of the new deal to lone parents, people with disabilities and older long-term unemployed people.
Family-friendly policies will encourage more people back into the workplace. Crucially, one of the orders that we are discussing reduces employers' national insurance contributions, which will encourage the creation of jobs.
As well as creating more jobs, however, we must ensure that work pays--that it is worth while. Notwithstanding the statistics cited by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, the minimum wage will make a difference: it will make a difference to the take-home pay of 2 million workers, many of them women. There is also the guarantee of a minimum income of £10,000 a year for working families, and--this, too, is in one of the orders that we are discussing--the abolition of the employees' £69 fee for entry to the national insurance system.
Those who cannot work, because they are disabled or retired, have family responsibilities or cannot find work--some people, of course, fall into all those categories--must be supported. That is central to today's debate. I do not think anyone would pretend that income support amounts to a king's ransom, and I urge the Government to continue to do all that they can to raise incomes above the income support level. That should be our aim. Much has been said this afternoon about the role of means-testing, but the fact remains that, in the first year following the general election, 100,000 fewer people were claiming income support than at the time of the election.
Earlier, my independence of mind was called into question, but I was trying my best to square what the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) was saying about means-testing--his sudden rejection of it--with the fact that the last Government presided over a massive expansion of means-testing in the system.
Mr. Kirkwood:
Speaking of independence of mind, may I bring up the question of the Conservatives' independence of mind? I know that we have new arrangements for Thursdays, but I find that I have been given a parcel of oral Treasury questions by Conservative central office. Is our independence of mind now being challenged on Thursday mornings? Are we to be offered Treasury briefs to help us through Treasury questions?
Mr. Goggins:
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make good use of that additional briefing.
The last Government ignored a serious issue. They thought that, by cutting insurance-related benefits, they could drive down the cost of social security; but by ignoring the fact that one in five families had no work and ignoring the pensions and savings needs of those on middle and low incomes, they created a move towards more and more means-testing. That is why the benefits bill has doubled over the past 20 years.
The trend in pensioner incomes has been similar to the trend in society as a whole. The hon. Member for Gainsborough said that all had gained from the increase in income over the past 20 years, but that simply is not true. In average terms, there has been a real increase in incomes, and those at the top--the better off--have experienced a massive increase. Those at the bottom, however, including pensioners, have fallen further and further behind. This is the position that the Government inherited: one in three pensioners is at or below the poverty line, and one in four people in Britain who are in poverty are retired people--pensioners.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |