| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) for raising this subject. I welcome the opportunity to put the record straight on a very important issue and to bring the House up to date on the current position.
Our debate today is about a change to the council tax benefit regulations that resulted from a measure announced by the previous Administration. It involved restricting council tax benefit for claimants in the most expensive properties to that of band E from April 1998. As the previous Administration gave no indication that any claimants would be protected, I can conclude only that the change was intended to affect all council tax benefit claimants in bands F, G and H properties. Therefore, people in receipt of council tax benefit on 1 April 1998--an elderly widow or a jobseeker supporting a large family on benefits--found themselves faced with a drop in income if their home was in one of the higher council tax bands. I welcome my hon. Friend's acknowledgement of the beneficial effects of the transitional arrangements that were introduced alongside the change.
Whether to implement such a change was one of many hard choices that we had to face when we came to power. Council tax benefit costs were rising: the benefit currently costs £2.3 billion a year and there are 5.3 million recipients. There was an obvious inconsistency in the way in which assistance with housing costs was provided via the council tax benefit system, compared with other benefits such as mortgage interest relief, as there were restrictions on help with high rents through housing benefit and on help with mortgage interest payments through income support.
We need to get the issue in proportion, as I believe my hon. Friend has. We knew that the vast majority of council tax benefit recipients lived in lower-banded properties and would not be affected by the change, but we had been made aware by representatives of local government and other interested organisations of the likely effects of the change that would disadvantage several groups, including pensioners, large families and those living in relatively modest properties in London and the south-east, where property values are higher than those in the rest of the country.
The concerns expressed focused on the ability of people to meet any shortfall from their own resources and the ability of large families to stay together. Those were specific examples of a more general concern that the measure unfairly penalised those in London and south-east England, where property values are comparatively high and where higher-banded properties can be quite modest. We listened carefully to those concerns, and acted on them by introducing the transitional arrangements.
Before the changes took effect, we reassured all existing council tax benefit recipients by providing transitional protection so that not a single council tax benefit recipient lost out at the point of change. We also introduced a set of amending regulations that ensured that all existing claimants on 31 March 1998, who would have been affected by the change, were protected from day one. In fact, those regulations went further than simply protecting existing claimants. In cases where the main claimant leaves home, or dies, we have allowed the remaining partner to continue to receive council tax benefit without restriction, as long as he or she was also living in the home on 31 March 1998. We have also allowed transitional protection to continue if there is a break in a claim.
By introducing that protection, we have been able to help the most vulnerable groups. Elderly people are far less likely to experience changes in income and so tend to remain on council tax benefit throughout. They are also likely to be more settled than people of working age and therefore less likely to move home, so they will have been considerably helped by the change. The introduction of transitional protection also ensures that large families are able to remain in accommodation of a suitable size, and that those with a short break in their claim are not unfairly penalised.
We have been consistent with our overall plans for welfare reform in respect of those seeking and moving into work. Overall, the restrictions have provoked little complaint, although I recognise that my hon. Friend has a strong interest in the matter. He has given the House evidence of how the regulations have affected some of his constituents. I have noted all of his points and will pass them on as part of the review. We have, by bringing in these regulations, ensured that vulnerable groups such as the elderly are protected. The scheme has provoked little actual complaint, although I recognise that my hon. Friend has retained a strong interest in the matter.
At the time we introduced protection for existing council tax benefit recipients, we accepted that we should monitor the effects of the policy on those affected by the restrictions, for example, people claiming council tax benefit for the first time and those returning to benefit to whom transitional protection no longer applies. In a way, today's debate is part of that monitoring process. Our decision to conduct research was supported by the representative bodies of local government in Great Britain.
Following a competitive tender, which is one of the reasons why the process has taken so long, we commissioned PS Martin Hamblin to carry out a research project that will monitor the effects of the restriction by reference to the types of person affected, the effect on claimants payment of council tax and comparisons with the cases affected by transitional protection. Another reason for the delay has been finding people and cases to compare. Such studies cannot be set up quickly, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are getting on with the job.
In order to protect the integrity and independence of the research, I cannot say which authorities are involved in the study. However, I can tell the House that a
carefully selected sample of authorities has been invited to take part in the research to ensure that we get a proper picture of what is happening. The research will cover the first year of the restriction, and we expect it to be completed by the end of the year. That should give us an idea of what is happening nationally. As usual, a report of the study will be published by the Department, and I assure my hon. Friend that we will examine its findings very carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) raised a complex technical issue to do with the interaction of asylum seekers and council tax benefits. I think the best way of dealing with that issue is to ask my hon. Friend to write to me and I will get back to him about it.
Our record in this area--including the study and the transitional protection that we have introduced--is a good example of how this Government listen to local government, Members of Parliament and others and work in partnership with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham expressed specific concerns about the effect of the restriction on the choices that his constituents can make if they are given the chance of being rehoused in the new or higher-quality properties that the local authority offers to larger families. We must also consider the impact of the restriction on housing for homeless families in the borough.
I appreciate the force of my hon. Friend's concerns and I do not make light of any difficulties relating to the fact that property values are generally higher in London and the south-east. We shall take that factor on board in our research. In the light of what I have said, I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that it is sensible to wait for the results of the research that we have commissioned and to gauge the impact of the restriction nationally before proceeding further.
I assure my hon. Friend and all right hon. and hon. Members who have raised this matter that I do not take their concerns lightly. As soon as the results of the research are known, we will consider carefully the effects of the regulations. I welcome any other evidence that hon. Members may wish to include as part of our deliberations so that we can take account of it in our work.
It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
1. Mr. Tony McNulty (Harrow, East):
If she will make a statement on progress in implementing the Good Friday agreement. [81279]
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam):
A great deal of progress has been made in implementing the Good Friday agreement. The Government have already made all the practical preparations necessary for devolution and for all the institutions set up under the agreement to go live. Talks between the two Governments and the parties continue to try to overcome the remaining obstacles. No one is hiding the fact that this is a difficult period, but it is clear that the people of Northern Ireland want to make progress and want their agreement to be put into practice.
Mr. McNulty:
I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Will she join me in welcoming the opinion poll in the Irish Times yesterday which revealed that support for the Good Friday agreement among the people of Northern Ireland is still strong and, if anything, getting stronger? Does she agree that the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland want their politicians to compromise, make the Good Friday agreement work and bring a lasting peace and normal politics to Northern Ireland?
Marjorie Mowlam:
I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend. The poll revealed that 73 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland--a higher number than in the referendum--support the agreement and would vote for it. It revealed also that a phenomenal 70 per cent. of people understand that the only way forward is to compromise. I always like to have the results of more than one poll, and the good point about this poll is that the guts of it, on the major issues, support previous polls by other newspapers and institutions. There is a continuity of view on those issues.
The poll also demonstrates--we should not ignore this fact--that half the population have confidence and believe that the Good Friday agreement will be implemented, and half have their doubts, are fearful and distrusting and do not have the confidence to believe that progress will be made. It is important that we continue our work with the Irish to build that confidence to find a way forward.
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann):
I refer the Secretary of State to the security section in the Belfast agreement, in which the Government undertook to make progress towards normal security arrangements in accordance with a published strategy, and to consult with the parties about that strategy. When will the Government publish that strategy? Are they engaged in any consultation or negotiation on that strategy, or elements of it, with any parties? Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking to
Marjorie Mowlam:
I shall start with the right hon. Gentleman's last point. Clearly, the safety of the people of Northern Ireland is paramount in our minds, and that will be the overriding issue. The safety of the people is the job of any Government, and it will remain a strong priority and central to anything that this Government do.
The right hon. Gentleman asks whether there has been any consultation. We have consulted the Irish, as I am sure he and others would expect. Our close working relationship with the Irish is consistent with that consultation, and it would be surprising if we had not consulted.
The right hon. Gentleman also asks whether we shall consult other parties. We shall certainly consult him, as the First Minister, and the Deputy First Minister before any strategy is published. He asks whether there is a date for publication. We are still working on that strategy, so I cannot yet give him a date, but we shall publish it as soon as we have finished.
Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh):
The Secretary of State will be aware that the Irish Times poll yesterday reveals that 69 per cent. of Ulster Unionist voters and 77 per cent. of Sinn Fein voters demonstrate an unwillingness to compromise. Given that fact and the fact that the interminable talks are getting nowhere, is it not time for the two Governments to stop playing nanny to the two parties that are holding up the agreement and to define clearly the compromises that must be made, the process through which the international body on decommissioning can progress and advance decommissioning and a date on which the Executive Committee and the institutions will come into being, without being vetoed by any political party?
Marjorie Mowlam:
I share some of the hon. Gentleman's frustration with the speed at which the process is moving, but he knows as well as I do that it will not work unless we get all parties acting collectively to find an accommodation and a way forward. Therefore, as he suggests, the two Governments are working closely together to do what we can to move the process forward, but we need to do so with the parties on side, because the Good Friday agreement cannot work--decisions cannot be taken--without cross-community support. We are working on that now, and we shall continue to do so in the days and weeks ahead. I believe that there is not a party around that table that does not want to make progress and, as the poll suggests that the people want progress, it is incumbent on all of us to take a risk and keep going.
Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire):
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Irish Times poll represents very good information indeed and that, although we do not always take such polls seriously, its findings seem to fit the general mood in Northern Ireland? In that context, does she agree that although it is perfectly legitimate for politicians in Northern Ireland to represent
Marjorie Mowlam:
The 27 per cent. who did not support the agreement obviously have a democratic right to continue to voice their views, but I hope that they will acknowledge the wishes of the majority that we do everything we can to help rather than hinder. We have come a long way. A lot of progress has been made. It is a difficult time, and people are getting frustrated, but if we stick in there, keep talking and do not walk, we have a chance to make it.
Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe):
Most of us hesitate to intervene in these discussions from the mainland because we are reluctant to be back-seat drivers, but I believe that an increasing number of British MPs have realised that we have allowed the opponents of the agreement to hitch its success to a single aspect--the decommissioning of selected weapons--whereas, for most people, the essence is that the agreement delivers peace: the absence of hostile action by all sides. That is something which the surrender of weapons will not guarantee, and which requires further commitment from all sides. Might it not be possible to move the process forward by emphasising other aspects of the achievement of peace, which we all want?
Marjorie Mowlam:
I thank my hon. Friend. I think it is clear from both sides of the House and from everyone around the table that agreement needs the support of all the parties--which is what we are working towards--and that, in addition, the whole of the Good Friday agreement must be implemented. As George Mitchell said, reaching agreement was tough; implementing it is tougher, because many people wanted one bit and not another. That is the stage that we have reached. People are looking at a host of options and ways forward.
My hon. Friend suggests that we look at other aspects and see whether that helps. What helps--an aspect that, as he suggests, might make a difference--is the building of trust and confidence, because what is needed is for all parties to realise how far we have come, for all parties to realise that people in Northern Ireland want to make progress and for all parties to ask themselves, "What can we do with the lack of trust and lack of confidence of others around the table?" I believe that if everyone did that, progress would be made.
Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell):
Does the Secretary of State accept that the two Governments have jumped every hurdle and fulfilled all their obligations under the agreement? Does she also accept that the constitutional parties, Unionist and nationalist, have also jumped all hurdles and fulfilled all their obligations, and that the stumbling block that stops an Executive being set up is the fact that the paramilitaries, republican and loyalist, are not starting their decommissioning?
Marjorie Mowlam:
What the right hon. Gentleman has to do in understanding the Good Friday agreement is accept that all parts of the agreement have to be implemented. There is not a stumbling block for one side or the other because decommissioning, as we have said in the House on many occasions, is an essential part of the agreement. It is not a precondition but it is clearly an
Mr. MacKay:
Surely the Secretary of State accepts that everybody else has fulfilled all their obligations, including herself. The only stumbling block is now the paramilitaries. I do not believe that it can be right in a democracy that the democratic process is vetoed by the men of violence. Will the right hon. Lady seriously consider setting up a devolved Executive without Sinn Fein-IRA, and allow them to join as and when they start to fulfil their obligations by decommissioning?
Marjorie Mowlam:
If I do what the right hon. Gentleman has asked me to do, I will lose the one bit of leverage that I have, which is to implement the Good Friday agreement in full. I would succeed in destroying that agreement. I have no intention of doing that.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |