House of Commons
Monday 17 November 2003
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13 November],
- That the promoters of the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next session, a declaration signed by the agent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill brought from the Lords in the present session,
That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;
That in the next session the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which is has passed in the present session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Debate to be resumed on Tuesday 2 December.
Oral Answers to Questions
WORK AND PENSIONS
The Secretary of State was asked—
Disability Discrimination Act
1. Mr. Anthony D. Wright (Great Yarmouth): If he will make a statement on the effect of changes to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [138633]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): By ending the small employer exemption and extending the employment provisions to more occupations in October 2004, we will bring 1 million more employers and 7 million more jobs within the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act. From the same date, the new duties requiring service providers to tackle physical barriers to access will increase accessibility to services for the 8.6 million disabled people in this country. I hope that the changes,
which are designed to facilitate greater participation by disabled people in all walks of life, will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Although it is recognised that the Government have done more to help disabled people than any previous Government, it is quite clear that such people still come up against barriers. A recent Scope survey found that 45 per cent. of employers reported that they were worried that they could not afford to employ a disabled person and that nearly 20 per cent. would be reluctant to employ such a person because they had not worked with one before. Will she tell us how the changes to the Disability Discrimination Act will resolve those difficulties?
Maria Eagle: Legislation sets a framework, and the issues that were highlighted by the Scope survey were more about raising awareness. Many small firms, and even larger firms, are not used to employing disabled people because such people have been excluded from the labour market. The firms make all kinds of assumptions about how difficult that would be, which are not borne out by the facts. May I suggest that small firms in my hon. Friend's constituency contact the Disability Rights Commission in the first instance, which can be done by accessing www.drc-gb.org? The website contains a wealth of advice on how firms can employ disabled people, so they will come to realise that it is not that difficult and that there often is no cost involved in employing them above that which is incurred when employing anyone.
Sir Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire): Does the Minister agree that any changes to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 that might be a feature of the upcoming parliamentary Session would best be done using pre-legislative scrutiny? The Government have made it clear that they are willing to contemplate that, but is the Department yet able to say what form of pre-legislative scrutiny might take place on any disability discrimination Bill that might be introduced in the next Session?
Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is trying his best to get me to pre-empt the Queen's Speech, which of course I am far too junior to do. He is right to say that the Government set great store by pre-legislative scrutiny, and the consideration of such changes is especially suitable for such scrutiny. We shall consider that, but I cannot give him more information at present.
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry): After our previous exchanges, will the Minister accept that it is still important that if further advances are to be made, legislation must become a reality? It is not just a matter of consultation, desirable as that may be, because the Government must get on and grasp the nettle on some of the details. If the Minister is holding out for pre-legislative scrutiny, will she at least bear in mind the importance of bringing to bear some of the recent reports of the Disability Rights Commission on its
experience of the current legislation in action, to ensure that if we wait a long time for legislation, it will be worth having when we get it?
Maria Eagle: May I tell the hon. Gentleman, who I faced across the Dispatch Box when he was a Front-Bench spokesman on the matter, that I welcome his support? I hope that the fact that he now sits on the Back Benches when discussing the issue does not imply that there have been any policy changes by his party. I hope that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen will support the changes that are being suggested, which are generally well known, especially those that will take place next October. I hope that we will hear an expression of support for the changes from them when they speak. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) knows of my impatience to get on with this. Consultation is tremendously important when changes are visited on many organisations and small businesses but, at the end of the day, it is implementation that matters.
Mr. Tom Clarke (Coatbridge and Chryston): Is my hon. Friend aware that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was a perfectly reasonable piece of legislation for its time, enhanced by this Government's actions, including the introduction of the Disability Rights Commission? Given the worries, which I think we both share, that some small businesses and others are being provoked into thinking that the implementation of the changes will be a huge challenge, will she join me in advising such people to contact the DRC, the Employers Forum on Disability and the national register of access so that they get not only good advice, but advice that does not cost them money unreasonably and does not worry them unnecessarily?
Maria Eagle: My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that much excellent free advice is available to all companies, whether they are employers or service providers, on what they need to do to meet their obligations under the changes. Many organisations will offer to charge them for advice, but they should primarily go for the free advice first. Much of the advice is common sense and it is not necessary to pay an enormous amount to get advice that is freely available from the DRC and organisations such as the Employers Forum on Disability, all of which are doing excellent work in that regard. I certainly echo my right hon. Friend's sentiments.
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon): Many charities and small voluntary organisations will suffer from the legislation. They work from old buildings and need Government help, which they feel they are not receiving. The Minister just passed the buck. What will the Government do to help those organisations?
Maria Eagle: I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman's choice of phrase when he says that those who need to meet their obligations to disabled people are suffering as a result. He should not forget that there are 8.5 million disabled people in this country, all of whom would like access to goods, services, facilities and
employment opportunities like anyone else. It is about time they had that right and it is not a matter of people suffering to provide it.The hon. Gentleman should also realise that the law requires reasonable adjustment. There is no question of small organisations or those with few resources being put out of business or put to ridiculous expense. The requirement is reasonableness. That is a matter of common sense and proportionality. Ensuring that people get access to services should be proportionate to the resources available to those who are providing them. If approached positively, the requirements will make a massive difference to the ability of disabled people, for too long excluded from opportunities in society, to participate in society. That must be good for the country as a whole.
Identity Cards
2. Mr. James Plaskitt (Warwick and Leamington): If he will make a statement on his assessment of the possible role of identity cards in combating benefit fraud. [138634]
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear, the main case for ID cards is to counter terrorism, organised crime and illegal immigration, but it is common sense that they would also be a big help in combating benefit fraud involving false identity.
Mr. Plaskitt : I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. We have made useful progress in combating benefit fraud, especially in respect of income support and the jobseeker's allowance, but with millions more national insurance numbers in circulation than there are citizens in the United Kingdom, is it not the case that the more technologically sophisticated proof of identity would help us to make even more progress?
Mr. Smith: Indeed it would. We inherited an enormous problem with the number of national insurance numbers—some 71.5 million, well in excess of the adult population. If we subtract the actual adult population of 47 million, the deceased records of 15.5 million and the 7.2 million who have gone abroad, 1.8 million are left. As the House would rightly expect, we are working intensively, sampling the national insurance records to check their authenticity. That work should be completed by the end of the year. I expect to report further progress to the House early next year.
Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon): The 1997 Labour manifesto estimated the cost of housing benefit fraud alone at £2 billion, suggesting that the total cost of benefit fraud runs into many billions of pounds, yet the Department's evidence is that identity fraud accounts for a tiny fraction of that grand total. Indeed, the Home Secretary said last week in the House that social security fraud was not really what he was talking about when he said that he was cutting down on fraud. Will the Secretary of State confirm that when he says that the
measure will be "a big help", the marginal effect of ID cards on social security fraud will be acknowledged as peripheral to the debate on the cards?
Mr. Smith: Yes, the main fraud that we encounter is not people making false claims of identity, but people making false claims regarding their circumstances. However, that does not mean that cracking down on such fraud will not result in substantial savings. Savings derived from checking multiple claims, verifying national insurance numbers, better recording of immigration and emigration, preventing people who are living together committing fraud, and checking documents add up to about £100 million. It speaks volumes of the way in which Liberal Democrats do their costings that £100 million is neither here nor there to them. That is money that could and should be going to schools and hospitals, not to fraud.
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead): As the Secretary of State has, rightly, welcomed ID cards as a potential means of providing a safe entrance into the social security system, may we take it that, when the proposal was discussed in Cabinet, he gave the Home Secretary 100 per cent. support for its introduction?
Mr. Smith: As the House knows, we are united in our dedication to combat terrorism, crime and fraud of all kinds. I have strongly supported the good sense in an incremental approach, which demonstrates how an identity document with biometric data would work, initially with driving licences and passports. Once we have established that the technology works and is viable, the House will be able to make a decision on the question of compulsion in future. To my mind, that is a common-sense way to achieve a desirable goal.
Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): On 13 February, the National Audit Office stated that the rate of reduction of fraud and error in jobseeker's allowance and income support had "slowed" this year. Can the Secretary of State explain that latest departmental failure?
Mr. Smith: We remain on track to hit our targets to reduce fraud in income support and JSA. The Conservatives ought to note that when they were in government, they did not even have a target to tackle fraud, whereas since 1998, we have cut fraud in IS and JSA alone by more than a quarter. Of course there is more to do, but we will take no lectures from the Opposition on how to do it.
Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): Given the developing partnership with local government in the fight against benefit fraud, and the increasing mobility of the British population, what discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Local Government Association and other local government bodies on how the anti-fraud initiative might help them in the front line of dealing with the problem?
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are working closely with local authorities. The total number of cases in which action is taken—including prosecution, and the imposition of
administrative sanctions and other penalties deployed in combating fraud—is more than double the number in 1997–98. A significant proportion of the increase is accounted for by extra cases and prosecutions brought by local authorities. As well as giving them extra resources, we are keeping in close touch with them on their progress, because the effort has to be a united one involving central Government, local government and all agencies working together to combat an illegal menace that deprives the budget areas that should have priority claim to resources that wrongly go to fraudsters. We have been cracking down jointly with local authorities, and we shall certainly continue to do so.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |