| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Chope: Does my hon. Friend agree that another anomaly that the Government could have addressed through this Bill is the ability to pay only over 10 months? The ability to pay over 12 months would spread the payment burden more evenly.
Mr. Wilshire:
That is absolutely right. I would love to discuss that issue, but I suspect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would consider it slightly beyond the Bill's terms of reference. I will settle for saying that I completely agree with my hon. Friend and that we will discuss the matter on another occasion.
12 May 2004 : Column 389
I am also concerned that the Government are offering nothing to 65 to 69-year-olds. I readily accept that I and other Members of this House have a significant number of constituents over the age of 70 who are struggling, but the reality is that all of us have constituents over that age who are not struggling. So why are we helping over-70s who need help and over-70s who do not, but ignoring those aged 69 and a half who are in desperate straits—perhaps worse straits than anybody aged over 70? Through that cut-off point the Government are saying to people aged under 70, "Frankly, we don't care about you." My constituents do not want that sort of Government running the country. The Government have to revisit the issue of not helping people under the age of 70 who need help.
That train of thought leads to another of my key concerns. This entire procedure, which helps the rich and poor alike, is unrelated to the tax and benefit system. The Government do not like my party's future approach to pensions because, in their view, it does not distinguish between the rich and the poor. They are keen to attack our policies, yet they brazenly propose the kind of policy that they keep saying we should not implement: a universal benefit for everybody over the age of 70. These are serious issues that the Minister needs to address in his wind-up.
So much for my introduction—I now turn to the detail of the Bill. I have a number of queries that I hope the Minister will address. Clause 1, which deals with the "Qualifying individual", bothers me somewhat. According to the Government, a qualifying individual is someone who
"is ordinarily resident in Great Britain",
but nowhere in the Bill can I find what "ordinarily resident" means. It cannot mean someone who lives here permanently, because clause 1 also states that a person has to be ordinarily resident for "one day". That does not strike me as a definition of a permanent resident of the United Kingdom. I would like the Minister to reassure us about what "ordinarily resident" means. If it means that one has to be here for just one day in September, I suspect that in September the ferries will be full of coach-loads of people aged over 70, coming to stay for one day in order to get their £100, only to go back where they came from. The Minister needs to reassure the taxpayer that that is not the intention.
Clause 2 deals with an issue that crops up time and again in the Bill. It states:
"A qualifying individual shall be entitled to a payment of £100 if at any time in the relevant week—(a) he is single".
Later, it refers to couples, for which clause 8 provides a definition. The Government have great difficulties with this issue. Clause 8 states that "couple"
"means a man and a woman who share a household and who are, or who live as, husband and wife".
If I remember rightly, various Bills passing through this House go out of their way to ensure that, in keeping with the Government's view, we do not make a distinction through the concept of "couple" equalling man and woman. Yet the Bill states that a "couple" must be a man and a woman. What about same-sex couples? Do they not fall within this definition, and if not, why not?
Similarly, clause 8 refers to those
"who are, or who live as, husband and wife".
What does that mean? Are we to have an army of inspectors visiting 70-year-old couples to find out what they are doing? That seems remarkably ridiculous. Moreover, what happens when an elderly brother and sister live together, or an elderly mother lives with her elderly son? Mums live for very long times these days. It is perfectly possible for a mum and a son who are both over 70 to live in the same house, yet they will not be considered a couple, because although they are a man and a woman, they are not living together as husband and wife. The Government have got something terribly wrong here—assuming that they believe in their other legislation. I should be grateful if they sorted that one out for us.
Mr. Chope: Has my hon. Friend looked at clause 2(1)(b)(i), which refers to a single person's
"either . . . not living with another qualifying individual,"
or otherwise being in receipt of state pension credit? Does he think that the phrase "living with" is relevant to the definition of "couple", which seems to imply something slightly different?
Mr. Wilshire: If my memory serves me correctly, clause 8 provides no definition of "living with", so that is another thing that the Government ought to clear up.
There is another issue in respect of couples. Does the term "single" as used in the Bill include a widow or widower? When a spouse dies, one still considers oneself married to them and part of a couple, even though one half of the couple is no longer alive. Will the Bill discriminate against widows and widowers, or does "single" mean something that the dictionary definition does not cover? That issue needs to be sorted out.
Clause 3 also needs some attention. Subsection (1)(a) refers to situations in which
"two or more couples live together".
The Government say that a payment of £100 per household will be made. Where two or more couples live together, and if three or more of the people in question qualify, will that household get £150, £200 or £250, depending on how many qualifying people there are? We need to know the answer to that question. I suspect that there are some problems.
"Subsection (5) applies to a qualifying individual if . . . throughout the period of 13 weeks ending with the relevant week his ordinary place of residence was a care home."
So it is suggested that those who live in a care home will not necessarily qualify. Why a period of only 13 weeks? Council tax is paid over a whole year—in 10 monthly instalments, or in one go—so why are those who are in a care home for only 13 weeks of that 12-month or 10-month period disqualified from getting the help given to those who live in their own home for a year? That is thoroughly inconsistent, and perhaps we could be told something about it.
I turn to clause 4, which deals with disqualifications. Subsection (1)(b) disqualifies a person who
"is in custody throughout the relevant week".
So if, for some reason or other, a 70-year-old is locked up for that week, they are disqualified for an entire year. That cannot be right. I accept that subsection (2) provides a definition of being in custody. It states:
"a person is in custody if he is detained in custody under a sentence imposed by a court".
So the Government have at least thought of people on remand, who will not be caught by the provision. What happens if the Court of Appeal quashes the conviction of someone who has been under a sentence for a week or so and has been disqualified? What happens if they were under sentence during the relevant week but are subsequently declared innocent? What provisions do the Government intend to make to deal with that anomaly?
Mr. Chope: Does my hon. Friend accept that the anomaly goes further than that? Someone could be sentenced to one week's imprisonment in the qualifying week in September, thereby losing the entitlement to £100, while someone sentenced to six months' imprisonment starting in October would receive the full £100.
Mr. Wilshire: That is absolutely right. The provisions have been ill thought through. Perhaps provoked by the concept of 70-year-olds going to prison, the Government wondered what to do to discourage such people from being sent there. Perhaps they thought that disqualification might induce people who are prepared to martyr themselves to think again. If that is what the Government thought, it goes to show that they do not understand 70-year-olds, most of whom will stick to matters of principle, despite the threat of being penalised by the Government or ending up in prison for a short while.
Before we vote, the Government must explain clause 5. Under subsection (3)(c)(i), when making a claim, people have to tell the Secretary of State their
"name, address, date of birth"—
I have no problem with that because the address could be a park bench and it does not necessarily apply for council tax purposes—
"and national insurance number (if he has one)".
I was under the impression—the Minister will put me right if I am wrong—that every British citizen had a national insurance number. If so, the Government have some explaining to do about what led them to include "(if he has one)" in the Bill. Why can we not say that people have to have a national insurance number in order to receive the benefit, which would clear up a few anomalies? That takes us back to coach trips in September: people could come over here to qualify as ordinarily resident for a day; they do not have a national insurance number; they take the money to pay for the coach trip and go back home. The Government must clear up that problem.
Clause 7 deals with the power to provide for payments. We have been told that this is a one-off measure. We have heard that no provision is being made to continue the benefit in future Budgets, yet the Government are assuming powers to "make regulations"—not to come before the House—to
12 May 2004 : Column 392
continue the benefit. They want not only to continue with the provisions before us, but to assume powers to do anything they like without reference to the House.
The Government can make regulations to deal with
"persons in a specified class".
If they wanted to, they could give more money to all the people who lived in the north or to all those who voted Labour. That is my understanding of a "specified class". They are also able to make provision for "specified circumstances". In other words, the Bill does not necessarily apply to people who are particularly poor; in future years, it could apply—again without any reference to the House—to whatever circumstances the Government like.
Under clause 7(3) the Government assume powers to make "exceptions" in future years. What comes to mind is that someone who votes Conservative could be deemed an exception and would not receive the benefit. These are draconian and dictatorial powers, short-circuiting Parliament to enable the Government to do whatever they like.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |