Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Hodge of Barking (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 22 November 2005. It occurred during Opposition day on Welfare Reform and Incapacity Benefit.


Welfare Reform and Incapacity Benefit

I am in some difficulty because I have not actually seen the quotation. However, I have dealt with the issue already. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) on her passionate and strong speech. She pointed out the importance of work to individuals and the way in which work and well-being are two sides of the same coin. She showed a proper understanding of the issues and the way in which we can bring down the number of people on incapacity benefit. I agree with the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) about simplification of the benefit system. We are attempting to do that day in, day out, whereas when his party was in government it failed even to think about the measurement of fraud. The Conservatives never measured fraud, let alone took action to reduce it, whereas we have done that successfully. Let me put on record the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and his party are wrong to suggest that existing benefit claimants cannot take advantage of the opportunities in the pathways to work pilots—they can, they do, and they are returning to work. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that we are not talking to interested groups about welfare reform. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), and I have done that. Indeed, our new Secretary of State has already visited several groups that would be affected by the proposals that we shall put before the House and the country when we publish our Green Paper. The debate has given us the facts with which to judge which political party is fit to tackle welfare reform. The simple fact is that we are completely divided—[Laughter.] No, we are completely divided across political parties on the reasons behind the programme of welfare reform and the purpose of it—[Interruption.] Perhaps Conservative Members should listen to this. Labour Members are committed to our agenda because we see it as a means through which we can unlock opportunity for all so that all can find jobs and individuals can support themselves and their families, realise their potential, enjoy the sense of purpose and self-worth that comes with work and develop a network of friends and companions. We are committed to our agenda because we recognise it as a means of eradicating poverty from British communities and British society. We are committed to our agenda because we understand that by realising individual potential, we can build a stronger economy in the more competitive global environment in which we have to live. For the Conservative party, the agenda is benefit cuts to finance tax cuts. It is about fostering individual greed at the expense of wider interests and needs. Compassionate conservatism is about dismantling the active welfare state and destroying the support and opportunities that we in government have created. The Conservatives’ policies in government created dependency, chaos, incoherence and despair. The words of the Opposition motion give us a clear indication of their incoherence and direction of travel, whereas the Government’s record on welfare reform is one of which we are immensely proud. The challenges that we face in the immediate and long term are complex and important, but the platform that we have built is strong, the values that inform our approach are right, and the task of translating those values into programmes is one we welcome and on which we shall deliver. The truth is that the Conservative party has not just lost the argument, it has lost the plot.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
439 c1430-2 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Benefits rules Eligibility Incapacity benefit Social security Social security benefits Reform Pathways to work programme
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk