Proceeding contribution from Angela Eagle (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 1 March 2010. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Social Security.
Social Security
I fail to understand why the Opposition think that bringing an increase—or half of it, say—forward for a year, and paying it for a year, can turn out to be a cut. It means that people will receive an increase that they would have received anyway—or part of that increase—a year in advance, when they need it most. How, according to any lexicon, can that be portrayed as a cut?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 506 c755
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Council tax benefits Carers' benefits Housing benefit Jobseeker's allowance Income support Economic situation Inflation Pension credit Social security benefits State retirement pensions Uprating Winter fuel payment Employment and support allowance
- Legislation
- Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2010
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 19:59:57 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625127
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625127
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625127