Welfare policy reform: Conservatives ignore defeat to bring in benefits cap
Iain Duncan Smith: Amendment would render reforms useless
THE government was dealt a slap in the face last night on its overhaul of the welfare system, after it lost a vote on a benefits cap in the House of Lords.
Iain Duncan Smith wants to limit benefits to £26,000 a year, the average UK wage and the equivalent of £35,000 before tax.
Last night, the Conservative Work and Pensions Secretary vowed to ignore a 15-vote defeat on what he branded a “wrecking amendment” put down by Church of England bishops and backed by Labour and 17 rebel Liberal Democrat peers.
He said the government would take the bill back to the Commons and push through the cap.
The amendment, proposed by the Rt Rev John Packer, Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, excluded child benefit from the proposed benefits cap. But Mr Duncan Smith said this would render his reforms useless, because it would mean families living off benefits and not working would be receiving more than £50,000.
And the Tory Cabinet minister hit out at Labour for claiming to support a benefits cap, but then deciding to back the bishop’s amendment.
He said: “They can’t weasel their way out of it and say they are in favour on the one hand and against on the other.”
And there was evidence last night that Labour was losing the argument on reforms and the economy, with an ICM poll putting the party 5 per cent behind the Tories on 40 per cent.
Welfare reform is one of the key planks of the Tory-Lib Dem coalition’s policy and has been based on the work carried out by the Centre for Social Justice, set up by Mr Duncan Smith after he witnessed poverty in Easterhouse in Glasgow.
But critics have claimed the reforms, particularly the cap, would make people homeless and are more about introducing cuts than changing welfare. The changes are meant to be introduced in April 2013 and would save £290 million in the first year and £330m the year after.
Yesterday, the government admitted it would mean 67,000 people would have to move home, with more than half of these in London and around 4,700 in Scotland and Wales.
Introducing the key amendment, Bishop Packer said the cap “failed to differentiate between households with children and those without”.
“It cannot be right for that to be the same for a childless couple as for a couple with children,” he said. “Child benefit is the most appropriate way to right this unfairness.”
He said the effect of the cap was to deny child benefit payments to people whose other benefits had reached £500 a week.
“This cap is not simply targeted at wealthy families living in large houses,” he said. “It will damage those who have to pay high rents.”
Success yesterday could only have come with the backing of Lib Dem peers who rebelled against the government, including the former party leader Lord Paddy Ashdown.
Lord Ashdown became the highest-profile figure to speak out against the plans, denouncing them as “completely unacceptable” in their current form.
Lord Greaves, another Lib Dem, said the government’s plans were the beginning of a “slippery slope” and “undermines the whole principle of child benefit”.
In total, 17 Lib-Dems rebelled, with the government losing by just 15 – 252 to 237.
Earlier, Labour’s changing position and late decision to back the bishops led to angry exchanges in the Commons.
In a heated exchange with Liam Byrne, shadow secretary of state for work and pensions, Mr Duncan Smith said: “If he says he’s in favour of the cap, then why do his side keep on voting against it … and today in the other place they have laid an amendment which is officially a wrecking amendment on the cap. So they cannot weasel their way out of it and say they are in favour on the one hand and against on the other.”
Mr Byrne said the housing benefit bill was set to rise by “an extraordinary” £4 billion over four years.
Speaking before the vote, he said: “What we do not want on top of that is another bill for council tax payers to clean up the cost of homelessness.
“Now the Secretary of State for local government has already warned us that 20,000 people will be made homeless as a result of the way his cap will be introduced. This morning, his own department published an impact assessment that put up the number of families affected by the cap by a third. It’s almost as if he’s making this policy up as he goes along.”
Email to a friend
Print this page- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond’s pledge to sign up 1m voters
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Sunday 27 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 112 comments to this article
Page 1 of 8
I AM THE OPERATOR OF A POCKET CALCULATOR
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 12:21 AM110 - yes ! The biggest Tories seem to be wearing Labours Clothing as well! Just check out Grahamski....
Pilrig.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 09:32 PMIDS goes tae Easterhoose, an' all o' a sudden he's an expert on poverty. Of course this is the joker who'd have us believe that maist o' us want tae work on after reachin' 65 !
Pilrig.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 09:30 PMamazin' the number o' tories on this forum ! tories: the party that dare not speak it's name !
Anagach
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 08:35 PM99 Simonsaid Poverty in this country is not having a mobile phone or a large screen TV in every room. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So there is no real poverty in Scotland. I am glad of that it had me worried there for a while. Ah well we can send even more money south for Olympic games, and new London airports and London railways, since everyone is so well off here.
Incandescent
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 06:30 PM#107 Jimmy Fae Glasgow ------ Yup, you've lost it alright. You're as tiresome as Bader-Indy with your quasi-politico assumptions about other people and I suggest that it is you who is avoiding the subject here. My single point here is that it is no longer acceptable for procreation to be a profitable alternative to working for those capable of doing so. "Three jobs, three homes and one child" eh? Well, let's make some assumptions about you. I suggest the truth is closer to "no job, housing benefit and multiple child benefit." Nighty night.
Jimmy Fae the West
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 05:12 PM105 moosef Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 02:44 PM 102Jimmy fae the West, I thought it was inglish. The place seems full of "I" "I" "I" _______________________________________________________ You are correct as it against the Terms and Conditions of posting here to correct spelling or grammar. The pedantic idiot is desperately attempting to deflect attention from his party's support for creating child poverty and throwing families onto the street. When a family is hit by misfortune such as cancer, sickness, a road accident or unemployment, the children should not be forced to suffer for it. Hypocrisy or "being Hypocritical" matter not a bit to those facing homelessness and unemployment from a British nation plunging into a double-dip recession whilst mocking Scots for being poor!!!
Incandescent
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 02:56 PM#102 Jimmy fae labour - "think you will find that it was hypocritical to correct another posters grammar but not the spelling of English as "Inglish"? " ----------------- Wrong again Jimmy. The definition of hypocrisy is to profess morals you do not adhere to yourself.
moosef
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 02:44 PM102Jimmy fae the West, I thought it was inglish. The place seems full of "I" "I" "I"
Incandescent
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 01:56 PM#103 Jimmy ---- Eh? Have you toally lost it? Because you're making a right fool of yourself. Maybe you'd be better off blethering away on the Kevin Pringle thread?
Jimmy Fae the West
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 01:52 PM95 Incandescent Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 01:12 PM #94 moosef - You're correct. "Hypocrite" is the noun (He is such a hypocrite!), hypocrisy is the concept or state (That's just sheer hypocrisy!) and hypocritical is the adjective (it was hypocritical of him to do that) _______________________________________________________ I am sad for your loss! hahahahahaha. If paying thousands into the the state and the NHS is the only way to recover your cash, I hope two members of your family do not suffer from cancers, car crashes or strokes as only one would deserve treatment under your national hateful health service? Stop being incandescent and start being rational.
Jimmy Fae the West
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 01:45 PM95 Incandescent Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 01:12 PM #94 moosef - You're correct. "Hypocrite" is the noun (He is such a hypocrite!), hypocrisy is the concept or state (That's just sheer hypocrisy!) and hypocritical is the adjective (it was hypocritical of him to do that) _______________________________________________________ I think you will find that it was hypocritical to correct another posters grammar but not the spelling of English as "Inglish"? but hey-ho what are we to expect from the final death throes of the imperialist BritNutters. Anyhow, you have lost the debate on the cruel child benefit cuts as the church rejected your vile britisher policies of massive wage rises for the rich and wage freezes for the . Hahahahaha British plans to sell off the NHS have been condemned, so has British plans to privatise education along with impelling Scots to pay for nuclear attack weapons?
Incandescent
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 01:43 PM#97 Jimmy - Ignoring your attempts to divert the discussion and your bizarre claim to have three homes and three jobs, the simple fact is that successive governments have left us with the insane situation where procreating can, in itself, be a profitable enterprise. Neither you, nor anyone else can argue that this is right, because the effect on society in just a couple of generations has been devastating.
Tintock Pete
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 01:40 PMMost normal folks will be wondering why the cap is so high.
Simonsaid
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 01:31 PM#78- trenchchat - This is a neat move by the Tories to take advantage of the 'greedy scrounger' syndrome that you hear mainly from people who haven't been on benefits and take our eye of the scandal of tax voidance and corporate corruption. ======================================================= Why don’t you just stick to the subject instead of trying unsuccessfully to score political points?. Of course there are other issues like the rich-poor divide, as there are in about any country you care to mention, However, this issue is about people getting more in benefits than those who are working for a living nothing more nothing less. And let me ask you - where else in the world would that happen? If you are trying to tell me that families getting handed an average of £26,000 a year would be poverty stricken then I would have no hesitation in calling you a liar. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps you should take a trip to some areas in the world where there is real poverty before you start sermonizing about poverty in this country. Or better still, go stand at the port entries to the UK and witness the real poor desperate to enter the UK in order to become a poor 26k citizen. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Poverty in this country is not having a mobile phone or a large screen TV in every room. That may be a slight exaggeration but less so than your poor gambit. The small shopping Centre I frequent has 8- yes EIGHT mobile phone shops about a quarter of the shops in the centre. And whilst some of the other shops are struggling, they seem to be thriving – and one cannot eat their mobile phones can one? No that is correct – Now go take your drivel somewhere else
Incandescent
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 01:25 PM#93 Jimmy - Hmm, where to start? "have three jobs , three homes (soon to be two)" - if true, that's just bizarre. If you have three homes do you require the three jobs to maintain them and, if so, why bother. If soon to be 2, will you also be able to give up one of your jobs? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"and only one child, who has just returned from St Andrew's Uni. Am I selfish?" On the contrary - you appear to have taken a responsible approach. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"The Family of eight obviously need a far larger home than any of you Britnutters." - Ignoring the weird "britnutter" comment, I imagine a family of eight would LIKE a fair bit of space, but the parents should have considered the practicalities before having so many children. They family of eight CHILDREN plus two parents you mentioned twice would obviously have to give even more careful thought as to how they will support such a large family. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------" Do check the costs of renting a nine apartment house befort posting again." No thanks, because it's completely irrelevant. It is not a "human right" for children to have their own room, and certainly not "poverty" for them to share. Ever heard of bunk beds? Good enough for adult soldiers, good enough for children. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Labour's Hockey-cockey position on this (like so many other policies) begs the question; If independence becomes the favourite choice of Scots tomorrow, Labour will obviously become the party of Scots independence." Off-topic diversion.
Page 1 of 8
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.