Will the last person on Income Support please switch out the light?
It would seem with the withdrawal of the amendment to keep Income Support they gave way to letting the Government abolish IS at some point in the future.
Assurances were given to not abolish it until there is nobody actually on it, but how easy is it to just stop peoples benefits? That is just a gift to them. Why oh why did they let this happen?
The Debate in The LordsLord Kirkwood of Kirkhope had this to say about the move:-
The whole thing is an otiose contrivance. It sets a very bad parliamentary precedent. If Ministers start bringing forward benefits that they might think about abolishing in the future, we will continue to reject the clauses that purport to do any such thing. Income support is part of the new Labour Government's policy about work for those who can and the vast majority of this Bill is about that. Equally important is that it is supposed to underscore support for those who cannot work, and income support does that. It will continue to do that for hundreds of thousands, or at least thousands, of our citizens into the indeterminate future and certainly long past the next election. Yet the House is being asked to abolish a benefit on an affirmative order at some future point. It is bad practice and wholly wrong, and it is not making good use of Parliament. I think the House should reject it. I can see no purpose whatever for the clause because it is just causing trouble. I welcome the assurances we have had because they will alleviate some of the anxiety, but this is rank bad practice.
It really was a good effort to keep it, but its a mystery why Baroness Thomas of Winchester (Liberal Democrat) gave way and removed her amendment that would have kept it, they never even voted on it.
It is perhaps ironic that, of all the complications in the benefits system, the one benefit that is not complicated to those who receive it and is well understood is income support—yet this is the one that is to be abolished. I understand that the Minister has said that it will not be abolished until no one needs it, so it could be a structure with no one hanging off it. However, it has not convinced all those who advise us and who deal with the most complex problems. It is bad practice. We do not want future Governments to abolish something before its replacement is clear and in place.
The Minister and the House will be pleased to know that at this hour on a Thursday afternoon it would not be sensible to vote. Although there are some outside who would like us to, we would not get very far. I thank the Minister for his further remarks and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 34 withdrawn.
[
Submitted by ians1]

ians1onFriday 23 October 2009 - 08:50:00

Comments are turned off for this item