Child Benefit Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: HM Treasury
Tuesday 30th October 2012

(12 years, 1 month ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Asked by
Lord McKenzie of Luton Portrait Lord McKenzie of Luton
- Hansard - -



To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans further to restrict child benefit.

Lord Sassoon Portrait The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the Government are exploring further options for making the welfare system fairer and more affordable. Details will be announced in due course.

Lord McKenzie of Luton Portrait Lord McKenzie of Luton
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am not particularly comforted by it. We are, of course, among the shambles that is engulfing the introduction of the current change to child benefit policy for higher rate taxpayers—evidence, if we needed it, that policy should not be made on the hoof. Hundreds of thousands of people have been brought into the self-assessment process at a time when HMRC staff numbers are being savagely reduced. But my question for the Minister on the matter of evidence-based policy-making is to ask how he justifies the proposals aired by the right honourable Iain Duncan Smith, a fellow Minister, that child support for those unemployed should be restricted to just two children because, he asserts:

“Large numbers of families on welfare are having more children because they believe taxpayers will support them”.

Will the Minister give us the evidence for that assertion? Should such a policy ever be introduced, what impact does he think that there would be on child poverty in this country, which is already on the rise under this Government?

Lord Sassoon Portrait Lord Sassoon
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, first, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, was not comforted in his terms by my answer. Does he disagree with the idea that the system should be fairer and more affordable? We know that the previous Government’s system was unaffordable, and we are putting that right. As to his question about some of the ideas that are being floated at the moment, it is simply not fair that it is possible for someone to be better off on benefits than they would be in work. How can we justify a system in which people in work have to make decisions about having a child or having another child based on what they can afford, whereas those out of work know that their benefits will just increase?