Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Parliament and Politics: Lilley attacks uniform EC benefits: Harmonised standards of welfare would place Britain on a road to bankruptcy, minister says

Colin Brown,Political Correspondent
Tuesday 29 September 1992 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

MOVES to raise welfare benefits across Europe were attacked as a 'road to bankruptcy' last night by Peter Lilley, the Secretary of State for Social Security and a leading Cabinet opponent of European federalism.

Expressing implacable opposition to the harmonisation of European welfare standards, Mr Lilley said he wanted to see more cooperation against social security fraud and in reducing costs of benefits.

He used an international conference at the University of York, marking the 50th anniversary of the Beveridge report which formed the basis of social security legislation, to warn against a blanket approach to welfare provision and European interference in the British system.

'We are living in a fool's paradise if we think that we can or should ratchet up our schemes to match the most advantageous available in any member state . . . (That would be) simply a road to bankruptcy,' Mr Lilley said. Restraint was not compatible with the levelling up of provisions.

Some people advocated harmonising social security provisions to avoid so-called 'social dumping', but that was a thinly veiled appeal for protection, Mr Lilley said. 'Since we must be able to compete with non-European products, we must be able to compete with each other. The total costs of employment include pay and social charges. There is no point in making social charges uniform and leaving pay adjustable.' He dismissed as 'nonsense' those who advocated harmonisation because of the alleged need for a social Europe to offset the impact of increased competition in the single market: 'It is up to each country to tailor such help to its own needs.'

He said Britain was most at risk from interference over judgments by the European Court of Justice on its welfare system. He said the Barber judgment on pension rights for women had caused 'major problems with the timetable for introducing equal treatment of men and women in occupational pension schemes, possibly pushing many major pension schemes into massive deficit'. The court ruled that women should be able to retire at the same age as men, instead of at 60 and 65 respectively.

It was essential, he said, for EC member states to co-operate 'so that we are all fully aware of the implications for each others' countries of changes to Community law'.

Mr Lilley, who is reviewing entitlement to benefits in the search for public expenditure cuts, said measures were being taken across Europe to curb welfare spending in the face of the increasing numbers of elderly and jobless people and single-parent families.

'Uprating of benefits has become less generous in some countries, contribution conditions are being tightened and employer-employee contributions being increased. Here is another area where we can exchange views and learn from each other, indeed, where there is a positive advantage in having different systems,' he said. But governments needed to co-operate in the flow of information across borders to help eliminate fraud.

(Photograph omitted)

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in