| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman has read that in the papers.
Mr. Duncan Smith: We may have read about it in the papers. We seem to learn most of what goes on in Government circles in the papers rather than in the House. Hon. Members must be careful because I understand that Madam Speaker has made it clear that perhaps a little more should be done in the House rather than through the papers.
Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman is talking about history.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I hope that we are talking about history. It bodes ill for the future if such matters are not raised in the House.
The Government's approach is cynical. The Bill implements many of the changes that were proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and were totally disowned by Labour Members when they were in opposition. In opposition, their public face said no to the proposals but, in government, they absorb, accept and even claim ownership of those proposals. It is important to see such measures being accepted, and we shall not oppose the changes because most of them are ours. I want to know exactly where the Government intend to go and how they propose to achieve the objectives that were set by my right hon. Friend.
We have some reservations about the Bill's detail and we shall raise those in Committee. However, I should like to flag up one or two matters to reserve our position in Committee and on Report. The Bill's detail contains some significant changes and we are concerned about those because the detail was not set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. Many of the Bill's key clauses and changes leave a large amount of the detail to be decided by regulation, and we are worried about that. When I was on the Government Benches, I was concerned about the amount of legislation that our Bills left to regulation. I spoke about that several times and I raise it again with the Secretary of State and ask her to look carefully at the matter.
The regulation process stops Parliament properly scrutinising changes that subsequently lead to problems. Much of the social security budget has always been plagued by the constant need for change because so much was wrong at the start. I ask the right hon. Lady to undertake to look at those areas which can be changed by regulation to see whether they can be changed only by legislation.
Tribunals currently consist of three people with a legally qualified chairman. The Secretary of State has spoken about that. The Bill intends that future panels will consist of one, two or three people to replace the legally qualified chairman. The analysis of responses by Roy Sainsbury in the Green Paper to which I have referred, states:
The Green Paper proposed that, in future, the law should not prescribe the status of the decision maker for different types of decision, and that has been reflected in the Bill.I am reasonably pleased to note that. However, concerns about the independence of first-tier decision makers do not seem to have been reflected in the Bill. I hope that that will be addressed. There are genuine concerns about independence. To maintain a high degree of public confidence, monitoring and reporting on the standard of decision making should continue to be carried out by a body that is independent of the social security agencies. I hope that the Government will address the concerns about that because they are felt not just by Opposition Members. I am sure that there will be representations from others about it.
There are also concerns about clause 10, which aims to simplify the mechanism for decisions to be reviewed and allows the Secretary of State to revise decisions. However, the Secretary of State's new remit, which includes the circumstances and the period within which a decision can be revised, is set to be determined by regulations. We shall examine the clauses to ensure that the shift to single-tier decision making enhances the system rather than causing chaos. Proper independence and accountability must remain.
I have mentioned the key clauses that we shall look at, but I am especially concerned about some other controversial clauses. I shall deal now with political elements, some of which the Secretary of State did not mention. The Conservative legislation which I have mentioned, and which started with the Green Paper and other documents as part of the programme for change, was vehemently attacked by Labour Members when they were in opposition. However, they are now driving through much of that proposed legislation. That is fine, but let us deal with some of the clauses that seem to be of greatest interest. I wonder how many of the Secretary of State's Back Benchers know about the degree to which Labour opposed such clauses before it came into government.
Clause 23 allows regulations to be made to permit benefit to be withheld temporarily where claimants have not provided the necessary information. Little has been said about that. The measure is designed to shift responsibility to the individual to prove a benefit claim and to suspend benefit, and it was condemned by Labour Members, including the Secretary of State. I gather that she argued that requiring more evidence to substantiate a benefit claim
was a hindrance, not a help, to receiving the appropriate benefit entitlement. She said:
Clause 24 will allow regulations to enable the Secretary of State for Social Security to suspend benefits if people refuse to submit to a medical examination in prescribed circumstances. In opposition, Labour Members attacked the introduction of incapacity benefit. The new entitlement, which included a new medical test, was designed to ensure that it was received only by genuine applicants. We know about the problems and failures of much of that so far, especially in the appeals process. When the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) was in opposition, he said:
Surely the Government's key aim in clause 24 is to save money. If so, what makes the present measure so different, so much less reprehensible than the attempt to save money in the other programme? I am intrigued about what the Minister will say when he sums up, and how he will square his present position against his previous position. Apparently, when he is not in government, saving money is not a good thing, but now that he is in government, it is a good thing. It is wonderful to see somebody turn round so easily, and we welcome any convert. In opposition, the Government were convinced, as ever, that such measures were wrong. Now they are in government, they have changed.
Clause 35 allows regulations to be made that will permit a local authority to suspend payment of housing benefit and council tax benefit in prescribed circumstances, especially where entitlement is in doubt pending resolution of a query or appeal. The principle of the suspension of benefit was regularly attacked by those now in government when they were in opposition. When the present Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, he attacked the suspension of benefit for immigrants appealing against rejected claims for asylum. That is much the same principle. We put the asylum proposal forward, then this other, and we did not manage to enact the second. However, the Secretary of State is now taking it through.
As I said earlier, we shall not oppose the measures because we originated them, before our departure from government on 1 May. None the less, they were endlessly and constantly opposed by the right hon. and hon. Members who are now in government. [Interruption.] I do not necessarily draw the Minister for Welfare Reform into all my comments. I may come to that later. The Secretary of State and many of her right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench have to--[Interruption.] The Minister should quit while he thinks that he is ahead, because he ain't. I have more to say.
"In general, the decision making processes of the three-person tribunal were considered superior to decision making by a single person. And there was little support for the proposal to reserve legal expertise for appropriate cases."
The analysis also found that
"Legally-qualified decision makers had the advantage of training and experience in judicial methods, of considering and weighing the evidence, establishing facts, identifying the relevant law to be applied in the case, and making a decision based fully and only on the facts and the law."
22 Jul 1997 : Column 796
I hope that that will be addressed by Ministers with responsibility for such matters and that they will weigh up those concerns and reservations.
I shall deal now with the key clauses relating to the extension of power and authority of the Secretary of State. No doubt Secretaries of State, and I suspect that the right hon. Lady is no exception, are pleased to have extra responsibilities. However, that raises serious questions, which need to be examined in detail. Clause 1 aims to transfer the functions of the adjudication officers, social fund officers and child support officers to the Secretary of State. Most benefit claims are decided by adjudication officers, who are legally independent of Ministers and departmental managers when they make decisions, although they are employed and managed by the agencies.
"putting more responsibility on claimants for the correct completion of the form, and . . . requiring more evidence to support claims . . . will deter thousands more pensioners from claiming the money to which they are entitled."--[Official Report, 19 February 1997; Vol. 290, c. 947.]
My question for the right hon. Lady is, why the sudden change of heart? What happened between opposition and government to persuade her that what she said in February was fundamentally wrong? Why has she implemented what we said was right?
"The Government's sole motive is to save money . . . I assure the Secretary of State that, whatever he believes, the Labour party will oppose the Bill line by line vigorously in Parliament and throughout the country."--[Official Report, 24 January 1994; Vol. 236, c. 112-13.]
I shall deal in a moment with the issue of who saves money and the Bill's purpose. The right hon. Lady's respected colleague, the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he was shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, also criticised the nature of the Bill. I shall not go into the details of what the right hon. Gentleman said, but it is interesting to note Labour's position at that time.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |