| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now starting to do what he said he was not going to do. I would be most grateful if he would stick to his original intention.
Mr. Davies: I was going to link my remarks to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) by saying that it is frightening that such a measure could be proposed by a Government who are capable of such an administrative shambles, as they evidently are.
We must also consider the reviews that are referred to in the new clause, on the outcome of which the financial consequences of the clause will depend.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield):
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Rowntree Foundation produced a
Mr. Davies:
One of the aspects of the Labour party's rhetoric in opposition during the last Parliament was that it was going to make sure that there was a better take-up of benefits by those who were entitled to them. Labour also had the temerity--I say "temerity" in the light of the fact that the Labour party has done nothing about it since coming to power--to say that it would be stricter on fraud. It is clear that Labour has run down the anti-fraud effort since it came to power. Nothing at all has been done to fulfil the legitimate expectations felt by so many people that there would be more effective targeting of benefits to those who are entitled to them.
The whole of the provision is premised on the reviews. The Secretary of State said:
Those reviews sound exactly like the reviews in the benefit integrity project, which the Government have denounced as unsuccessful. Indeed, the Social Security Committee also criticised them severely. We do not know whether the failure of the benefit integrity project resulted from its being misconceived by the previous Conservative Administration or from its being misapplied by the new Labour Administration, or whether it was sensible for that Administration to launch it if they had such serious doubts about it.
I do not suppose that I can pursue those interesting questions now, but I hope that we can pursue them on another occasion. On the Government's own testimony, such reviews have not worked.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The money resolution is very tightly drawn and I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would stick to it fairly strictly.
Mr. Davies:
Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we need to know precisely what the financial consequences of new clause 12 are anticipated to be, and that will depend entirely on the outcome of the reviews, so we must be sure about the integrity and effectiveness of the review process. The reviews that the Government have in mind are exactly the kind of reviews carried out at home by administrative personnel from the Benefits Agency, or by postal inquiry, that Ministers have denounced as utterly ineffective in the benefit integrity project.
That is not encouraging, but if the reviews are to be of a different kind, we had better know what the Government have in mind. Do they perhaps have in mind a very different kind of review as described in the Bill: the personal capability assessment in clause 50? Under clause 50(6), as I recall, the assessments can be repeated as often as the Secretary of State requires.
The assessments have been sold by the Government as something akin to the all work test carried out by medical personnel: an entirely different approach to review. Which kind of review is foreseen in the new clause: the existing
benefit integrity project review carried out by administrative personnel; the personal capability assessment carried out by medical personnel; or a third kind of review?
Is there a danger that disabled people will be subject to several different types of review under the different systems, or will certain people on certain benefits be subject to one type of review and others to another? That should not be the case, because new clause 12 makes it clear that all disability beneficiaries will be subject to review, so we had better know what the meaning of review is in that context. But how does that relate to personal capability assessments?
New clause 12, to which the money resolution relates, refers specifically to disability living allowance, incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance, but what about disability working allowance, industrial injuries disability benefit or the disability premiums in income support? What happens if someone still owes money from a previous review? Will there be an attempt to reclaim money or will people be told that, with effect from February of this year, they do not have to repay any money? Will DLA claims be dealt with on the same terms and subject to the same regime as beneficiaries of incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance? Those questions must be answered.
We need to know what the financial effects are. We do not merely want the final figure; it is important to know how it is made up. What are the total claims outstanding? How many of those have already been met by people paying in money that is due? How much is left and what is the difference? What amount would have to be written off if it were not for the provision that tells people that, retrospectively, they no longer have that liability? To what extent will the regime be continued after 1 June--the relevant date? What regime is foreseen after that date? What is the nature of the reviews that are referred to? How robust will they be? On the Government's own testimony, if they are of the benefit integrity project type, they will presumably not be very effective. If it is some other type of review, how will it differ from those reviews? What is the danger of the duplication of reviews, given that, at the same time, the Government are making provisions in the Bill for the personal capability assessment?
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
I am not a member of the Standing Committee that is considering the Bill; nor am I a member of the Select Committee on Social Security. I am merely an average Back Bencher, who takes a bit of an interest in money resolutions. This money resolution takes the biscuit for a number of reasons. I shall follow the excellent questioning of the Government by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) with one or two modest questions.
Why did the Minister not seek to catch your eye at the beginning of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to explain why we are debating a money resolution while the Bill is in Committee? Normally, money resolutions come to the House when a Bill has completed at least a significant part of its progress, so that the Government can tell the House what is in the resolution--how much money they are asking for, their estimate of the financial impact, and so on. That is the point of the exercise: the Government ask the House to authorise the money effects of a Bill.
However, my lay reading of the process suggests that apparently this major Bill is in Standing Committee, still undergoing changes as it goes along. We have become used to the Labour Government amending their legislation on the trot, in an ill-considered way, and another example of that is now before us. The Government not only have the gall to bring a money resolution to the House during that process, but insult those of us who are in the Chamber and interested in the money resolution by failing to explain what it is about. I can only assume that they thought, in their usual arrogant way, that the House would nod through this money resolution without showing much interest in it. It will take us a while, but eventually we shall get through to the Government the fact that the House has a considerable interest in money resolutions, and that a number of Members want some answers before we will agree to the money resolution. Whether I divide the House on the resolution will depend on the quality and detail of the answers that we receive from the Minister, although I am beginning to wonder whether he does not merely complacently assume that we shall nod the resolution through without his explaining what it is about. That is the background to the process in which we are involved.
We have had no indication of why the money resolution is before us. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford, knowledgeable as ever, seemed to assume that he knew that it was about some new clause 12. I do not see how he draws that conclusion. I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend, and I rarely do. However, I read the resolution literally, and it contains the words:
My hon. Friend may think that the resolution is about some new clause 12. I do not see how that can be so. My reading is that the resolution is entirely non-specific. If the House were to pass it--and the more I hear myself speak, the more I believe that we would be rash to do so--we would have a completely open-ended commitment. My logic leads me to conclude that it might be unreasonable to expect the Minister to give us the figures asked for by my hon. Friend because the commitment is so open ended.
The Government will be in something of a bind because of the wording of their resolution, which goes on, insolently, to say:
"The review process will involve gathering information by postal inquiry and home visits".--[Official Report, 28 January 1999; Vol. 324, c. 321.]
I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the reviews referred to in new clause 12 are of that kind.
"for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill".
The resolution is an open-ended, non-specific commitment which would give carte blanche to expenditure resulting from any changes to a Bill that is still in Standing Committee.
"it is expedient to authorise".
14 Apr 1999 : Column 339
I bet it is. Of course it is expedient to authorise expenditure if one is dealing with something of which one knows no details at all. The resolution is pretty impertinent stuff and we must know much more about it before we will be convinced.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |