| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill--
Order of consideration
1. The Bill, as amended, shall be further considered in the following order, namely amendments relating to Clauses 53 to 56; remaining New Clauses; amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 7 to 16, Schedule 2, Clause 17, Schedule 3, Clauses 18 and 19, Schedule 4, Clauses 20 to 29, Schedule 5, Clauses 30 to 44, Schedule 6, Clauses 45 to 50, Schedule 7, Clauses 51 and 52, Clauses 57 to 61, Schedule 8, Clauses 62 to 64, Schedule 9, Clause 65, Schedule 10, Clauses 66 to 70, Schedule 11 and Clause 71; New Schedules; amendments relating to Clauses 72 and 73, Schedule 12, Clauses 74 to 76, Schedule 13 and Clauses 77 to 79.
Timetable
2.--(1) Proceedings on Consideration in respect of amendments relating to Clauses 53 to 56 shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
(2) The remaining proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
Questions to be put
3.--(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 2(1) the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)--
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question that any remaining amendments toClauses 53 to 56 standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown be made to the Bill;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
(2) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 2(2) the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)--
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown be made to the Bill;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
Miscellaneous
4. Standing Order 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at today's sitting, and the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House.
5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on the Bill.
6. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
7. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
8. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
9. If at today's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (as that Standing Order has effect in accordance with the Order of the House [16th December 1998]) stands over to Four o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.
10. If the House is adjourned at today's sitting, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Orders of the Day
Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
Mr. Roger Berry (Kingswood): I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 52, line 18, leave out Clauses 53 and 54.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 52, line 18, leave out Clause 53.
No. 3, in page 52, leave out lines 23 to 27 and insert--
No. 6, in clause 54, page 53, line 1, leave out Clause 54.
No. 113, in page 53, line 16, at end insert--
Government amendment No. 31.
No. 86, in clause 55, page 54, line 3, leave out Clauses 55 and 56.
No. 7, in clause 56, page 54, line 38, leave out Clause 56.
Mr. Berry:
Before I explain what the amendment does and why we have tabled it, I must make two comments. First, I entirely support the Government's curtailing debate at a ridiculous hour on Tuesday morning and I entirely support the guillotine motion. Timetabled debates are a credit to the House, and what happened in the early hours of Tuesday morning was a discredit to the House.
Secondly, I do not want the political party that, when in government in 1995, inflicted the biggest ever cuts in benefits for disabled people who were unable to work to start attacking this side of the House. It is true that one or two Conservative Members hold views about incapacity benefit that are the same as my own. I respect their views and the lobbying that they have taken as fellow members of the all-party disablement group. However, the Conservative Government's policy in 1995, when they cut literally billions of pounds off benefit for disabled people who were unable to work, does not give them great moral authority in the Chamber this afternoon.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made a very important point about the occasions when those who support this Government passionately might find themselves in the same position
as several of my colleagues and I this afternoon. I will not weary the House with a long defence. I simply say this: the first rumours of possible cuts to incapacity benefit appeared in the media 18 months ago. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will acknowledge that many Labour Members requested meetings with Ministers--I am grateful that our requests were granted--and expressed our concerns. There may be a difference of opinion at the end of the day, and I do not demand that Ministers change their view. However, it must be recognised that our concerns about clauses 53 and 54 have not appeared suddenly in recent weeks.
I regret that discussions have, unfortunately, brought about no change, but I feel regret also because my colleagues and I have consistently applauded the Government's very great achievements in securing a better deal, fairness and more equal opportunities for disabled people. In the new deal, progress on civil rights and a range of other policies, the Government's performance contrasts dramatically with that of the previous Government.
I last spoke in a debate in the House three or four weeks ago to express the strongest possible enthusiasm for the Disability Rights Commission Bill. The Government care about a fair deal for disabled people, which is why I regret having to stand here today and say that clauses 53 and 54 are, sadly, in sharp contrast to their commendable policies elsewhere, including many in the Bill. I welcome many of the Bill's measures--not least the increased benefits for severely disabled young people--because they will help disabled people.
Why, then, is there such concern about clauses 53 and 54? Clause 53 will withdraw entitlement to incapacity benefit from new claimants who have been unable to make national insurance contributions in the previous two years. Clause 54 proposes to means-test incapacity benefit.
One might ask, "What is the problem?" The problem is that the two clauses would reduce benefit for disabled people who are unable to work. In the first year, 45,000 disabled people who cannot work would be worse off, and that figure would rise to 335,000 after 10 years. That is equivalent to more than one in five of those who currently receive incapacity benefit.
Those figures are not mine or those of the disability movement; they are the figures in the regulatory impact assessment produced by the Department of Social Security. The plan is that the long-term effect should be that more than a third of a million disabled people who are unable to work will be worse off. The average net cost to those people in the first year will be £28 a week, and the cost will rise thereafter. Of course, many will be worse off even than that. That cost allows for tax and benefit changes, as set down in the regulatory impact assessment.
Clause 53 will deny 170,000 people entitlement to any incapacity benefit. That is the figure in the Green Paper. The media have quoted that figure as if disability organisations have plucked it from the air, but they have not. Those people will not be entitled to incapacity benefit because they have not paid sufficient contributions in the previous two years. They will not suddenly be fit for work. In the strange language of disability benefits, they will have "passed" the all-work test, or whatever replaces it. They will be unable to work, due to long-term illness or disability, not because their GP or their disability organisation says so, but because the Benefits Agency's own doctors say so. Such people might have made national insurance contributions for 20 or 30 years, but if they have not made enough contributions in the last two years--perhaps because they lost their job and have been unemployed--they will be denied incapacity benefit.
We are told that the measure restores the original intention of incapacity benefit. Incapacity benefit was introduced by the previous Government in 1995. I had thought that the benefit was intended to provide financial support for disabled people who were unable to work. I assumed that if, in 1995, there had been any doubt about the intention of the benefit, the contribution conditions would have been changed to take that into account. I assume that those who were in this place in 1995 knew what contribution conditions were set down in that legislation, and I cannot imagine for a moment that anyone inserted contribution conditions that did not reflect the purpose of the benefit. With the greatest respect, I find it difficult to understand the argument that the Bill restores the original intention of incapacity benefit.
Clause 54 proposes that, for those who do qualify for incapacity benefit in future, that benefit--which is, rightly, taxable--will also be means-tested. In other words, anyone with a personal or occupational pension of more than £50 a week will lose 50p of incapacity benefit for every extra £1 of pension. As soon as the pension of a disabled person who is unable to work reaches £2,652 a year, they will start to lose incapacity benefit. People who are unable to work, who have made personal provision for their future financial security, would face an effective marginal tax rate of 50 per cent.--greater than that of the highest-income earners in the country, and of Members of Parliament.
I believe that people who have put aside money for their security in later life--who have put money into a personal pension or an occupational pension--will feel that they have been misled. I believe that they understood that if they made personal provision, it would top up incapacity benefit, should they ever be unable to work.
I have many friends who fall into that category. Many of them have a deteriorating condition. They are currently in work. They are planning for the future, when--perhaps at the age of 50--they will be physically unable to work. They will not slip into incapacity benefit; they will be judged by Benefits Agency doctors to be physically unable to work. They have a condition that makes that probable. Therefore they do what all Governments say that they should do--they save. They put money into a personal pension or make other arrangements, in order to top up the incapacity benefit that they believe that they would be entitled to. They will feel aggrieved because they will feel that, whereas they have fulfilled their part of the contract, the Government are modifying their version of what constitutes the Government's part of the contract.
Inevitably, apart from causing great hardship, the measure will discourage saving. How could it be otherwise? And yet we all want to encourage people to extend personal provision for later life. Incapacity benefit will start to be lost when those people's pension reaches the princely sum of £2,652 a year.
Why are the Government doing this? I have been asked that question frequently in recent days, and my answer has always been that I do not know; and I genuinely do not know, because this is not a necessary part of the welfare reform programme, which I passionately support. I do not believe that the arguments suggesting that it is necessary are entirely convincing.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton referred earlier to the growth in the number of people in receiptof incapacity benefit. At Prime Minister's questions yesterday afternoon, a question, which was entirely right and which has clarified things enormously, was asked about people currently in receipt of incapacity benefit who might or might not have ended up on incapacity benefit because of the policies of the previous Government. I have no quarrel at all with that question or with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said earlier, but we need to recognise that clauses 53 and 54 have nothing whatever to do with existing claimants; they relate to future claimants.
'(a) subject to a minimum period of contributions actually paid of one year, contributions actually paid for a period of less than 10 years shall allow payment of a proportion of benefit to be calculated depending on the number of years for which contributions have been made; and'.
'(aa) for a person in employment to be treated in prescribed circumstances as in contracted-out employment for the purposes of this section;
(ab) for any reduction under subsection (1) to be made only where the person entitled to incapacity benefit was for any period treated for the purposes of this section as in contracted-out employment;
(ac) for the duration of such period of periods to be taken into account in a prescribed manner in calculating the amount of any such reduction;'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |