---

Mr. Webb: You will see, Mr. Speaker, that I added my name to amendment No. 8 and I believe that we divided in Committee on a similar amendment. We agree absolutely that clause 7 should have no part in the Bill.

I was reflecting on the matter this morning when it occurred to me that the Department for Work and Pensions gets rather blasé about zeros. Most Departments would regard £1 million or £2 million here or there as pretty serious money. They think of it in terms of a school extension, a new ward in a hospital and so on. The odd million here or there certainly adds up to some serious money, but the Department for Work and Pensions does not have that approach. This Bill spends nearly £0.5 billion and by accident we have some primary legislation to put it into effect.

Clause 7 gives the Government the power to spend another £0.5 billion, with no scrutiny or power to amend it whatever. I believe that clause 7 amounts to a constitutional outrage. It will give the Government the power to introduce an unlimited scheme. If they want to, the Government can pay everyone over the age of 60 any amount of money for any reason. Paying £100 to the over-70s costs £0.5 billion, so what would paying winter fuel payments to the over-60s cost? We could be talking about billions of pounds. In the context of the DWP, I suppose that that amounts to a rounding error, but in the context of wider Government priorities, the idea of giving just one Department the power to spend such vast amounts of money on the strength of a 90-minute debate in a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation seems truly extraordinary.

We—Parliament—would not have the power to amend the proposals. If the Government's scheme were acceptable in principle but contained detailed flaws, we would not even have the right to change it. We would have to accept or reject the whole measure on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, yet potentially the £0.5 billion is at stake. That amount is neither fanciful nor hypothetical; it is what we are spending today. A further £0.5 billion could be spent without our having the chance to change it. That is totally unacceptable. The Bill has hardly been subject to rigorous scrutiny, but we have spent plenty of hours on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report today, looking at the details and debating them. The idea that the principle has been established that it is okay to pay out lump sums whenever the Government feel like it, so that we do not have to go through all this inconvenient scrutiny ever again, seems to me absolutely incredible.

The principal reason why clause 7 should not be in the Bill is that it gives the Government the power to bring in unlimited spending. There is not even a cap in the Bill. It does not say that spending can be made by regulation up to a fairly modest amount, with serious legislation being required for larger amounts. It simply allows the
 
8 Jun 2004 : Column 162
 
Government to do anything they fancy to anyone over 60 on any basis whatever, with negligible scrutiny. That is the fundamental objection.

We should not give the Government these sweeping powers without some indication of what might motivate them to make these payments. We have had winter fuel payments, but they were never really much to do with winter fuel. The only aspect of winter fuel about the payment was the fact that it was made in the winter—I should say winterish, as I think that the first-year payment was made in the spring. It had nothing to do with winter fuel. People could spend it on whatever they liked—holidays abroad and the rest of it.

Similarly, the council tax payment has nothing really to do with the council tax. It is an arbitrary excuse for the Government to hand over some cash to a particular section of the electorate. Who are we talking about? I exaggerate only slightly when I say that it is the only people who actually vote. We may find that out on Thursday. In other words, the Government sat down, thought that they were in a pickle over the council tax and wondered what they could do about it. They did not have an answer, so they needed a holding position. It is a pretty expensive holding position—£0.5 billion of taxpayers' money—just to get the Government out of a fix. Is that really the basis on which we should be legislating in this place? It is bad enough doing so after a Budget speech through primary legislation, but doing so as clause 7 allows—on the whim of a statutory instrument—is just unbelievable.

It is the Government's track record that causes concern about the powers in the Bill. I recall that the birth of the winter fuel payment was connected with the fact that the Government received an unexpected refund of the EU contribution. The Chancellor of the day—in 1997, if I recall correctly—suddenly found that he had some extra cash that he was not expecting to have. The House may have forgotten that the winter fuel payment was introduced for people who were not on income support—of course, it was means-tested at that point—at the level of £20. Now we are up in the realms of £400, so these things do have a knack of growing spectacularly.

The Government seem to introduce such payments on an almost ad hoc basis. It is worth reminding ourselves that the winter fuel payment was also introduced through a statutory instrument because it was a social fund payment. It used the word "fuel" even though it had nothing to do with fuel, so it could be introduced under social fund legislation, which provides for payments for fuel costs. That is why no primary legislation was required. I recall wondering for many minutes why I had never sat on a Committee considering a winter fuel payments Bill. The answer is that the Government did not require primary legislation; they already had the power to hand over what amounted to billions of pounds in respect of winter fuel payments.

The Government have a track record and they have form. They find a pot of money, wonder what to spend it on, and invent a scheme. They have done the same thing with the council tax in the Age-Related Payments Bill. The Government get into a mess, wonder what to do and come up with a scheme.
 
8 Jun 2004 : Column 163
 

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab): I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument—and, indeed, that of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne)—very carefully. Is he telling me that when these measures were debated, his party opposed them on the grounds that Her Majesty's Government were simply handing out money to people who, as he said, could spend it on holidays? I did not notice that argument being made by either party at the time.

Mr. Webb: The reason why the hon. Lady did not notice it was that there was no debate. If she had been listening to what I said a few moments ago, she would know that there was no debate over the winter fuel payment. There was no winter fuel payment Bill because the Government introduced the measure, if I recall correctly, on the basis of negative resolution procedure in a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. We never actually debated these matters. That is precisely the point that I am making. Clause 7 gives the Government the power, any time that they come up with a wheeze, to make payments on any basis that they like. They can call them winter fuel payments, although there is no link to winter fuel, or call them council tax payments, although there is no link to the council tax. The clause gives the Government a blanket power to make payments whenever they feel like it.

I know that the hon. Lady is a doughty campaigner for parliamentary scrutiny. She ought to feel as uncomfortable as I do about giving the Government the power to bring in a scheme costing £500 million or more with just 90 minutes of scrutiny, especially when the provision is totally unamendable.

1.30 pm

The key point is that this power is huge and sweeping. Parliament will not be able to have any serious scrutiny of what the Government might come up with. The Government have a track record of introducing such ideas whenever they are in a pickle or have a windfall. It is totally unacceptable that that should be the basis of support for old people.

What do older people have to look forward to under this Government? The answer is wheezes, schemes and gizmos—when there is a bit of money to hand. They should be able to look forward to getting decent, secure incomes every year. Those incomes should not be available only when the Government have a bit of money or are in a mess over the local tax system. The Government should give up on clause 7.

The Minister should accept amendment No. 8. We need a proper support system for older people, planned ahead of time so that they know what is coming. In contrast, this Bill will literally be here today and gone tomorrow, as it offers one payment to be made because a problem exists and there is a bit of money to solve it with.

We often discuss what the Minister thinks about as he lies on his bed at night—[Interruption.]

Malcolm Wicks: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not him.
 
8 Jun 2004 : Column 164
 

Mr. Webb: I hope that the Minister will spare me a thought, and that he will ponder whether the best way to support pensioners is for the Government to have the power to produce new schemes and handouts whenever they are in a pickle or come up with a bright idea. Would it not be better for older people to have a decent, secure and long-term income, instead of yet another scheme?

---