§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)I beg to move amendment No. 210, in page 43, line 31, leave out Clause 39.
236 Time is again at a premium and I shall move the amendment in the briefest of terms. Its purpose is to help some of the most needful people with claims on the attention of this House. The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation said:
The abolition of reduced rate benefits will have a significant effect on … people who will cease to be entitled to a contributory benefit during permanent incapacity.The Minister estimated that 6,500 people who are entitled to receive invalidity benefit will be affected. Of those, 4,500 will receive supplementary benefit. The change proposed by the Government is thus consistent with much of the philosophy of the Bill, namely, that state benefits should be based on means tests. That is objectionable and degrading. Contributory benefits may discriminate against many disabled people but the correct solution is that initiated by successive Governments in the 1970s, notably the Labour Government of 1974–79, of introducing non-contributory and non-means tested benefits.In Committee the Minister questioned whether people who had paid only modest contributions deserved to receive invalidity benefit for life. In fact, many of the people affected will have paid contributions for several years but will have a gap in their record as a result, for example, of giving up work to care for children.
In 1984 when discussing the severe disablement allowance the Minister sought to allay fears by stressing how easy it was to obtain contributory benefits. The people under discussion were those aged 20-plus, who would be likely to qualify for starting credits. Therefore, the main issue was passing the first contribution test, not the second, which is the relevant test for reduced rate unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit. No suggestion has been made that starting credits will be abolished, although the logic of the Minister's argument would lead in that direction. Therefore, at the moment this group would continue to be protected.
On the basis of what he said in 1984, the Minister can now fairly be accused of inconsistency. When it suited him then, he praised the easy access to invalidity benefit. He now seeks to make it more difficult.
The amendment is a serious one which I hope will be given due consideration in another place. There is no time now to press the amendment here. I hope that the Government will reconsider their position and explain, more fully than they have so far, what they intend to do in another place to help the people I am concerned with.
§ Mr. NewtonAs I think the right hon. Member for Manchester Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) knows, we have explained the Government's thinking behind the change in reduced rates generally, to which the amendment is directed, and in particular we commented in Committee on the position of those whose entitlement to invalidity benefit may be affected by the proposal to abolish the reduced rates, including the reduced rates of sickness benefit——
§ 7 pm
§ It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [15 April] and the Resolution [19 May], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
§ Amendment negatived.