HC Deb 08 March 1994 vol 239 cc155-64

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as appears to him to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of, or in connection with, the transition to the test of incapacity for work provided for by sections 5 and 6 above.

Nothing in the following provisions of this section shall be construed as restricting the generality of that power.

(2) In this section—

(3) Regulations under this section may provide—

  1. (a) that days of incapacity for work before commencement, and such other days as may be prescribed, shall be taken into account for the purposes of section 171B(3) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (period after which the all work test applies);
  2. (b) that a person's continued enjoyment after commencement of any allowance or other advantage under any provision for the purposes of which Part XIIA of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 applies shall, except as may be prescribed, be subject to satisfying the test of incapacity for work under that Part; and
  3. (c) for the determination in accordance with that Part of the question whether the person is incapable of work.

(4) Section 175(2) to (4) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (general provisions as to regulations and orders) apply in relation to the power conferred by subsection (1) above as they apply in relation to a power conferred by that Act to make regulations.

(5) For the period of three years from Royal Assent a statutory instrument which contains (whether alone or with other provisions) any regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.

(6) A statutory instrument—

  1. (a) which contains (whether alone or with other provisions) any regulations made under this section, and
  2. (b) which is not subject to any requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament,

shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Burt.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 15 and 16.

Mr. Burt

This afternoon and this evening we should complete the Commons stage of the Bill, which has been considered in Committee. I think that all parties accepted that it was a good Committee, which was speedily completed. We had good debates, and we have a range of issues to discuss today. In Committee there was a certain amount of give and take on both sides, which I am sure will be reflected in our discussions today.

The new clause and the two amendments grouped with it relate to the regulation-making powers for transitional arrangements. There are a number of complex sectors in the Bill that we propose to deal with in regulations, including the new test of incapacity and the transitional arrangements. As a result of new clause 1, there are now three clauses covering the transitional arrangements arising from the Bill. It may be helpful if I explain why.

Essentially, clause 4 continues to make provision for the main body of regulations concerning the transition from existing sickness and invalidity benefit to the new incapacity benefit. The following provisions introduce the new benefit.

As currently drafted, clause 11 provides general powers to deal with the preparation for or the coming into force of the Bill. The intention was that subsection (2) would deal with the introduction of the new medical test in areas of social security other than incapacity benefit.

However, new clause 1 will now deal with the transition from the existing test of incapacity to the new test of incapacity for all benefits other than incapacity benefit. It is intended that it will follow clauses 5 and 6, which introduce the new test of incapacity for work. Regulations under both clause 4 and the new clause will be affirmative resolutions procedure for three years after Royal Assent.

It is our intention that the powers in the new clause should be capable of being exercised long after the Bill comes into force. The wording in subsection (1) mirrors that of clause 4(1). While, of course, the Government aim to cover every aspect of the transfer to the new test in the first set of regulations, experience has shown that we do not always anticipate every eventuality. We therefore need a power that does not restrict its exercise to the coming into force of the Bill.

Clause 11, as amended by amendments 15 and 16, comes towards the end of the Bill and provides a general power to make transition regulations which will be negative procedure—for example, amending existing regulations on sickness benefit and invalidity benefit.

In Committee, hon. Members expressed concern about the breadth of the powers in the Bill to make regulations. As I have already explained, the purpose of new clause 1 is to restrict the power to make regulations for the transition to the new test of incapacity for work in other benefits, separating this power from the general power to make regulations in clause 11.

Although clause 11 will still contain general powers, amendment 15 prevents its application where regulations should properly have been drafted under the specific powers contained in clause 4 and new clause 1.

New subsection (5) gives effect to the main difference between the powers set out in clause 11(2) and that in new clause 1; it sets out that the regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution for three years from the date of Royal Assent. That provision mirrors my commitment in Committee to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) and brings the power into line with other regulation-making powers which are the subject of later Government amendments.

Transitional arrangements are often complex. We need to ensure that powers are drawn widely enough so that the regulations deal adequately and fairly with the wide variety of individual circumstances. However, the Government recognise the legitimate concern of Parliament that powers should not be too broadly drawn. Therefore, the purpose of new clause 1 is to separate it from the general power in clause 11 and to make its exercise subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

Mr. Keith Bradley (Manchester, Withington)

It is ironic that Government new clause 1 deals with yet more powers to bring in yet more regulations. We have complained bitterly throughout the progress of the Bill —from Second Reading, through Committee Stage and now on Report and Third Reading. It is about time that the Government introduced primary legislation properly amendable by the House, instead of sneaking in new legislation through the back door by regulation.

We are confronted again with the Government's failure properly to consider the matters before us. This afternoon, they are seeking extra powers to introduce regulations, which, it should be stressed, are unamendable.

Mr. Burt

You asked for them.

Mr. Bradley

No, we did not. We asked that the Government introduce the Bill by primary legislation, enabling to us amend it, and for proper and thorough-going debate and proper recognition by the House about its effects. Yet again, they have failed. I believe that the way they are introducing the legislation is an abuse of Parliament.

As I stressed, and as the Minister said, the new clause covers transitional arrangements. He has admitted that transitional arrangements between the current arrangements for invalidity benefit and the new incapacity benefit are particularly complicated.

When we were debating transitional arrangements in Committee, we flagged up potential problems with the transitional arrangements. The Government agreed that they were complicated, but we expected them to give due consideration to the issues we would raise, and table proper amendments on Report so that the House could be clear on how the transitional arrangements would work in practise.

Instead, they are using the device of regulation, because they have not thoroughly thought through the implications, and they hope that, by the time they introduce the regulations, they will have sorted out the problems. But I warn the Minister that we have bitter experience of a recent piece of legislation—as does the Minister; I hate to mention the Child Support Agency so soon—where ill thought out legislation means that the Government must table hurried amendments and changes to regulations. They still do not understand their full implications.

The Minister introduced changes in the arrangements for collection of maintenance by the CSA. It has now been realised that, because of those changes, many mothers will lose on their family credit, because family credit is not reassessed for six months. Under the current arrangements, there will be a delay before their family credit is reassessed. Many mothers could lose up to £50 a week because of the phasing in of the maintenance payments and the reassessment of family credit not flowing from that new arrangement.

The Government have not thought through the implication of the welcome change of phasing in of maintenance, and have not recognised the implications of that elsewhere in the system—for example, on family credit. I hope that the Minister will quickly introduce new changes to the proposals to ensure that family credit is reassessed immediately, so that mothers do not lose and are not further penalised by the phasing in of maintenance.

I see that the Secretary of State is in the Chamber, and I welcome that. I hope that he will carefully consider that point on the CSA. I do not wish to pursue it, because that is not the business before us: I merely use it as an example to show that, if one introduces regulations that are hurriedly conceived and ill thought out, one stores up future difficulties for the Government in the implementation of the legislation.

The new clause is welcome, because the Government have introduced the concession they promised in Committee—that the affirmative resolution will apply for these new regulations. That is clearly to be welcomed, but it seems to be one of the few concessions to have been introduced on Report.

I believe that the way in which the Bill has been handled, and the speed with which it has been brought out of Committee, has not allowed proper scrutiny of our deliberations in Committee or an opportunity for the Opposition fully to appreciate the implications of some of the concessions that were made. The Government's failure to table any amendments until late on Friday afternoon allows only limited time for the Opposition to consider our position and table our own amendments.

In Committee, the Government made a series of concessions, and we shall question the Government on them. There are difficulties because of the nature of the proposed legislation. There is little on the face of the Bill —for example, the medical test, the definition of incapacity, and the whole way in which the medical test in relationship to key groups of people will operate in practice are not there. There are difficulties anyway, but it is equally awkward when the Government are not prepared to table specific amendments to the proposed legislation to set out clearly the intentions in some of the concessions that have been made.

Let me ask the Government a specific question. I hope that they will not suggest the use of alternative regulations, but will consider the matter in the spirit of the regulatory nature of the legislation.

In Committee, when we discussed amendments Nos. 17 and 18 to clause 1, we had an interesting debate about the fast-tracking of people with terminal illnesses or prescribed conditions, and those in receipt of the higher rate of the care component of disability living allowance, to the higher rate of incapacity benefit—without their having to wait a whole year for full payment. In a sense, we are talking about transitional arrangements in those proposals and in the regulations.

On 8 February, in Committee, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said: I will indicate the cost of the two amendments, although in this particular case I shall not argue that the costs are such that they should be a compelling factor in deciding the outcome of this debate … I shall certainly give careful consideration to the points that were made this morning".—[Official Report,Standing Committee E, 8 February 1994; c. 71–3.] Will the Minister give us some idea of how the terminally ill and those with prescribed conditions can be fast-tracked through to the higher rate of incapacity benefit?

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)

My hon. Friend has raised a very important point. I am sure that all hon. Members have come across cases that should have been dealt with by that fast track system but have not, and which have not been resolved before the tragic deaths of the individuals concerned. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Government have done enough research to be sure that they understand the problems? Can we now be certain that those problems will not arise in future?

Mr. Bradley

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a key issue. He has raised it before, as have many more of my hon. Friends in regard to constituency cases: they have felt that the Government have not addressed the issue properly.

In Committee, we were encouraged by the fact that the Government clearly understood the issue. We were led to believe that they would present specific proposals on Report to deal with the problems, and we are disappointed that they have not. They may intend to include such arrangements in the regulations. As I keep saying, without having the regulations before us, we find it difficult to make a judgment about the extent of the Government's commitment.

I hope that the Minister will give particular consideration to this issue, which is causing so much anxiety to my hon. Friends' constituents and others throughout the country. We are dealing with a specific group of people. The Minister was sympathetic in Committee; I hope that, although the Government have failed to table an appropriate amendment at this stage, they will now give us some comfort by recognising the problem that has been raised. I hope that they will not renege on the concession they made in Committee, when we were told that that problem would be specifically addressed.

I do not wish to delay the House. As the new clause and amendments give the Government yet more powers to introduce more amendments later by means of regulations, we shall have to wait for those regulations, and in the best way possible—by means of the parliamentary process—debate them at that stage. Let me stress again that we are greatly disappointed that the Government are to act in this way, and that the new clause and amendments do not contain the substance that we would expect at this stage of our deliberations.

After the Bill completes its passage tonight, the other place may well take up the points that we have made, and may want to ask some serious questions about the way in which the Government choose to introduce measures through the back door by means of regulation rather than through primary legislation. Primary legislation is the traditional method; it is much more sensible and satisfactory, and, I suggest, is of much more benefit to the public, because it allows a clear understanding of the Government's proposals.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

The Bill is important because it has no precedent—I challenge anyone to produce one. There is no precedent in the history of the British social security system for abolishing a long-term contributory benefit. Many benefits have been amended or changed, but this is the first time in the century-long history of the British social security system that a contributory benefit has been abolished.

4 pm

Let us consider the arrogant detail of the new clause that we are being asked to accept. It amounts to a dictator's charter. It states: The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as appears to him to be necessary"— not as appears to Parliament or to the nation but as appears to him to be necessary— or expedient for the purposes of, or in connection with, the transition to the test of incapacity for work provided for by sections 5 and 6 above. The new clause would give the Secretary of State and future Secretaries of State absolute powers. It continues: Nothing in the … provisions of this section shall be construed as restricting the generality of that power. There can be few examples in legislation of a Government seeking total power in such a way.

The Government have presented the new clause as a concession. The fact that the affirmative resolution procedure is to be used is something of a concession, but we are greatly worried and, about a fortnight ago, I took up with the Leader of the House in an oral question the way in which an unelected state is developing. The Government are elected once every five years and this Government happened to persuade the majority of people in England —only in England—that they are popular on a specific day, but then things changed.

There was a test of public opinion in Wales at the weekend. The Conservative party is for a little while the second party in Wales while the Labour party has 60 per cent. of the support. That is an extraordinary position. The rest of the support is scattered among the other four main parties. A similar situation exists in Scotland where the Government are at their lowest ebb but still have the barefaced cheek to introduce legislation that damages all the people, including those in Scotland and Wales who have not elected them.

Dyw hi ddim yn bosib i mi siarad fy iaith fy hun yn y senedd dyna un o'r problemau sydd gennyf yn y Tg—

Madam Speaker

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will enlighten me and let me know what that means.

Mr. Flynn

I was pointing out, Madam Speaker, that it is not possible for me to speak in both the languages of Wales in this House in spite of the fact that this is the only Parliament that Wales has at the moment. We have just celebrated St. David's day, but the debate on Welsh affairs was held on St. Winwaloe's day—we could not have even that small concession.

As a Welsh Member of Parliament, I can say that anger about the elective dictatorship that is running Wales is growing by the day. There was a magnificent rally at the weekend in which the people of Wales—people of many parties—spoke with one voice to demand our own Parliament. The reason why they did so is specifically Bills such as this. We have a Government we did not elect but who rule us by quango. We have a Secretary of State who is an alien in Welsh society.

The only justification for the clause and for the Bill that the Government have offered is that some people are receiving invalidity benefit although they are not genuinely incapable of work. We know the reasons for that belief and for the present situation. Just before the general election in 1987, all of us noticed that there was a sudden relaxation of the rules that are generally applied to the availability of invalidity benefit. It appeared that larger numbers of people were receiving it.

That was for reasons not unconnected with the general election, which was fast approaching. There was desperation among Conservatives that they would be rejected because of the enormous unemployment and it was far better for them to turn a blind eye to the growing numbers of people on invalidity benefit than have them classified as unemployed. The unemployment figures were already mushrooming out of control, so that there were 30 fiddles of the unemployment statistics and almost as many of the employment statistics.

One of the main industries in my constituency produces Government figures in the Central Statistical Office. The work of those people is important. Their only function in life is to produce statistics that are objective and are of value and they feel great resentment when they see the results of their professional work being prostituted by the Government and presented in a wholly dishonest way. The figures are presented in such a way that they are not meant to provide information on which the Government and others can make decisions but which can only serve the interests of the majority party.

Even with all the groups that are taken off the unemployment register to keep down those figures, we still have the nonsense of the employment figures. People are counted several times. If someone is working as a part-time cleaner in the House—the number is about to be reduced from 89 to 56—has another job in the afternoon, such as the many who work at St. Thomas's, and has a job at the weekend, that person is counted three times. She is three people according to the employment figures. We know that 750,000 people are counted twice in the employment figures. The position is entirely misleading and wildly inaccurate.

Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, by the same token, there are a number of people who are working but who are still on the unemployment register?

Mr. Flynn

I am sure that that occurs. Of course there is abuse in any system, but the Government have had 15 years in which to put the system right. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that that figure is as high as 750,000, he is entirely wrong. There is a black economy, which is fuelled at the moment by the Government's stupidity—

Madam Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt. The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) led the hon. Gentleman down the wrong path with his question. I am sure that we can return to the Government new clause.

Mr. Flynn

I am sorry that I was diverted by the blandishments of the hon. Gentleman—and not for the first time. I shall not stray again.

The other reason for the increase in the potential number of people on incapacity benefit was the large number of people who were at retirement and who decided to continue on invalidity benefit, rather than claim the state pension, because of the advantage that it was not taxable. The Government have turned their back on that for a long time.

It is hard to understand how that situation justifies a Bill in which the Government are trying to take away the entitlement to benefit from people who are incapable of work. The Bill does that in a number of ways. It extends from six to 12 months the period for which short-term benefit is paid, resulting in a massive loss of income during the second six months. It abolishes the earnings-related additional benefit for which people paid contributions between 1978 and 1991, and it introduces new tests of incapacity which will deny benefit to people who, in some cases, have rightly been treated as incapable of work for many years.

The new clause shows us what is happening in the Government's mind—if "mind" is not too large and all-embracing a word for the irrational ideological trash that comes from them. The Government are a group of ideologues introducing a series of what could be regarded as Treasury support measures—measures that have nothing whatever to do with social security.

The Child Support Agency has rightly been dubbed the Treasury support agency. It is ill thought out and has caused enormous damage. People have even lost their lives, as suicides have been attributed to the nonsense and excesses of the legislation. In a parliamentary answer I was told that 90 per cent. of the money that the agency will receive is likely to end up in the Treasury, not with custodial parents.

I do not wish to detain the House too long on the new clause, but it is indicative of the spirit of the whole Bill, and of a Government who wish to get out of a financial hole that they have dug for themselves, and who are doing so at the expense of the weakest in society.

Mr. Pike

I shall make a few brief comments, one of which arises from my earlier intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) rightly referred to the problem of fast tracking. We have reached Report, yet we are still not really sure whether the Government will deliver because, as so often happens, we are debating a Bill that does not include the regulations that will go with it.

We are being asked to take in good faith something that was said in Committee, so I hope that the Minister will be able to say positively that the Government recognise that there is still a problem regarding fast tracking and still the need to expedite the resolution of any benefit entitlement that people who are terminally ill may have. I hope that the Minister will spell out clearly the fact that although there is no solution in the provisions before us today, one will be included in the regulations.

With regard to the new clause, the tests and the transitional arrangements, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said, and as we all know, the principal objective of the Bill is to save money and to reduce the number of people eligible for invalidity benefit. Even the Government have not tried to hide that fact. We all know that decisions on invalidity benefit involve deciding whether people are capable of performing their own work and if not, whether they are incapable of all work or only of certain types of work. That causes tremendous difficulty for people who have specific jobs in which they may have worked for a long time, but who have become incapable of performing that work.

A skilled engineer came to my advice bureau on Saturday. His hand had been seriously injured at work and he was no longer able to perform the work of a skilled engineer, so he has been on invalidity benefit. First, he had been found to be capable of work, although incapable of working in his own job, but then his case went for review and he has now been told that he is capable of any work. We think that the provisions for the new tests will involve that type of move regarding present entitlement to invalidity benefit.

The Minister was trying to make it look as though the Government would protect people by saying that if there were any mistakes that could not be dealt with, the transitional arrangements would mean that they could be altered within three years by regulation and statutory instrument, as specified in the new clause. The Minister made it sound as though the Government would try to do that in the interests of the public at large, but my hon. Friend the Member for Withington was nearer the mark.

He fears, as I do, that the transitional arrangements are the Government's attempt not to improve the situation but to tie it up because they may not have yet cut out everything that they want to cut out. Therefore, they are giving themselves draconian powers within the transitional arrangements further to turn the screws during the next three years with minimal debate, thereby saving more money for the Treasury and disqualifying more people.

Mr. Burt

indicated dissent.

Mr. Pike

I see that the Under-Secretary is shaking his head. I hope that he will also say that my comments are totally unjustified. If that is what he says, I hope that when he comes to an election in two or three years' time, he is able to stand up and say that I was wrong and he was right. I fear that I will be right, and my hon. Friend the Member for Withington and I will be able to tell the Government that we were right to fear what they were doing. The Government have tightened the screws and screwed more people out of their ability to get this new benefit.

4.15 pm
Mr. Burt

The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) opened with a breathtaking argument. We freely gave a concession in Committee by changing the regulations from negative to affirmative—a change that he welcomed at the time—but he then returned to his attack on the regulations altogether. I simply want him to know that I found it breathtaking.

Mr. Bradley

Can I clarify the position? We welcomed the concession that they should be affirmative, not negative, regulations. We certainly did not welcome the fact that the Government are introducing even more regulations that need affirmative resolution.

Mr. Burt

That was an argument that we had consistently throughout the Committee, and I should reiterate the point that I made then. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) was right in the first part of his remarks, which he directed at the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), that we are putting the regulations through to give us the flexibility that we need to deal with such a complex matter, recognising that we might not include everything for the sake of people covered by the first set of regulations. We are giving ourselves that room and flexibility.

There has been an argument about whether we overuse that power. We do not believe that we overuse it—that is the reason why we are doing it this way. The hon. Member for Burnley was right to ask what I would be saying in three years' time. At that time, I firmly believed that I should be able to reiterate the assurance that I am giving today. I hope that the fears of the hon. Member for Withington about the regulations will be satisfied by that time.

We spent a total of 34 hours in Committee, with 13 sittings. We had some good scrutiny there. We do not believe that we have sought additional power. As I said, the arrangements are to give effect to the agreement to make the regulations affirmative for three years. Transitional arrangements are usually dealt with in regulations for the ease of the House and to give us flexibility.

The hon. Member for Newport, West made an interesting contribution. He raised a number of matters relating to Second Reading and Third Reading but touched marginally on the amendment before us now. As always, I enjoyed his contribution. I am only sorry that I did not understand all the Welsh—I wish that I had.

The hon. Members for Withington and for Burnley both made a substantial point about linking rules and treatment of the terminally ill. In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister gave a commitment to consider a number of specific issues such as those. He warned the Committee that some of the issues were complex and would take time to explore. Hon. Members may be disappointed but that consideration is not yet complete. I can, however, reiterate my right hon. Friend's commitment to continue to give

Mr. Bradley

May I clarify the range of the Government's thinking on this point? In Committee, we talked about the terminally ill, people with prescribed conditions and people on the higher rate of component for DLA. Can the Minister give an assurance that each of those areas is being addressed and not only the terminally ill, although clearly they are crucial within that grouping?

Mr. Burt

Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I also remind the House that, should amendments to the Bill be required, there will be a suitable opportunity to move them during the debate in another place. This House would then have the opportunity to examine the issues again at consideration.

I hope that I have been helpful in answer to the short debate on the new clause, which I hope will now be able to form part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Forward to