RESTRICTIONS ON BACKDATING OF BENEFIT (Hansard, 13 May 1998)

§ Mr. Keith Bradley
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I inform the House that this amendment involves privilege.

§ Mr. Bradley
Amendment No. 78 removes from the Bill clause 72, which was to align at one month the time limits for backdating claims for benefits. One of the key priorities set out in the welfare reform Green Paper, which was presented by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform—whom I am pleased to see on the Front Bench tonight—is to ensure that the delivery of social security is flexible, efficient and easy to use. We were not satisfied either that people who are entitled to benefits are given sufficient advice and encouragement to claim them, or that people who should not receive benefits are prevented from doing so. Therefore, as a responsible Government, we decided that, until further progress has been made on issues relating to the claiming of benefit, it would not be sensible to implement the original proposal, and that we would continue our work on the claiming process.
In Committee, I gave a number of examples of benefit claims that could be more successfully worked together, including the registration of birth and child benefit claims, and the registration of death and death benefit claims. We shall continue to work on that, taking account, for example, of the pilot projects that I announced today in a written answer, and examining why some of the poorest pensioners do not always claim the income support to which they are entitled. If necessary, we shall return to the issue. I commend the amendment to the House.

§ Mr. Burns
I do not understand how the Minister kept a straight face while delivering that speech. The Lords amendment gives me the greatest pleasure. The House always likes a sinner who repents, and I am delighted that the Minister has repented.

§ The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field)
Where is the repentance?

§ Mr. Burns
The right hon. Gentleman asks where the repentance is; he will now find out.
Until the changes were made in the House of Lords, as a result of the Budget, this Bill, which we have been considering over the past few months, could have been known as the Peter Lilley memorial Bill—with the exception of one clause, it was more or less a leftover from the Conservative Government. The one clause that the Labour Government inserted was a draconian measure to reduce the amount of time in which individuals could backdate benefit claims.
We discussed the clause at great length in Committee, where the Minister, with an equally straight face, defended to the hilt the Government's proposals to make it more difficult for people to backdate their benefit claims. The period was to be reduced from three months to one month—in the case of housing and council tax benefits, the period was to be reduced from 12 months. When the Minister got into difficulties, he came out with a string of exceptions, to which we listened with great interest. He was emphatic that the Government would pursue their course and impose the draconian measure.
Conservative Members objected to the proposal and fought it tooth and nail, but the Government would not listen. Tonight, the Minister has climbed down and accepted the Opposition's arguments. The £58 million that the Treasury would have saved—£42 million of which would be saved from the budget on pensioners, the disabled, the long-term sick and the most vulnerable in society—has been abandoned.

§ Mr. Field
Do the Conservatives support the amendment?

§ Mr. Burns
The right hon. Gentleman asks whether we support the amendment. Of course we support it—a blind man could see that we do.
In the spirit of generosity, I thank the Minister for having the courage not to be too proud, but to accept that the Government's proposals were wrong and that we were right.

§ Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon)
I welcome the amendment.

§ Mr. Burns
The hon. Gentleman did not welcome it in Committee.

§ Mr. Dismore
I raised the issue in Committee, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I also raised it on Report in the context of the industrial injuries scheme, with particular reference to industrial disablement benefit. I should tell Conservative Members that, on Report, my hon. Friend the Minister said that he was sympathetic to what I was 481 saying and that he would consider imaginatively the points that I raised. I am pleased that we are now taking time to reconsider those issues.

§ Mr. Burns
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Dismore
No, there is not time.
I am glad that the Minister will reconsider backdating, especially in the context of the available information on benefits and of the need to encourage claimants to come forward. Backdating will still be needed in some cases.
Examples of such cases would include diseases with a long incubation period and some progressive industrial diseases that would not allow a clear line to be drawn on where someone would qualify for the benefits: asbestos-related diseases, asthma, repetitive strain injury and many of the industrial cancers. I am grateful for the Lords amendment.

§ Mr. Rendel
The Government will be pleased but not surprised that the Liberal Democrats support the Lords amendment. We, too, are delighted that they have so completely changed course from everything that they said in Committee and on Report. This is the single most important welfare change in the Lords amendments. It is a great pity that the Government did not have the sense to agree to similar amendments that were tabled in Committee.
This year, there have been four attempts to cut benefits: the cut for lone parents was, sadly, not reversed, although some concessions have been made on child benefit; council tax benefits were mostly reversed, and there is absolutely no reason not to reverse the rest; jobseeker's allowance cuts were completely reversed before they were even presented to the House; and now backdating is to be completely reversed.
All those changes are good news, but there are rumours—and, from what the Minister said, they may be true—that there is still a chance that the reversal of the benefit cuts will be reversed in the summer as a result of the overall spending review. That would be very foolish, considering the weight of opposition that has been mounted. I hope that the Government will have the sense not to try the patience not only of the House but of the people of this country, among whom there is a huge majority against the cuts.

§ Mr. Keith Bradley
We are reviewing the whole social security system through the Green Paper on welfare reform. As we introduce our new modern service and ensure that the claiming process is streamlined and made more efficient, we can more effectively consider how backdating rules affect claimants. In that context, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that the matters that he brought to the attention of the House will be examined again. I commend the Lords amendment to the House.