§ 11. Dr. Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak)If he will publish summaries of responses to his Department's consultation papers. [68016]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley)Lists of those organisations and academics who responded to our consultation papers, excluding those who requested 16 confidentiality, have been placed in the House Libraries. Copies of their responses are available on request from the Department.
§ Dr. JonesWill my hon. Friend confirm that submissions to Government consultations are all read, that his Department collates them and that an assessment is prepared for Ministers' consideration? If that information is readily available—as one would expect, otherwise Government consultations would be shown to be a sham—and the Government are committed to openness and transparency, what is the problem with publishing it? Will he publish his Department's assessment of responses to Green Papers, including the important welfare reform Green Paper?
§ Mr. BayleyAll the responses are read and considered by the Government; they inform Ministers' decisions. Summaries of the sort that my hon. Friend suggests are not prepared for Ministers. Any summary that the Government published could not give a totally balanced view. It would inevitably be open to the criticism that some important comments had been excluded or that a Government gloss had been put on others. We believe that all the comments should be available. I believe that my hon. Friend has requested copies of 49 of the submissions that have been made. We can make them available to others who request them.
§ Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead)Is the Minister aware of the responses made to his paper proposing changes to disability benefits by representatives of the Disability Benefits Consortium at a meeting in the House before Christmas? The Government's proposals to means-test incapacity benefit were described as a betrayal and one disabled person said that he was incensed that, although the Government were encouraging him to save for a pension—which is often difficult, given that a disabled person may not have the same working pattern as others—he would now find them putting their hands into his pocket and taking some of that money away. Will not the Government's proposals result in some disabled people having their incapacity benefit cut and many failing to qualify for it? If he does not receive summaries of all the responses to his Green Paper, can the Minister be sure that he has taken all the comments into account? If he does not, what kind of consultation is it?
§ Mr. BayleyI have read the consortium's views. I should be a foolish Minister not to do so when forming an opinion on the views that have been submitted. It would not be sufficient simply to look at a summary. One needs to consider the whole document.
The changes to incapacity benefit are an attempt to modernise the system and target resources where they are most needed. The majority of people save for their retirement through a pension. Some 86 per cent. of men in full-time jobs and 77 per cent. of women in full-time jobs do so, as do a far higher proportion of women in part-time jobs than was the case when out-of-work sickness benefits were introduced. It is not sensible to ignore the provision that people have made for themselves. Those who make their own provision will be considerably better off. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) always talks about means testing. He is as wrong now as he has been in the two recent debates.