Orders of the Day — Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill

House of Commons, 9 November 1999.

New Clause

Jeff Rooker (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that the House's financial privileges are involved in all four Lords amendments for consideration today, which is to say Lords amendments Nos. 20B, 42D, 43E and 43F. If the House were to agree to any of those Lords amendments, I would ensure that the appropriate entry was made in the Journal.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last week, the Minister of State mentioned the Parliament Act 1911 and said: That legislation can be used to push a Bill through the House on a fast-track basis only if the Bill takes the same form as it took when it was introduced …The reality, as the Clerks will confirm, is that the Parliament Act cannot be used to push through the amended Bill."—[Official Report, 3 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 332.] I have discussed that with the Clerk at the Table and the Clerk of the House. It will not surprise hon. Members to learn that it is a complicated matter. However, it appears that the Bill could pass amended if the Lords amendments were agreed. Could you clarify that?

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

I have listened with interest to the argument put to me. Madam Speaker is charged under the Parliament Acts with the duty of giving certificates on whether the procedures of the Acts may be applied to particular Bills. I do not wish to anticipate any future decisions that she may have to take in that regard. In the meantime, Members might like to consult pages 569 and 570 of "Erskine May".

Jeff Rooker (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

I will keep my remarks brief because there is a guillotine on all four amendments. Lords amendment No. 20B refers to our debate last week on war widows. The amendment that the Lords have placed before us today, as they are fully entitled to do, is a modified version of the amendment that the House voted to overturn last week to allow forces widows whose husbands' death was due to service to keep occupational pensions for life. The new amendment restricts the change further by excluding those widows in receipt of a category A state retirement pension—in other words those with a retirement pension in their own right, who by definition would probably have been working for at least 10 years to receive that pension. 6 pm In a week like this week, we obviously recognise that we have to look after the widows of those who died as a result of service, but I repeat what I said last week. The matter is under inquiry and review by the Ministry of Defence and it is not appropriate to place the amendment in the Bill. I do not defend the argument on cost grounds, although I gave the House a series of costs last week that could escalate as a knock-on effect of the amendment. Last week, in answer to a specific question from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) at column 389 of Hansard, I said that the amendment would cost the MOD less than £15 million annually. I say to my hon. Friend, whom I see in his place, that the cost of the amendment would actually be a good deal less than that. One has to be careful about the kind of cohort with which one is dealing. I give a rough figure, but we cannot be held to it. If future and current widows affected by the amendment were taken into account, the cost would be about £3 million. That would not include those who have already remarried. I must, however, be very precise about the general figures at issue. I quoted other knock-on figures last week for the public sector which I will not repeat tonight because they are on the record and they stand. However, I wanted to put that extra figure from the MOD on the record so that we could see the amount in relation to the group of widows in question. That is important. Hon. Members are fully entitled to make representations to the MOD. I confirm to the House that I have kept the commitment that I gave to the House last week. I have made the most urgent and vigorous representations to my right hon. Friend as a result of the debate. I did more than send him a copy of Hansard. I wrote to him and even added my own postscript to the letter. I registered the mood from both sides of the House. With respect, I think that the other place also did that because the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman there said that the figures had been placed on the record and the Government could be held accountable to them. Indeed, those on the Opposition Front Bench did not vote on the matter and in the subsequent Division the majority was somewhat less than before. I hope that the House does not wish to divide on the amendment tonight and that it will accept my motion. The matter is being given serious consideration. The MOD will publish the review by next summer and it will be available for full public consultation. I accept that I cannot answer on the reasons for the delay, but since my speech last week it has been reaffirmed in the other place by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, on the say-so of my noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement, that the report will be published by next summer. There will then be full public consultation. We are not dismissing the issue without fair consideration. We do not dismiss the amendment on cost grounds alone. Who would dismiss it on a perfunctory £3 million, which is all that is involved for this narrow cohort? There are, however, other considerations to take into account. It is right that we should do that and not accept the amendment. Both Houses of Parliament will have an opportunity within a relatively short period following a consultation to come to a conclusion, so I hope that the House will accept the motion that I have put before it tonight.

Michael Trend (Conservative, Windsor)

I want to speak, albeit briefly, in support of the Lords amendment, which is a great modification on the original. It tightens still further the ring fence around the group of war widows represented so well by the War Widows Association of Great Britain. Let us be clear that we are talking about post-1973 widows of service men who die or are killed in the line of duty while still serving. Moreover, we are talking only about those who might decide to remarry. The new Lords amendment further defines the group by excluding all widows in receipt of the basic state pension—those over 60 years of age. The service community as a whole and, I think, the general public, recognise that war widows are a special case. War widows just over 60 are now prepared to take themselves out of the group in order to focus attention where it is most desperately needed—on the younger widows, especially those with children who, by definition, do not have fathers. I think it is fair to say that when we debated the matter less than a week ago, the Minister was not as well briefed as he would have liked to have been. He promised that he would hotfoot it to the MOD and make urgent representations, and I am glad to know that he has. That is what I would have expected of him. I am sure that he, too, will have reached the view that we are dealing with a special case. We are probably talking about only hundreds of widows out of the maximum 2, 500 that we discussed before.

Tom Clarke (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Like most of my hon. Friends, I followed the discussion yesterday in another place with great interest. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the spokeswoman for his party accepted the assurances given by the Minister and said that she would not push the matter and would not ask this House to discuss it. What has changed since yesterday in the minds of the Conservative Front-Bench team in this place?

Michael Trend (Conservative, Windsor)

I do not accept that there has been a change of mind between the two teams. This is the first time that the House of Commons has had a chance to debate and take a view on the new amendment. It clarifies in an important way the most important feature, which is the ring fence. If the ring fence is solid and in place and if the Government are determined to keep to it, it is sufficient. We all agree that our service men and women are unique among people in the public service. They cannot join a trades union; they do not get paid overtime; they are excluded from the maximum working hours legislation. They are on duty round the clock. They have long-term contracts of a sort that do not exist elsewhere in the public service. They are posted throughout the world with great disruption to their family life, whether they are in front-line positions overseas or in barracks, preparing for combat. They are the only group of people who are sent on service knowing full well that they should not assume that they will return alive. We cannot, however, take them for granted. As the Minister knows, there is a real problem with the recruitment and retention of service men and women. In the past few days the Minister will also have been warned of the supposed knock-on effect of the amendment. As I have told the House before, that effect simply need not occur if the Government find the will to ring-fence the war widows. If, even at this stage, further tightening amendments can be found which will help to achieve that ring fencing, the Government will have our full support in speeding them through Parliament. The Minister has referred to the supposed costs. None of us can be sure about the cost because we do not know how many widows will choose to remarry. All those widows who remarry will save the Exchequer roughly £4, 500 by relinquishing their DSS pension. That will be a net gain, and should be recognised as such in the overall calculations. I hope that the Minister will hotfoot it again to the Treasury to show how minuscule the figures are. I am disappointed that the Minister's journey round the Departments has hardened his heart. On the Conservative Benches there are many who dealt with the matter when we were in government. They have to this day a deep regret that they did not overcome departmental obstinacy on this most deserving group of people. The Minister must not hide behind departmental reviews. There have been many in the past and they have all agreed that the war widows should retain their armed forces pension if they remarry. I can tell that the Minister has reached that view privately. I profoundly hope that he will not find himself one day regretting that he left it too late to do anything about it. I intend to divide the House on the matter to show our strength of feeling and that the campaign will continue.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

I shall vote with the Government on this amendment. I understand perfectly the difficulties and complexities of the figures. I do not blame my hon. Friend the Minister of State in any way; indeed, I thank him for making inquiries. However, the point about the Ministry of Defence waiting until next summer is nonsense. If the MOD can make up its mind so quickly—as was done at Rambouillet in a matter of hours—to bomb the hell out of Serbia—

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

Keep to the subject.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

This is very much the subject. If the same expedition were to be shown in this matter as in some others, it could be dealt with far more quickly than next summer. It could be dealt with by Christmas.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Like the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), I detect a scintilla of inconsistency in the position of Conservative spokesmen. The last time that we discussed this matter in this place, the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) was proud to announce his conversion, but it did not seem to have been communicated to his colleagues in another place. However, a double conversion is all the more welcome and I am grateful for it. At least the Liberal Democrats have been wholly consistent. I shall not detain the House by repeating arguments that were adequately made on a previous occasion. As some Members have pointed out, the amendment has been slightly tightened since our previous discussions of the matter. It modernises the position and, most important, it is right. It would save money for the Exchequer, although we cannot prove it through financial forecasts. It does not set a precedent, but I have no intention of reciting a limerick to prove it, as did my noble Friend the Earl Russell in another place. The people who serve in our armed services and are killed in that capacity are a very special group. The measure will have the additional benefit of improving recruitment and retention. That too is important for the MOD. Other hon. Members have pointed out that this week is an especially poignant one in which to discuss this subject—as we wear poppies in our lapels, two days away from the 11 th day of the 11 th month. I hope that we shall send the particular message to service men and women and their families that not only do we remember those who have fought, but we realise the sacrifices that the forces make every day. I respect the Minister of State, who has approached the subject with his customary courtesy and integrity. I am grateful to him for his observations, although I am slightly saddened by the fact that no Minister from the MOD was able to spare two minutes to attend the debate—unlike what happened when the matter was debated in the other place. I hope that the House will show its firm intention and that the point will be made this evening.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

On the last occasion we discussed this matter—albeit under a slightly different measure—I voted with the Opposition. The arguments made by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats at that time and tonight are correct, but, as the Opposition spokesmen in the Lords have accepted the assurances of my hon. Friend the Minister of State that it is unreasonable to press the matter to a vote, I cannot join the Opposition in the Division Lobby tonight. I raise two issues with my hon. Friend. First, he states that the measures can be dealt with properly and fully in a review. He has given sufficient commitment to show that he has considered the arguments made in this place and that he considers that the matter is serious and that it should be dealt with in the review. However, if there is a manifest defect, it could be put right by the measure before us. It would thus be open to the Government to accept the proposal, which is a compromise compared to the measure that we debated previously. Secondly, my hon. Friend argued that his case was not made solely on ground of cost. However, the reason that the Commons gave to the Lords for not accepting the Lords measure was based purely on cost. Although some unfortunate inconsistencies remain, I shall not, however, join Opposition Members in the Division Lobby.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I note that this evening, like last week, the Minister cannot begin to defend the way in which he invites his colleagues to vote on the ground that it is right. We have the promise of a review by next summer. However, for the Ministry of Defence, "by next summer" is a somewhat flexible concept. I should be much happier if we had a date, rather than a season, for the review. We should not overturn the Lords amendment on the grounds that the findings of a review will be published at some time in the future, and that there will then be a lengthy consultation period. Even if the war widows measure were included in that review, and it would be appalling and a scandal if it were not, widows and their children would have to wait all that time before they could make sense of their future status—to remarry, to have fathers for their children. We should not ask war widows to wait any longer. In this week of all weeks, when we are about to attend remembrance parades, it is wholly wrong to expect them to continue the sacrifice that their husbands have already made. In another place, the Baroness Strange stated that the matter was honourable and right. It is honourable and right for us to support the Lords amendment.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I am more than happy to support the Government, although I share the reservations voiced by my hon. and old Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) about the length of the review process. Tonight, we have rightly paid tribute to our service men and women—to their bravery, stoicism, fortitude, gallantry and loyalty. The Minister may criticise me for my sloppy research, but will the position of the widows of Gurkha soldiers be included in the review? All the tributes that have been paid to our service men and women must also embrace the bravery and courage of that remarkable band of men, who are currently showing us what fine, brave soldiers they are. Will the position of their widows be part of the review?

Jeff Rooker (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

I do not have a direct answer for my hon. Friend, as I speak on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence. However, "I sincerely hope so" is the answer that I give my hon. Friend. The MOD will conduct a full review. It is one of four Departments currently reviewing their pension schemes. I understand the points made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), and recognise the expertise with which he speaks, as he was formerly a special adviser to the Ministry of Defence. The matter is a sensitive one. Members of the other place accepted that the review was genuine and that the date was a season—the summer. That is the best date which I could obtain from my colleagues at the MOD; there will be time to put pressure on them to be more specific. However, there will be a full consultation. This issue will not go away. I have been as open as I possibly can with the House about the figures. It is not a monetary issue. I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) that, if the House overturns the amendment and sends back a message to the Lords, the message will be couched in the language of public finances, because that is the prerogative of this House. However, those are not the reasons that I use to advance my argument for resisting the amendment, although the nature of the exchange of messages between the two Houses is such that such language must be used. I would not want hon. Members to think that, because the message will refer to public finances, the Government rest our case on public finances—we do not.

INCAPACITY BENEFIT: RESTRICTION TO RECENT CONTRIBUTORS

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I beg to move, That this House insists on its amendment No. 42A to the words restored to the Bill and disagrees with the Lords in their amendment No. 42D in lieu.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 43E and motion to disagree, and 43F and motion to disagree.

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

There are two issues before us tonight in what will be, of necessity, a fairly short debate. The first is the Lords amendments on incapacity benefit, and the second is the issue of the whole Bill. First, in relation to incapacity benefit amendments passed by the Lords, we discussed almost the same amendments at great length last week—after a lengthy debate previously, both in Committee upstairs and on the Floor of the House. I said at the end of Commons Report last May that I would listen to detailed amendments. I did do so, and last week, in response to what had been said in the Lords, I made two substantial changes to the original proposals on the pension threshold and the contribution conditions, which were accepted by the House. I made it clear then, I made it clear outside the House at the weekend and I make it clear tonight that the Government do not propose any more changes; there are no more changes to come. The House of Lords has a clear duty to revise legislation proposed by the Government and passed by this House, but the time has come for the Lords to accept that the will of the elected Chamber must take precedence. I accept that, both in the other place and in this place, there are many hon. Members who are entitled to put a counter-view—to advance their arguments—and they have done so with vigour. However, the time does come when the House needs to take a considered view on the whole Bill, because that is what we are now talking about, and I hope that it will now do so. I notice that in the other place Government support was up, and many people who previously could not support the Government felt able to do so. I hope that hon. Members will take account of that and can now support the Government. The Lords amendments would have a significant financial effect. That means that there is an issue of privilege. There is a convention that the role of the Lords in financial matters is to agree, not initiate or amend. I trust that the House will note that. The Bill will help millions of people who will be denied help unless it passes into law. I take this opportunity to set out clearly what we are doing for disabled people because it bears repetition. We are investing more in helping disabled children by increasing benefits. There will be an extra £37 a week for severely disabled three and four-year-olds, and there will be up to £26 more for people disabled at birth or from an early age. Both those measures are in the Bill, and neither would be here but for this Government. There is a new disability income guarantee—up to £5 more a week for single disabled people and £8 for couples. There will be £140 million to help carers with desperately needed respite care. In addition, £195 million will be invested in the new deal for disabled people. The disabled person's tax credit will be worth at least £155 a week for a single person. We are spending more to extend the linking rules, for people on incapacity benefit, from eight weeks to a year so that they can try out work without losing benefit entitlement. In the longer term, we are spending £7 billion more to give new pension rights to carers and disabled people with broken work records—help that was never ever there in the past and would never ever be there under a Tory Government. My hon. Friends must remember that when they consider who wants to try to support some of them tonight. We have driven forward the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and we have established the Disability Rights Commission—something that the Tories blocked when they were in government. All those measures are a mark of a Government committed to fairness and opportunity for disabled people. As I said last week, in the two short years that we have been in government we have done more to help disabled people than the Conservatives did in 18 years, and people need to remember that when they vote against us tonight. We have more to do, but we have made a start. I am also told—we got a flavour of this earlier from the Conservatives—that it will not matter if the Bill falls and they get their way. This Bill will benefit millions of people. It increases opportunity: it provides the opportunity of stakeholder pensions for 5 million people who, at the moment, are denied the opportunity to save for their retirement; it sets up the new ONE service, bringing together the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency—something that is long overdue—giving every claimant the opportunity to make the most of their potential with the help of a personal adviser; and it replaces the all-work test with a personal capability assessment, which focuses on what a person can do, not only on what he cannot. The Bill promotes fairness. For the first time, it extends bereavement allowances to fathers who lose their wife and are left to bring up children on their own—something that the Conservative party never did anything about. It doubles the lump sum—up to £2,000—received by people who lose their husband or wife. It enables pension sharing on divorce, helping about 50,000 people, mostly women, every year—something that the Conservative party never did.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Will the Secretary of State now address the amendment and the arguments advanced in the other place?

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I am addressing the amendment, as well as viewing the Bill as a whole. I am making it particularly clear to the House that what is at stake is significant extra help for disabled people—significant extra help for millions of people, which the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues blocked for year after year after year. We have a record to be proud of, not only in the help that we are giving disabled people but in the help that we are giving on pensions, the extra bereavement help, and pension sharing on divorce—all essential welfare reform, which people have wanted for years. The Bill delivers it. I make that point because a colleague of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) talked glibly about it being all right if the Bill was lost, saying that it would not really matter. Millions of people stand to gain from the Bill, including those in the greatest need. I repeat, because the point bears repetition, that we are giving £26 a week more to people who at the moment, get so little that they are on income support for the rest of their life—something that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and his colleagues did nothing about in the 18 years in which they had the opportunity to do so. The Bill also gives more money to expectant mothers who until now have been denied maternity benefits. The Conservative view may be that that does not matter, but it matters to the 14,000 people who will benefit. All those measures will fall by the wayside if the Bill is delayed or blocked. I always expected Tory opposition to these measures. The Tories are settling well into opposition—they are clearly preparing for years of it. Their opportunism sometimes beggars belief. I find it difficult to take seriously a party that claims to be concerned about disabled people's rights when it blocked the disability rights Bills in the previous Parliament. The Conservative party is committed to ending the new deal for disabled people; it is committed to ending the working families tax credit, which will mean an effective tax rise of £24 a week for some of the poorest people; and it is opposed to all the increased spending on those who need it. Conservative Members oppose our pension reform because they want to privatise the lot. The party is determined, as we heard again this afternoon, to slash social security spending, yet at the same time it backed amendments in another place that would cost £4 billion. The Tory Opposition are opportunist; they are opposing the Bill not because they are concerned about disabled people, but because they see a chance of opposition for its own sake.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

Would the right hon. Gentleman say that Baroness Kennedy was an opportunist Conservative? After all, she said: What is happening to our values? Are we forgetting who we are? What does 'social justice' really mean?"—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 8 November 1999; Vol. 606, c. 1196.]

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No, but I note that Baroness Kennedy abstained after having said that. I accept, as I said earlier that some of my colleagues have expressed reservations, as they are entitled to do. I have said before, and I say again—we have listened and we have moved. I believe that these reforms are fully justified: they do far more to help the severely disabled than has been done in the past, they bring the benefit system up to date and they take account of the fact that things have moved on in the past 50 years. The Bill provides extra help for pensions, and pension sharing on divorce and bereavement benefits; it provides more help for people to get into work and more help for the severely disabled. The Bill needs to be supported. The improvements that we are making to the benefits system will help those who need it most. We want to help disabled people and to end child poverty in a generation. We want to improve conditions for disabled children facing poverty, to get their parents into work and to give everybody a real chance to get on.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I have allowed the Secretary of State to go on a little, but I remind him that there is very little time and that the amendment is specifically about incapacity benefit.

Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I fully accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, although I appreciate everything that you say, 1 am entitled to take account of what I anticipate will be said about the Bill. The amendments on incapacity benefit that we introduced last week are, I believe, fully justified. They showed that the Government have listened and made changes. There are no more changes to come. The Bill as a whole is a major step forward; it provides far greater opportunity and fairness than ever before. On that basis, I ask the House to support us in getting the Bill on to the statute book.

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

There is no point in the Secretary of State getting quite so het up, and certainly not at such length. I will try to speak briefly so that the many right hon. and hon. Members who have already participated in the debate can, I hope, speak again. This debate is not about a Third Reading of a Bill; it is about a very specific set of amendments on which the House has not previously had an opportunity to vote. Some Labour Members may not have felt able to vote on the previous amendment to remove the means test entirely, but may believe that this amendment provides an opportunity to consider a compromise. Lord Ashley proposes having a means test that starts at a rather high level that rests on the Government's arguments about the minimum levels of income on which disabled people are expected to live. 6. 45 pm The Secretary of State referred to the Government's increased support in the House of Lords. Before we get carried away, I remind him that the Contents—that is, those who voted for the amendment and therefore opposed the Government—were 260, and the Not Contents were 127. That hardly counts as a massive surge of support for the Government. Of course, the vote would have been lost on a vote of life peers alone—it had nothing to do with hereditary peers. The fact is that the Bill is a muddle. While it professes to encourage people to save, this provision will penalise people for saving. While it claims to reinforce the contributory principle, this provision attacks the contributory principle. I am afraid that although the Secretary of State may well be proud of parts of the Bill, I very much doubt that he is proud of the measure that he is trying to push through the House tonight. There is no argument for penalising disabled people simply because they have had the prudence to take out an occupational pension. There is no reason why they should face a marginal tax and benefit withdrawal rate of 73 per cent. There is no argument for the weakening of the national insurance contributory principle, which is contained in these proposals. The only reason the House is still wrestling with the amendment at this late stage is because of the Secretary of State's catalogue of misjudgments. There was no reason for us to have got into these arguments; it was perfectly obvious from the beginning that compromise was necessary on this issue. The Secretary of State was more preoccupied with his macho image than with good social security policy. That is why we shall be opposing the motion.

Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)

My right hon. Friend said in moving the motion that there were two issues before the House—the amendment and the Bill. There is also a third issue—the relationship of the House of Commons to the House of Lords. After three considerations of the Bill, anybody who votes against the Government tonight is voting for the House to Lords to prevail over the House of Commons. That is what this is about. The Bill has come back to the House of Commons twice, and all hon. Members have had the right to vote on it. But this is the end of a parliamentary Session, and we had better be clear that the Labour party believes that the House of Commons shall have primacy over the House of Lords. Anybody who votes to scupper this measure will be voting for the House of Lords to prevail over the House of Commons. I go further: anybody who votes for this amendment will be voting on the same side as two dukes, 28 earls, 22 viscounts and Andrew Lloyd-Webber. Not only will they be voting for the last hurrah of the hereditaries, but they are asserting, if the House of Lords is allowed to have primacy over the House of Commons, that a reformed House of Lords, which is sure to be more democratic than the current one, will have an even greater claim to primacy over the House of Commons.

Audrey Wise (Labour, Preston)

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that it is possible that we will vote on the merits of the case?

Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)

My hon. Friend may do that, but she has been elected to reform the House of Lords—[Interruption.] Oh yes, the wording of the motion is that this House insists. Anybody voting against the Government on this motion will be voting for the supremacy of the House of Lords. A reformed House of Lords will say that if the House of Commons was ready to cave in to the hereditaries, we, who are much more democratic, can have our way. My hon. Friend, who has an honourable and consistent record of voting against Labour Governments throughout her years in the House of Commons, should accept that an elected Government should have their way over the Lords. Vote for democracy.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

If I followed the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) correctly, he said that if the House voted in favour of the Ashley amendment—the less severe means test—we would, although that would be the will of the House, be being subservient to the House of Lords. We would not; we would be expressing the will of the House of Commons. The two key issues before us are the threshold and the rate at which the means test tapers in. The Secretary of State has given no concession whatever on the taper. It was 50 per cent. on the day that he drafted the Bill, and it is 50 per cent. now. This is our first chance to vote in favour of a 23 per cent. taper.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

There are only eight minutes left for other speeches so I shall not. The second issue is the threshold. The amendment ties the threshold to the disability income guarantee, which has the huge advantage that it is indexed every year. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State were evasive last week on indexation. The sum of £85 has been specified in the Bill, but it could quickly be eroded. Linking the sum to the disability income guarantee would ensure indexation, providing safety for the future. That is why the Liberal Democrats will oppose the Government.

Roger Berry (Labour, Kingswood)

I support the Lords amendment tabled by Lord Ashley, principally because the Government's proposals would leave 310,000 disabled people who are unable to work without incapacity benefit or with reduced benefit. The vast majority of those people are already on low incomes. They do not slip on to incapacity benefit. They are judged unfit for work following a medical test set out by the Government of the day. Like many others, I have long argued for a compromise that would protect disabled people who are unable to work and on the lowest incomes. A threshold fixed at the disability income guarantee of £128 would be fairer. A taper not of 50 per cent. but at the rate of the standard rate of income tax—23 per cent.—would be fairer. Finally, I am not opposed to welfare reform. I am a strong supporter of it, and have been for a long time. I can even offer documentary evidence to prove that. Let me end with the words of Baroness Kennedy, who said yesterday in the other place: I believe in welfare reform, but I also believe in welfare. "—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 November 1999; Vol. 606, c. 1196.]

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Secretary of State urged us to take a counter-view where appropriate. The Opposition have struck a chord with the country at large, which is why I support the Ashley amendment. A Joseph Rowntree Foundation study highlights determined accusations that the Secretary of State and the Government in general are guilty of age discrimination, particularly for people aged between 45 and the early 60s. Those people will be incrementally damaged by the Secretary of State's disagreement with the Lords amendment. They have poorer prospects than others, and their prospects of finding alternative employment reduce as their ages rise. The Secretary of State has specifically targeted that category of people, and I must disagree with him. I shall vote for the Lords amendment.

Tony McWalter (Labour/Co-operative, Hemel Hempstead)

What is this debate all about? Incapacity benefit, people tell me. But incapacity benefit is basically ensconced in a Bill that tries to provide work for those who can and help for those who cannot. I have not found a single Member on the Labour Benches, and none too many on the Opposition Benches either, who disagrees with that principle. The initial problem with the Bill was that a group of people fell into the middle—it was not clear whether they could work or needed our help. Trying to determine into which category people fall has been difficult. I did not support the Bill the last time it came before us because I did not believe that the Secretary of State and his Ministers had properly worked through that difficulty. However, over six months, case after case in the middle band has been produced—some people have rheumatoid arthritis, or myalgic encephalomyelitis. The Bill has been adjusted to meet many difficult conditions. One difficult case remains—that of people who have taken early retirement and who have an occupational pension. Each of us has constituents in that category. For example, a teacher, after years of teaching, may be unable to bear going into a classroom to face the kids; or an air traffic controller may see a screen no longer filled with different planes, but with a jumble. Those people may retire from their jobs. The Conservatives reacted to such people by saying that if they could do their own jobs, they could take incapacity benefit for the short term. The Tories had a problem with employing those people ever again and were damn well never going to give them any help, so people were left to rot. The Labour Government say that such people may no longer be able to teach, but they can still do something. We will help them to find those jobs and to get benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), whom I greatly respect, has referred to that idea as invalidity benefit. It is not so. The benefit is given to people who are told that they can do no work at all. If that is true, the people involved are invalids, and a whole host of things will be done to help, support and protect—

INCAPACITY BENEFIT: REDUCTION FOR PENSION PAYMENTS

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that under the terms of the timetable motion that we are about to consider, only amendments proposed by a Minister of the Crown may be voted on, and that amendments that might be voted on but are proposed by Government or Opposition Back Benchers will be excluded, with the effect that the motion limits not only the length of the debate but what we may debate in the following hours?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

It is not a matter for the Chair to rule on the content of a timetable motion before the House. A motion will be moved and hon. Members will then have the opportunity to comment on the content of the particular motion before the House, so there is time for that debate.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any precedent of which you are aware for a guillotine motion not only to curtail the length of a debate but to seek to constrain—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. The short answer is probably "plenty", but that is a matter for the debate.