The government's plans to reform welfare were badly hit on Wednesday when it suffered three defeats in the House of Lords on proposed benefit cuts.
Plans to means-test employment and support allowance (ESA) payments for disabled people after only a year were rejected by peers.
The means test would have applied to cancer patients and stroke survivors, and was denounced by Lord Patel, a crossbencher and former president of the Royal College of Obstetricians, as an immoral attack on the sick, the vulnerable and the poor. "If we are going to rob the poor to pay the rich, then we enter into a different form of morality," Patel said.
The government was defeated by 224 votes to 186, even though Lord Freud, the welfare minister, claimed that the cost of the amendment would be £1.6bn spread over five years.
The other defeats were over plans to time-limit ESA for those undergoing cancer treatment, and to restrict access to ESA for young people with disabilities or illness.
The defeats do not augur well for the government's chances in future votes in the Lords on the bill, which includes housing benefit caps. The bill is at report stage before returning to the Commons.
Some peers warned the Lords they should not vote down the measure to restrict ESA payments to a year since the cost of doing so would be so high and MPs would be certain to reverse the result. Patel, backed by the shadow welfare minister, Lord McKenzie, proposed that the government's plan to time-limit contributory ESA to a year should be extended to two years. At that point, irrespective of how much someone has paid into the system, a means test set at an income of £16,000 would start to apply, leading to annual cuts in benefit of £94 a week.
Freud countered that the 365-day time limit was not arbitrary and was similar to limits imposed in France, Ireland and Spain, and struck a "reasonable balance between the needs of sick, disabled people claiming benefit and those who have to contribute towards the cost".
He said one year was the right balance between restricting costs and allowing people to adapt to their changed circumstances and was double the time allowed for contributory jobseekers' allowance.
With a few exceptions, the Liberal Democrats voted with the government as they generally have throughout the divisions in the Lords on the welfare bill, but their support was overwhelmed by a big turnout from Labour and crossbenchers. The Labour peerage is armed with welfare experts including Lady Lister and Lady Hollis.
Crossbenchers have also been furiously lobbied by disability campaigners arguing that they should not be made to suffer for the economic crisis.
Many Liberal Democrats have been uncomfortable voting with the government, but feel forced to do so if they are to abide by their coalition commitment to bring the deficit under control.
In a report out on Thursday, the Commons public accounts committee finds that fundamental changes to the benefits system, including the introduction of a new means-tested universal credit to replace some existing means-tested benefits, may fail without the formation of a new body.
Margaret Hodge, the chair of the committee, said that the government must learn from past experience and co-ordinate benefits more effectively.
"At present, there are nine central government departments and 152 local authorities administering 30 different means-tested benefits, yet there is no one body responsible for co-ordinating means-testing across government," she said.
"There needs to be a single body responsible for overseeing the interaction between different benefits, means-tested or not, and ensuring consistency and value for money."
A DWP spokesman said: "This report highlights exactly why we need universal credit. It has been designed across departments with the benefits and challenges raised by the PAC in mind.
"It will mean more people getting the money they are entitled to whilst reducing complexity and fraud in the system."
Comments
Sign in to comment or to join the conversation
12 January 2012 7:59AM
" If we are going to rob the poor to pay the rich ,then we have entered into a different morality "
Has someone woken up at last ?
12 January 2012 8:00AM
Yessssssssssssss!
12 January 2012 8:01AM
A bloody nose for dipshit Dave from south Slough - Perfect!
12 January 2012 8:01AM
I wouldn't get your hopes up too much.
12 January 2012 8:03AM
Not a good day for those who want to abolish the Lords, is it?
12 January 2012 8:05AM
Falling income for the disabled +rising income for the rich = criminals in charge.
It works to write to crossbencher Lords.
We must do more of it when this criminal government tries to target the poor.
12 January 2012 8:06AM
Whilst I agree with the knock back, the quote doesn't make sense. Means testing affects those with money, not those without.
Some of the proposed measures would have some impact on the less well off, but any means tested approach is designed to mean that you would pay only if you could afford to do so..
12 January 2012 8:07AM
My nieces boyfriend was let go by Poundland as were fourteen other kids, they are to be replaced by Conscript/ Volunteers.
It would appear that Camerons backers are not only exempt from taxation but they now have access to a free work force, as this is how they are going to compete with China.
12 January 2012 8:08AM
That just about sums up Coalition policy.
12 January 2012 8:11AM
Cameron and osbourne will be back. They fully intend for the poor the sick and the old to pay for the obscene excesses of the rapacious and unregulated rich.
You could publically burn the union jack while simultaneously fucking one of the queen's corgies if you work for Barclays. The law would just walk by.
Try protesting because you are sick of being shat on and youll find water cannons, baton rounds a big metal fence containing you so noone outside can see you, or a five deep police kettle around you.
Democracy for the rich. police state for everyone else.
Tax cuts for the rich and a boot in the face for poor. Class warfare.
12 January 2012 8:13AM
Maybe we should means test Cameron and Osbore's wages too?
After all they already possess huge wealth - why do they need more money from taxpayers? What are they? Scroungers????
Maybe all persons drawing money from the public purse should be means-tested, including royalty, BBC executives etc etc.
Why should we bankroll the rich and powerful?
Withdraw the Duke of Westminster's subsidies for a start...
12 January 2012 8:13AM
Never thought I'd say this but- Thank god for the House of Lords
At last an effective opposition to this ghastly government of rich kids who understand the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May as well get rid of Millipede now. He and his shadow cabinet are effectively and quite obviously a waste of time and money.
12 January 2012 8:14AM
A Triple Whammy for the purveyors of gobshite i.e the coalition government.
12 January 2012 8:14AM
Motives aside the aim of reviewing the benefits culture remains sound. For too long too many people have misused the welfare state and circumstances demand that this state of affairs must change, so that that the genuine claimants can be protected in the difficult times ahead. Of course what the top earners receive is obscene and no doubt the motives of many of the Tories are personal greed, but the fact remains that too many people have grown up with an attitude of 'take, take, take' without any iota of citizenship responsibility.
12 January 2012 8:17AM
I think our odious PM should try to explain himself to the public he is supposed to represent after this droplet of wisdom from our Upper Chamber. Are you robbing the poor to pay the rich (such as yourself) Mr Cameron?
12 January 2012 8:17AM
Than God For Lord Patel and those who voted with their conscience. It appears that three straight defeats is not newsworthy for the Torygraph there is NO coverage of the debate and the result! Have the media signed a propaganda pact with the coalition - Indeed the BBC news at Ten (Infomercial) gave barely 1min and both their 'experts' immediately inferred that monies would now be taken from others to support welfare. This issue has been censured from media coverage which makes the efforts of the people involved, and the consciences that spoke out even more remarkable.
The House of Lords stood up for Justice last night - and the dithering Freud was exposed for what he represents - an immoral snake-oil salesman, a lying degenerate who as a pathological hatred of the poor, the vulnerable and the fragile. He is the very personification of the banality of evil
12 January 2012 8:20AM
It would seem that the state of government in the UK has devolved to the point where the House of the Lords is the sole opposition party?
Odd, to say the least!
I'm grateful for their action here--but it's still the Ancien Regime, isn't it: Noblesse oblige.
12 January 2012 8:21AM
"The Queen qualified for £473,500 in farm aid in 2008 for Sandringham Farms, her 20,000-acre retreat and home to four generations of British monarchs since 1862.
The Duke of Westminster, Britain's third richest person with a fortune estimated at £6.5 billion, benefited from a public EU subsidy of £486,534. His Polish dairy businesses, Top Farms, benefited by more than 8 million euros in subsidies from 2006 to 2007."
That's about £8k a week each in handouts to billionaires.
And Cameron, the Mail etc want to "means-test" £94 a week for someone with cancer.
Hard to convey my utter contempt for these people.
12 January 2012 8:21AM
graham1745
12 January 2012 8:14AM
Motives aside the aim of reviewing the benefits culture remains sound. For too long too many people have misused the welfare state and circumstances demand that this state of affairs must change
Sound?????????????? Are you mad? For far too long Corporations and the City of London and the wealthy have been bleeding this country dry. Go after the tax avoiders and leave the terminally ill alone. What a disgrace this country has descended into...........
12 January 2012 8:22AM
Now THAT may be the best idea ever.
12 January 2012 8:25AM
Not wanting to burst anyone's bubble but the government plans to ram the legislation through anyway, the Lords cannot really stop it.
12 January 2012 8:26AM
Epidemic 27 - The means test is set at just £7,500 - could you support a family including a disabled partner on £7,500 a year??
12 January 2012 8:27AM
@graham1745
so even though the limit is to apply to those on contribution based ESA. ie those who HAVE paid their dues to society you still peddle it's above benefit scroungers?
12 January 2012 8:29AM
This is why the unelected chamber is important. It's not stuffed full of snot-nose career politicians who are wet behind the ears and looking to climb the greasy pole while they kowtow to special interests.
The Lords may have vested interests blah blah blah but they are there to scrutinise and base their decisions on experience, because they've been there, done that.
I know it's not cool to say it but that's how I feel. Two elected houses would be pointless and redundant.
12 January 2012 8:31AM
Let them try then! If they want a bloody uprising on their hands, they shall surely have one!
12 January 2012 8:32AM
As an Agnostic I never thought I'd be thanking the Lords!
However I'm sure our caring Govn will do their best to overturn the decision; this is not the time to sit on our laurels rather take a breath and carry on supporting Spartacus
12 January 2012 8:32AM
Och, let us have our moment...
12 January 2012 8:34AM
Well, well well! The first sign of good news this year.
Nya nya nyi nya nya D.C.
12 January 2012 8:35AM
Hooray for the Lords.
It's a sad day for shamocracy when the unelected chamber cares more for the likes of us than the one we voted for.
12 January 2012 8:35AM
At last someone standing up to this government labour should take notice but they still leave in the worst parts of the bill retests by ACOS (I think is the name ) forced labour etc.
12 January 2012 8:35AM
A victory thanks to pressure from below but the fight goes on because the Tories and thier lickspittle Lib Dems are still causing massive damage to the welfare state and trying to to make the poor pay for thier millionaire mates mistakes.
12 January 2012 8:38AM
Bet it still happens in the end though.
12 January 2012 8:40AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
12 January 2012 8:40AM
I find the whole argument put forward by the ignoble lord fraud on behalf of this condemnation of a so called government of the people, against people who have cronic illnesses and disabilities to be at the least sick and at the most criminal. Cameron Clegg and company should spend eternity in hell for the way they are treating these very vulnerable people.The Lord Patel put an argument forward on behalf of these very people that i hope is spread across the whole of fleet street, although i wont hold my breath considering this. How a so called civalised society can allow this to happen, just goes to show what a shallow society we have become and once again what a criminal government we have.
12 January 2012 8:42AM
LIB DEMs supported the Tories again with their right wing policy. The electorate wont forget at the next election. The Lib Dems are in self destruct mode.
12 January 2012 8:43AM
"Many Liberal Democrats have been uncomfortable voting with the government, but feel forced to do so if they are to abide by their coalition commitment to bring the deficit under control."
Yet they don't feel forced to abide by commitments they made before the election.
12 January 2012 8:43AM
changeisrequired
12 January 2012 8:40AM
Response to brightonrock, 12 January 2012 8:31AM
A bloody uprising? Who by, the disabled people affected?
No, but we are...........................
12 January 2012 8:43AM
The Lords doing the job of the Labour Party. We are living in very strange times indeed.
Yet this is just a setback. The nasty party won't just leave it at that. Private health insurance money has been spent and they demand a result!!!
12 January 2012 8:44AM
The likes of Cameron & Osborne are egotistical wasters incapable of doing a proper job, playing at being public servants.
Remind you of others not a million miles from Downing street?
12 January 2012 8:45AM
Wee Alec Salmond is trying verra hard to fill the vacuum.
12 January 2012 8:47AM
Lol, I am sure the police would know what to do if fringe militants get uppity. Bring on the rubber bullets:)
12 January 2012 8:48AM
I think the kindest thing you can say about these parasites is worse than fucking vermin.
12 January 2012 8:49AM
changeisrequired
12 January 2012 8:47AM
Response to ARISTOCRATICINBRED, 12 January 2012 8:43AM
Lol, I am sure the police would know what to do if fringe militants get uppity. Bring on the rubber bullets:)
To be used against you changeisrequired. Can't wait................................
.
12 January 2012 8:49AM
Poppycock, they are increasing tax against the rich and cutting overheads to maximise savings. Once the initial costs of the cuts have been met the deficit will start to come down.
12 January 2012 8:51AM
"Lord Freud, the welfare minister, claimed that the cost of the amendment would be 1.6bn spread over five years" - Guardian, 12th January 2012
About 350m a year, then, to ensure that sick and disabled people receive enough to live on.
"The cost to the UK taxpayer of bombing Gaddafi for six months is four times the cut to the arts budget; three times the sum saved by Ken Clark's sentencing reforms; more than the proposed cuts to the legal aid budget; about the same as the savings from ending the education maintenance allowance (EMA); or three times the amount saved by scrapping the disability living allowance. Defence experts suggest the total bill by autumn is likely to be 400m-1bn" - Guardian, 19th June 2011
However, in the latter case, our wonderful 'leaders' get to play bang-bang with the money and strut around looking important.
No real choice, then.
12 January 2012 8:51AM
Against me? I think not. Used by the authorities against street hoodlums, yes.
12 January 2012 8:52AM
At present, there are nine central government departments and 152 local authorities administering 30 different means-tested benefits, yet there is no one body responsible for co-ordinating means-testing across government," she said.
The most telling remark of all, and a fact which causes tens of millions of pounds to be squandered every week, on paying unmarried mothers benefits to women whose partners work for local authorities.
Fishing may be a pleasurable pursuit for all I know but this certainly is a can of very large worms.
12 January 2012 8:52AM
And once more, the unelected house is the only defence for morality and ethical behaviour against the excesses of the elected house who behave without any regard whatsoever for the safety, well-being or care of any person in the UK. If ever there was a symptom of the main problems our society faces it is that. If ever there was a wake-up call to the country it is this. The commons cannot be trusted to 'do the right thing' they are incapable of doing anything more than petty party politics and agreeing on how best to rip off those in the most direst need. We need a new true democratic system, this one is broken beyond economical repair.
12 January 2012 8:52AM
Nice to see someone in Parliament finally grow a pair and stand up to this mendacious government, shame they couldn't do the same with the NHS Bill.
12 January 2012 8:52AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.