MPs overturn Lords' bid to delay disability benefit cuts

The legislation is at the centre of an ongoing parliamentary battle between MPs and peers, despite misgivings among some on the Tory benches in the Commons.

Employment Minister Priti Patel slammed the Lords for "overstepping their mark" and insisted the Government must press ahead with the plan, arguing it would provide incentives for people to get in to work.

Ms Patel added the report demanded by peers could take four years to write and cost the Government £1 billion in savings over that period by delaying the implementation of the policy.

In heated exchanges in the Commons, Labour rubbished Government claims that the impact assessment is too difficult to do and that peers have "abused" parliamentary processes.

Conservative Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) also said he would vote against the Government, telling MPs they were being asked to back something "on faith" rather than having a report detailing the changes.

Opening the debate, Ms Patel said: "At best this is a delaying tactic which runs contrary to the usual parliamentary process.

"However in practice it will allow the Lords to block this legislation by the back door and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking the Lords have overstepped their mark on this.

"This house convincingly voted for the changes on February 23. This is also the fifth time the house has voted overwhelmingly for this reform.

"A reform which is financially privileged and a key part of out reforms to the welfare system by supporting people in to work."

She also defended the Government over its plans to down-play income-related measures of child poverty levels but committed the Government to publishing statistics in this area.

Shadow work and pensions minister Debbie Abrahams said of Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith: "He's putting as much spin into the Welfare Bill as he's putting into the EU referendum.

"The notion that the secretary of state puts forward is that the Lords are somehow usurping parliamentary procedure and doing something illegitimate - in fact they are following parliamentary procedure."

Mr McPartland said: "Nobody is trying to punish anybody on this Bill we're discussing and these amendments today.

"The reality is myself and Conservative colleagues on this side of the House want to get to the same position as the Government does, which is helping as many disabled people as possible who want to work, to get back into work.

"We want to get into a position whereby the work programme, (which) in my view has failed - one out of 100 people are moving off it, that's our failure, not the failure of the people on that programme - we all want to fix that, we want to get as many disabled people who want to work back into work, we just disagree on how we're going to achieve that."

He said he hoped a report he will publish to provoke discussion will help the Government publish its white paper providing extra detail.

Labour's Jo Cox (Batley and Spen) said: "I urge the Government to remember that by their own definition claimants receiving work-related ESA are not people capable of work at this time.

"These are people that the Government's own work capability assessment deemed not fit for work and surely it's therefore preposterous that the Government thinks it can miraculously incentivise these people to return to work and cure their various complex and long-term ailments by reducing their financial support."

Neil Gray, the SNP's employment spokesman, said the Government has "not done its homework" on the proposals.

He said: "The impact assessment has not been done. The Government has no idea how this will impact on claimants, their health, their ability to progress to work towards work."

Conservative Simon Hoare (North Dorset) warned unelected peers they have "played a very dangerous game" by claiming it knows better than elected MPs.

He said: "The unelectable seem to be relying upon the unelected to try to frustrate the policies and the position of Her Majesty's Government, well-articulated during the general election campaign and debated incredibly thoroughly in this House and in other places."

The Bill will return to the Lords for further scrutiny as the parliamentary procedure known as "ping pong" - in which proposals bounce between the two House until agreement is reached - continues.