Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendmentNo. 167, in clause 23, page 18, line 8, leave out ‘the first’.

The amendment would amend the provision on parliamentary control. The Bill states that affirmative resolutions of the House should apply only to the first regulations under clause 12 on work-related activity and the regulations on pilot projects under clause 18, and that all other regulations should be subject to a negative resolution. The proposal would delete “first” so that all regulations that relate to work-related activity should be subject to an affirmative resolution, but it is designed more broadly to probe the Government’s intentions for parliamentary scrutiny in general.

If I am not mistaken, clauses 10, 11, 13 and 14 will be of significant import. Not only should all regulations under clause 12 be subject to an affirmative resolution, but there is a good case for regulations made under the other clauses also to be subject to an affirmative resolution, as opposed to the negative resolution. I realise that such matters are a fine point of parliamentary protocol, but none the less there is a clear difference between the two.

The deletion of “first” would make it clear that all such regulations would have to subject to further parliamentary debate as opposed to being only so subjected if a resolution were prayed against. Such procedure would be more appropriate given the extent of the public interest in the way in which regulations relating to matters that are subjected to work-related  activity and, more broadly, conditionality should be considered. Given my explanation of the amendment, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) said earlier from a sedentary position that it would be great if all our sittings took place in the evenings given this rate of progress. Such timing certainly serves to concentrate the mind in a way that no inducement from the Whips and the usual channels has thus far been able to do. It is welcome and we should sit through the witching hour.

As for the specific issues raised by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, the Bill currently provides for an affirmative debate on the first set of regulations laid under clause 12. That is so because the clause is new; clause 11 relates to pathways, so it is the innovative nature of clause 12 that has been set aside to be subject to a positive resolution.

It is not sensible for a Government to take such action, but more importantly it is not sensible for Parliament to seek an affirmative resolution in all circumstances along the lines of the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion. It is for Parliament to decide such matters through the usual channels and elsewhere, but not to place in the Bill a requirement to have an affirmative resolution on all changes to regulations. For example, on page 26 of the draft regulations, we outline what would be considered a good cause. We have said repeatedly that the good cause list is not exhaustive and that it can be added to through time, best practice and from learning what works.

I understand the intention, in terms of parliamentary protocol and control, behind putting in primary legislation the requirement to have an affirmative resolution for all changes in regulations, and it is an important intention. However, the way in which the hon. Gentleman seeks to do that is heavy-handed and unnecessary. I do not think that Parliament would thank us for giving it the opportunity to have affirmative resolutions on the change of good causes, work-focused interviews, changing the specifics on notification requested for work-focused interviews and all the things that have to evolve as we roll out the pathways scheme through the private and voluntary sectors nationally.

Although I understand the sentiment of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, I hope that he accepts that—entirely unintentionally— it would create what would border on unnecessary and excessive use of the affirmative resolution procedure for often relatively minor changes in regulations. They have to be left to the normal practice in terms of how we change regulations to fit the evolution of delivery mechanisms. I reassure him that we understand his concerns, but his mechanism to deal with them is probably unworkable and I invite him to consider withdrawing the amendment.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for that response for at least two reasons—perhaps three. First, I am not sure that I have been described as heavy-handed before. Secondly, one of the disappointments  in this Committee so far is that we have not heard from the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire—by virtue of his position, I should add—so I am glad that his name will appear twice now in the record of the debate. I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurance, and I know that all the Opposition parties will be assiduous in scrutinising the draft regulations that are published in order to seek debates on a negative resolution when we consider them to be appropriate. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.