Clause 23
Welfare Reform Bill
9:00 pm
Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; East Renfrewshire, 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.