New Clause 15
Welfare Reform Bill
9:45 am
John Robertson (PPS (Dr Kim Howells, Minister of State), Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Glasgow North West, Labour)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
May I wish everyone here today a happy St. Andrew’s day? On such a day, it is again sad that the Scottish National party has failed to turn up for Scotland if only to listen to our debate.
Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)
May I, on behalf of my party, echo the hon. Gentleman’s good wishes for St. Andrew’s day? I also share his complete lack of surprise that hon. Members from the Scottish National party have shown no interest in these proceedings, or indeed in anything else that is in the greater interests of the United Kingdom.
John Robertson (PPS (Dr Kim Howells, Minister of State), Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Glasgow North West, Labour)
Perhaps there is more than one unionist party in the Committee.
This is the last new clause on the selection list so, with your indulgence, Mr. Hood, I would like to say a number of “thank yous” to organisations that have helped me during the proceedings. They are: Macmillan Cancer Support, Citizens Advice, Citizens Advice Scotland, the Royal National Institute of the Blind, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Disability Alliance, Barnardo’s, Action for Blind People, Age Concern, Arthritis Care, Carers UK, Contact a Family, L’Arche UK, Leonard Cheshire, Mencap, Mind, the Motor Neurone Disease Association, the National Autistic Society, the Parkinson’s Disease Society, RADAR—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—Rethink, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, Scope, Sense and, last but by no means least, Skill and the TUC. It is important that those organisations, which have helped and which deal with the kind of people whom it is hoped the Bill will help, are mentioned.
The new clause is intended to probe the Under-Secretary’s thinking, and makes some serious and genuine points that she needs to address. Under the arrangements set out in part VIII of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, draft regulations made within six months of the parent Act need not be referred to the Social Security Advisory Commission, as per section 173(5) of that Act. The Secretary of State and Parliament are thus denied the SSAC’s expertise when considering such draft regulations.
The expertise of the SSAC has long been recognised, and was described by Lady Justice Hale, as she was then, in the case of Howker in the Court of Appeal as follows:
“Parliament has determined that we should have a system of social security benefits for those who are unable to provide for themselves. The broad outlines are laid down in legislation but the scheme is necessarily extremely complicated and requires frequent amendment to take account of social, economic and (as in this case) legal change. The details have to be contained in delegated legislation. But Parliament has also recognised the need for both the Secretary of State and for Parliament to have independent and expert social policy advice before making changes to the scheme. There are complex questions involved, about the definition of need, about equity between different groups, about the right kind of incentives, all in the context of very large numbers of people and very large sums of public money. In the context of a scheme whose fundamental purpose is to relieve ‘want’, the need for independent and expert advice is particularly clear when a change to the regulations might deprive a large number of existing claimants of their benefit”.
I apologise for the long quotation, but it is important that the issue is seen in the context of the Bill. Of necessity, many regulations are made within six months of the parent Act coming into effect, mainly because they are needed to bring the detail of the Act into effect. However, the consequence of section 173(5) of the 1992 Act is that the Secretary of State and then Parliament are often deprived of the SSAC’s expert views at a critical stage, namely when the new benefits schemes are being set up.
Professor Hazel Genn’s report of the quinquennial review of the Social Security Advisory Committee recommended that the rule be abolished. She noted that with more regulations being made within the six-month window, the SSAC’s ability properly to influence the shape and direction of the legislation was diminished. She recommended that the regulations referred to the SSAC within the six-month window should be limited to those identified at the Committee stage of the Bill as bringing about significant change. In his response the Secretary of State accepted the recommendation, but said that an amendment was needed to the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The Bill provides an opportunity for that, and the new clause would achieve it.
In its 19th report, the SSAC stated about the six month rule:
“We reported last year that we were still working with the Department on the implementation of the recommended strengthening of our role in relation to regulations laid within six months of an Act coming into force. These regulations remain excluded from our statutory scrutiny, but we are pleased to report that we have now reached an agreement with the Department that will enable us to familiarise ourselves with new legislation and, when we wish to do so, offer informal comments and advice. As it happens, we shall have an opportunity to test these new arrangements by reference to regulations made under powers contained in the Welfare Reform Bill that is now before Parliament.”
It may therefore be thought necessary to allow the arrangements to be worked through before implementation through the new clause and the abolition of the six month rule. That can be done by ensuring that the new clause does not come into effect for a period of time. However, we should not miss the legislative opportunity to put into effect the stated view of the Secretary of State that the six month exclusion rule should be removed.
I consider new clause 15 to be necessary and the Court of Appeal and the Secretary of State appear to agree, so why was the matter not dealt with in the Bill? What are the present views of the Secretary of State on the state of the six month rule?
Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)
I welcome and endorse the important points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West. I am sure that all hon. Members, no matter how brief a period they have so far spent in the House, are aware of the excellent work that the Social Security Advisory Committee does. The new clause is important for the availability of the committee’s advice across the full range of primary and secondary legislation. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to give a positive response. As we are coming to the close of the Committee’s business, Mr. Hood, and it is the first time I have served on a Public Bill Committee, I want to mention how much I have enjoyed it. I look forward to the Under-Secretary’s response.
Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)
May I also say that I have much enjoyed serving under your chairmanship in the Committee, Mr. Hood, and that I have greatly valued the constructive discussions that we have, for the most part, had. I want briefly to speak in support of the new clause; some of my remarks will be points that I thought I would make on clause 59, but on reflection I think they are more relevant to the new clause. The valuable work of the Social Security Advisory Committee could be very helpful in clarifying some concerns that people have about the wording of clause 59 in relation to the definition of care homes.
Jimmy Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East, Labour)
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is pushing his luck a little bit.
Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)
I will briefly conclude my comments. I support the new clause because I hope that the Social Security Advisory Committee’s expertise could be useful in clarifying the fact that people in supported accommodation should continue to receive attendance allowance and disabled living allowance; I am sure that that is the Government’s intention.
Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)
I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West and Opposition Members about the value of SSAC’s advice to the Department. We have a very good relationship with SSAC, and indeed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as well as the Minister of State on this Committee, recently met its chairman, Sir Richard Tilt, to talk about its role. We certainly agree that SSAC’s regular meetings with officials about policy development, as well as its informal and formal scrutiny of the majority of amended regulations before they are made into law, has helped successive Governments—SSAC has not just advised this Government—to make better rules for claiming benefits.
I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West that we initially considered doing what he is suggesting in the new clause. However, subsequent exchanges between ourselves and SSAC have meant that we have agreed to maintain the status quo. Nevertheless, we have non-statutory informal exchanges with SSAC, as he said. For example, in relation to our deliberations in Committee, SSAC has already seen the green book on regulations, which has been presented to the Committee and to wider stakeholders.
The current remit means that it is not necessary to refer for scrutiny draft regulations made under powers recently enacted by Parliament. By “recently”, we mean the long-established period of six months after the commencement of the relevant powers. Referring such regulations to the committee for further scrutiny seems to us unnecessary and bureaucratic. It would threaten the speedy implementation of policy set out in the legislation that was recently approved by Parliament—and that, in itself, cannot be right. That is why both the Government and SSAC have agreed that the status quo is the best way forward, if the status quo can indeed be a way forward.
Given that the Committee has spent a long time scrutinising the Bill line by line, it would seem a bit strange if we as parliamentarians were to pass it to an external body to look at it again. To be frank, given the extensive consultation, including the Green Paper and the record number of respondents to it, in this particular instance I doubt whether anything new could or would be said.
Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)
The Under-Secretary makes an interesting point. The draft regulations before the Committee, in terms of supporting evidence for the Bill, have been seen by SSAC and I understand that it has commented on them. May I ask whether she is willing to deposit in the Library of the House those comments on the draft regulations, so that Parliament might also have the benefit of that wisdom?
Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)
My understanding—I stand to be corrected—is that the relationship between SSAC and the Department is one of confidentiality and SSAC’s advice is given in that context. Such advice is freely given, but it is of a confidential nature. However, if there is anything that we feel we can put into the public domain—let us remember that that decision is not just our responsibility, as SSAC has its own terms of engagement with us, which are that its advice should be confidential—I obviously will pursue that. I hope that hon. Members understand that, if the relationship between SSAC and the Department is to be productive and fruitful, it needs to be maintained in that context of trust and confidence. Of course, we have a similar relationship with the Disability Employment Advisory Committee.
Therefore, although I understand the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West, who has made a reasonable case for the new clause, we think that the new clause is not appropriate. Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise legislation and we have scrutinised the new clause in this Committee and do not see any need—neither does the SSAC—to change the current situation. I ask him to withdraw the new clause.
John Robertson (PPS (Dr Kim Howells, Minister of State), Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Glasgow North West, Labour)
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. I will take advisement on what she has said. At this time I will withdraw the new clause, but I reserve the right to come back to it at a later stage if the advice is that what she has said is not all together factual.
Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; East Renfrewshire, Labour)
On a point of order, Mr. Hood, which I hope is acceptable. I would just like to thank you—
Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; East Renfrewshire, Labour)
The fact that it is a point of order is debatable? [Laughter.]
Jimmy Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East, Labour)
We have had a wonderful time in this Committee and I am sure that we will end it in order. The question that I have just proposed to report the Bill to the House is debatable.
Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; East Renfrewshire, Labour)
I will allow the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds to go first.
David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)
I am grateful to the Minister, whose generosity has been a mark of this Committee. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State and other hon. Members on the Government Benches. The Committee has been a novel experience for me, Mr. Hood, and not just because of serving under your excellent chairmanship. I speak for the official Opposition in thanking you greatly for your courtesy and for the excellent way in which you have regulated proceedings.
Until this Committee, we have not always seen eye-to-eye with Government Front Benchers on what is an extremely important public policy area. We all know that welfare issues are rapidly going up the political agenda for all parties, as has the language of social justice and of getting a better deal for, yes, customers who are vulnerable people, but who do not want to be seen as vulnerable. Those people have a contribution to make. They want to work, to get over their disability and to make a contribution for themselves, their families and indeed for the rest of society and the local community.
This is a hugely important area. Therefore, I was wondering how proceedings in Committee would go. Our party was particularly keen to demonstrate that it has indeed changed and that we have different ways of looking at some thorny problems regarding the general area of social justice, which is at the heart of the Bill. I have been particularly pleased that our spirit of honest inquiry and our fresh approach have been met with courtesy and respect by Ministers. It would have been easy for Government Members to make a large number of points that the Conservative Opposition had got this or that wrong, or that our views and change of stance were ineffective or lacking in some way. During these proceedings, I have been greatly heartened by the democratic process. We have had a grown-up, interesting and technically impressive debate and we have teased out quite a few issues that many people watching and reading the proceedings have wanted to hear more about. In that spirit of optimism and hope, I congratulate you, Mr. Hood, and the future Opposition on the Government side.
Finally, and most importantly, we must remember the huge debt we owe to Government officials, the Clerks, Hansard and all the parliamentary support staff and advisers, without whom this act of democracy—the scrutiny of the Bill in Committee—could not have taken place. They work at all hours when we are not sitting. We have had a good few sessions of democracy and I thank all concerned.
Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)
May I echo the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments, particularly in respect of your wise council, Mr. Hood, in chairing our debates? I should also make the same remarks in relation to Mr. Amess, who is not with us today but who has chaired several sittings during the preceding months.
David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)
I had to give the hon. Gentleman something to do.
Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)
As a new Member of Parliament who has taken a full part in these proceedings, I have been grateful for guidance from you, Mr. Hood, and from Mr. Amess.
There has been an interesting political side-effect of this Committee, although perhaps I should not mention it. A newspaper article that I read the other day used the phrase, “new skin, same old reptile”. That would not be an appropriate description of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. However, it has been interesting to see the old Conservative party working hard to fit with the new veneer that is the modern Conservative party.
David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)
That is fighting talk—outside now! The hon. Gentleman is not as bright as these proceedings have shown.
Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)
Those are churlish remarks.
Jimmy Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East, Labour)
Order. I shall attempt to rescue the Committee from itself.
Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)
I wanted to say that there has been a remarkable spirit of consensus. I concur with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds: we have had high-quality debates and useful exchanges. In many cases, we have solicited from Ministers useful clarification that has been important for the many organisations outside the House that pay close attention to our proceedings. I am grateful for the support of some of those, in terms of research and briefing, not least the Disability Rights Commission, the Child Poverty Action Group, Citizens Advice, Shelter and many other disability charities that the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West listed under a previous new clause. I do not intend to repeat that list—merely to echo the compliments that he passed to those worthwhile, important organisations.
It only remains for me to echo other hon. Members’ remarks in respect of Government officials, the Clerks, and all the other servants of the House, who have made our proceedings so procedurally flawless and allowed it to progress with great smoothness. Of course, I thank Hansard as well for the transcriptions of our debates, which are also of great use to those outside the House.
Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)
I do not want to repeat comments made by my hon. Friends and colleagues on the Opposition Benches, but it would inappropriate for us to conclude these proceedings without thanking the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire for his silent contribution, which has no doubt stood the Minister in good stead.
I should just like to make a serious point, on which I hope that the Government will reflect. Our proceedings have been good. This is an opportunity for the Government to consider whether it would be possible to introduce more radical welfare reform policies to the House during this Parliament. There is widespread agreement on the need to simplify the benefits system and to make further progress in the direction that the Bill seeks to go, and I think that the Government would find that the Opposition welcomed such moves, should they choose to do so. I hope that they will reflect on that and I hope that the progress that we have made on legislation in this Committee is the harbinger of even more important legislation to come.
Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; East Renfrewshire, Labour)
We have five minutes, and I shall obviously do my utmost to conclude my comments in that time. Were I not to do so, I would not anticipate a busy 16th sitting.
I thank you, Mr. Hood, and Mr. Amess for the way in which you have overseen the 15 sittings of the Committee. You each brought your own style to the proceedings. As you will be aware, Mr. Hood, Mr. Amess introduced a new initiative by successfully filibustering from the Chair, enabling the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds to find his speaking notes.
David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)
On a point of information, I have never lost my speaking notes. It was another member of the Front Bench whose name I cannot remember.
Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; East Renfrewshire, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman is of course correct—it was the hon. Member for South-West Surrey who lost them. I congratulate you, Mr. Hood, on not attempting a similar filibuster this morning when the hon. Member for South-West Surrey sought, not to find speaking notes, but the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who, in his dual role as a Front Bencher and as the Opposition Whip, allowed himself time out of the Committee when he was due to be addressing us.
David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)
On a point of information, the consensus has really broken down—I was out of the Room by prior agreement.
Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; East Renfrewshire, Labour)
By prior agreement, I assume, with the hon. Gentleman’s Whip, who, of course, is himself.
You have allowed a wide-ranging debate, Mr. Hood, and the last few moments have been typical of that. We have had the opportunity not only to discuss Jim Griffiths, Winston Churchill, Karl Marx, Josef Stalin, Bonnie Prince Charlie, St. Joseph, St. Luke and many other saints, but Slaithwaite Dave, Sheffield Dave, Derbyshire Dave, Tunbridge Wells Tim, and all sorts of other characters—real or imagined.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, who has done a fantastic job on local housing allowance and other important parts of the Bill. There has already been testimony to the interesting and fascinating nature of the debate, though the debate was not interesting enough for the hon. Member for Yeovil to attend very often. In the same way that the Under-Secretary and I have offered to write to hon. Members, I wonder if he would be kind enough to send us all a photograph.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East, who has served not just as the Whip but as the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household. Not only has he ensured that we kept good time, but he has enabled us to finish a whole sitting early. Members from all sides played a full and active part in the Committee. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Devonport, for Glasgow, North-West, for Colne Valley, for North-East Derbyshire, for Caerphilly, for Dumfries and Galloway and for Ochil and South Perthshire. In an earlier sitting the hon. Member for South-West Surrey confused my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway, which reminds me of the story of the former Labour Chancellor Hugh Dalton, whose image was that of a “Hail fellow, well met” kind of man. He had a great habit of walking up to people, slapping them on the back and welcoming them as his best friend, and then calling them by the wrong name. The hon. Gentleman probably considers himself more of a Timothy Dalton than a Hugh Dalton. Nevertheless, I am sure that the analogy is pertinent in many ways.
I thank all those who ensured that the Bill was well crafted. I thank the police, the officials, the Bill team, the stakeholders who played such an important role in ensuring that we were all well informed, the Hansard staff, the attendants, the Clerks and the many others who made the Bill possible. The Bill is crucial, and it will help to change many people’s lives. It will change the nature of welfare and will transform opportunities for many who have been denied such opportunities in the past.
Finally, I know that at the end of the Committee stage it is traditional to retire to the bar, but even though it is St. Andrew’s day, that is not an invitation that I could extend with any confidence to my hon. Friends, so perhaps I might encourage them to adjourn to the Tea Room instead. With that, Mr. Hood, I thank you and Mr. Amess, and all those who made our proceedings as interesting and productive as they have been, and allowed them to be concluded in such good time.
Jimmy Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East, Labour)
On behalf of my co-Chairman, David Amess, and myself, I thank hon. Gentlemen for their kind words, and I echo their kind and appreciative words about the Clerks, the police, the Hansard writers and all those who have facilitated the Committee’s proceedings.
This is an opportunity for the Chairman to get his own back. Members may be aware that under Standing Orders the Chairman has discretion to continue the proceedings for 15 more minutes, but, as we have all been invited for tea and buns in the Tea Room, I shall not impose that on Members.