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)
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?