Clause 7
Welfare Reform Bill
5:00 pm
Paul Rowen (Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 7, page 13, line 12, after ‘effect’ insert,
‘following the presentation of a report concerning income support; and, such an order may not be made unless a draft of a statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.
Clause 7 deals with the abolition of income support and is part of the Government’s long-term commitment to simplifying benefits. The clause grants the Secretary of State the power to abolish income support. In moving amendment 43, I am seeking to require him to present both a statutory instrument and report regulations that can be fully debated by both Houses before such a decision is taken. The question is why I am making such a request. As hon. Members are aware, income support as it currently stands is still available. It is a remaining benefit for carers, lone parents and women in the later stages of pregnancy. It is not subject to labour market conditions.
The Government have previously confirmed that carers will be entitled to continue to claim income support until there is a clear and detailed plan for the long-term reform of the benefits available to carers. We seek to probe the Government’s intentions for this clause, as we should not grant a wide-ranging power to abolish income support without first having in place a replacement allowance that has been properly debated. Something that pervades the Bill far too much is the granting of sweeping powers to the Secretary of State without any detailed reference to conditionality and without any redress or support for affected groups.
The amendment would mean that before income support was abolished—a power that the clause grants to the Secretary of State—there should be full discussion and agreement in both Houses of Parliament about the replacement allowance. It would clearly be wrong for ESA, as it is currently constituted, to be the replacement allowance. For example, under ESA, when someone is required to attend a meeting, that meeting cannot be deferred, but can be waived, and that is not a statutory measure.
We need to see the Government’s proposals in writing before income support can be abolished. I hope, and believe, that we can all agree a way forward that would provide carers with a better benefit and recognise the tremendous work that they do. Under the Bill, however, there could be a blanket abolition of income support before it had been replaced, and we should afford people the protection of a requirement that Parliament must approve any replacement before the Secretary of State may exercise the power to abolish it.