Welfare Reform Bill

This is another huge group of amendments, many of which pertain to the Government. I shall speak first to our amendment in this group, Amendment No. 92, which seeks to ensure that all regulations made under this part will be subject to affirmative resolution. I suspect the Minister will describe this as overkill, but we shall see. Although the Government have been extremely helpful in trying to provide us with as many draft regulations as possible, there are still, as the Minister knows, relevant regulations that have not yet been finalised and we have not been able to see. That is natural, and I readily understand that. There is no criticism. Clearly at Second Reading I asked for more than I was going to get, but I knew that at the time. This clause currently makes provision for only the first regulations made under Clause 12 to be debated in both Houses—in other words, affirmative resolution. I am glad to see that the Government are responding to many of the recommendations in the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on this matter, but I still feel that there would be value in scrutinising much more carefully many of the regulations that are not mentioned. The final details of the assessments have caused many concerns that will only be addressed through well targeted regulations. We believe that new and altered regulations currently within the IB regime, and there will be a whole chunk of them, which will be necessary under these clauses in particular, would certainly benefit from much fuller and more regular scrutiny. As rollout continues, I am sure the Government will find it necessary to make quite significant amendments as time goes by. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, that seeing only the first draft of regulations relating to Clause 12 would not be enough. Legislation should allow enough flexibility for the Government to adapt to changing circumstances and improve on previous regulation. The Bill, however, gives an enormous amount of power with very few safeguards. I do not believe that the Government will ever need to change the regulations under the Bill in such a rush that affirmative action would be a problem. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, has also requested that there should periodically be a report to Parliament. I cannot see any good reason why the Government should not accede to that. I return to my own amendment. I understand that, as currently drafted, it would require enormous numbers of regulations currently in use for IB to be re-submitted through Parliament. I accept that that would not be necessary, or even helpful. Therefore, perhaps my expression ““overkill”” is the right one. But—and it is a big but—I feel that the Bill as it stands, or even as it will stand after the government amendments have been accepted, does not give us adequate protection. After the Bill is amended, which it doubtless will be in a few moments, regulations under Clause 2(2)(c), 2(3)(c), 2(4)(c) or 2(5)(c) and under Clause 15(2), which relate to decisions under regulations under Clause 10, 11 or 12, will also be debated, as I understand it, for the first time in your Lordships’ House and another place. Thereafter, they will sink down to the normal negative resolution procedure. At least, I understand that that is the purport of the government amendments. As a matter of detail, Amendment No. 95, the Minister’s own amendment, deals with regulations under Clause 15(2) that relate to decisions under regulations under Clauses 10, 11 and 12. When he speaks to that amendment, I hope that he will be able to explain very clearly, because, to me at least, it is the most extraordinary piece of drafting. Proceedings in another place and the initial stages of Committee here have shown that the debate on these matters can be consensual and productive—and, in most cases, it has been—and can go a long way towards reassuring both the general public and interested organisations, not least ourselves, of the Government’s intentions. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and hope that he will be able to offer reassurance on the further role of Parliament in the establishment of this new benefit system. I would like to think that there is at least one other government amendment in the pipeline on Clause 40.