Welfare Reform Bill

I am just coming to my remarks about that. The Government accepted that the funding of the change was an issue to consider. The Minister said in Committee:""There are always competing demands…I shall set out carefully the context."" It is worth putting on record that he said that the Government estimated that the additional benefit expenditure would be""about £45 million per year, with a £12 million administrative spend in the first year alone"," although he said that the Department estimated that the ongoing costs of administration would fall to about £2 million a year quite quickly. He said that there would be an annual bill of £45 million, which would rise in the years to come, and that funding on such a scale could not be found from the measures in the Bill. He said:""While the Government fully recognise the intentions behind the new clause, accepting it without having the funding to support it would require us to withdraw funding from elsewhere in the benefit system."––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 270.]" That was in Committee just two weeks ago. He then paid tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West and the RNIB. He said that the Government could not support the new clause at that stage, but that he and the Government would continue to consider the matter. The hon. Gentleman welcomed that. As late as yesterday, at Work and Pensions questions, the matter of funding for the proposal came up twice. It was raised once by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone), who is in his place, and again by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), whom I do not see in his place. The hon. Gentleman asked the Minister to tell the House why the Government had so far not supported the change, and he drew attention to the fact that we would be debating it today when considering the new clause. The Minister said that he was grateful that the matter had been raised, and added that""we need to establish a time when we can afford to make provision for this particular benefit".—[Official Report, 16 March 2009; Vol. 489, c. 651.]" At that moment, as if from serendipity, in walked the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Minister said that when talking about finance, he was always reassured to see the Chancellor. He then made the case that the Government needed to examine the matter carefully and would continue to work with the RNIB. He said that he hoped to be able to support the measure when resources became available. If the Under-Secretary can make any progress on that today and give us some good news, the position will clearly have changed since yesterday and it would be helpful if he could state whether resources have been made available and from where they have been found. When the Under-Secretary was asked in a written question how quickly the change could be made if the Government accepted it, he replied that any change would require a change to the legislation—that is what we are debating—and that time would be needed""to design, test and implement the administrative processes, which will require changes such as new guidance and training for staff."—[Official Report, 28 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 565W.]" He also said that, consequently, the earliest implementation of the proposal, if it were accepted, would be 2010-11. Perhaps when he responds, he will say whether that remains the case. If the Government accept the new clause or find another way of effecting its substance, will that time scale still apply? To summarise our position, we have never objected to the principle. Indeed, I have worked closely with the RNIB and we have said that if a way could be found in which to provide the funding, we would be pleased to do that. To date, the Government have been unable to find the funding—and were unable to do so as late as yesterday. I hope that the appearance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at an opportune moment yesterday might have broken the logjam.