Welfare Reform Bill

This has been an interesting debate. I find myself broadly having common cause with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on this matter and must resist the amendments proposed from the Liberal Democrat Benches—forever hereafter the party of bells and whistles. I start with the question that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked again about the difference between pathfinders and pilots. Pilots are meant to be pure tests to decide whether we want to do something; pathfinders are for when we want to do something and evaluate how best we can roll it out. That is the key distinction. Perhaps I can also deal up front with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne: can I give him an assurance that a subsequent Government will not use the Bill in a completely different way to that intended? I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not contemplate the prospect of an alternative Government, but if I had to imagine it, my answer would be that whatever Government is in place will do whatever that Government want to do. They may need primary rather than secondary legislation to do it, but they will have their way if that is what they intend. I appreciate the importance of the matters before us and understand the interest of noble Lords, but the amendments would provide an unprecedented level of scrutiny for social security legislation and undermine the very reasons that we seek to use secondary legislation in the first place. Drafting of the Bill follows the precedent in social security legislation by setting out the overall legislative framework in the Bill and providing for regulations and orders to set out matters of detail. That approach will not be unfamiliar to noble Lords and is one accepted by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, acknowledged that. The committee states: ""Many of the new powers conferred in Part 1 reflect existing powers already in force in relation to other benefits, and many other provisions of Part 1 amplify existing powers slightly or adapt them for modified purposes. This is particularly true of the additional provision for piloting new benefit arrangements (clause 23) and of much of the provision in clauses 1 - 6 and 17 – 26 and Schedule 1. We conclude therefore that the House can regard most of the delegations in Part 1 and their associated scrutiny procedure, as unexceptionable"." Then the committee identifies five areas for comment, and we are seeking to bring forward amendments to address each of those points. This approach to legislation provides the Secretary of State with the necessary flexibility to make changes in the light of operational experience, new evidence and changing circumstances. This practical approach will not be possible if the Government are required to consult, produce a report, wait for 60 days and then seek parliamentary approval of all regulations—the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, pressed this point—relating to "work for your benefit" and work-related activity for income support claimants. We have already consulted extensively on the "work for your benefit" proposals in the Green Paper published in July last year. Responses to that document were taken into account when drafting the legislation we are debating today. We are also fully committed to ongoing engagement with interested parties regarding the development of regulations. We have already started to consult on the detail of the progression-to-work pathfinders. We issued Realising Potential: Developing Personalised Conditionality and Support: A Discussion Paper on Next Steps in Implementing the Gregg Review in January this year and have held two meetings with interested groups on parental employment issues, so that process is already under way. The department also works very constructively with the Social Security Advisory Committee which, if it thinks it is necessary, has the ability to consult on secondary legislation made more than six months after commencement of provisions. This is a significant control. Adding a further statutory duty is additional bureaucracy that risks distracting us from the delivery of these important pilots. A formal consultation could also politicise what has previously been a constructive process designed to ensure that regulations are fit for purpose. While I cannot accept the extra parliamentary scrutiny proposed in Amendments 22 and 66, I am not seeking to remove this scrutiny altogether. That is the reason I cannot agree to Amendment 23. It is neither our intention, nor the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendation, that "work for your benefit" regulations are all subject to the affirmative procedure. Therefore, I think it is important that Parliament retains the ability to annul regulations made relating to "work for your benefit". Given these arguments, I believe that these amendments are unnecessary and I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw them.