Welfare Reform Bill

In moving Amendment 78, I shall speak also to Amendments 81 and 82. Clause 6 is designed to support the migration of people from income support either to ESA or to JSA according to the Peers’ information pack. It does two things: first, they do not have to do anything when they make the move, as it is done for them administratively; secondly, it will ensure that the new benefit is income-protected at the point of change. That is fair enough, but for how long is that protection to continue? I have never seen a social security change such as is outlined in this Bill whereby no one loses out; there are inevitably gainers and losers. This is particularly relevant where the child element in income support is taken into account. Are the Government really saying that there will be no losers? I apologise for the wording of Amendments 81 and 82, which are grouped with Amendment 78. I am afraid that it may have caused some confusion among the Minister’s advisers. My problem is that I could not find a formulation that included this current Bill when enacted and all previous Acts passed, or regulations made under this and previous Acts, while excluding future Acts. Over the past few years, it has become commonplace to find words identical to those in Clause 7. This has come to worry me more than a little, because who knows what the future will bring? Will the Minister still be en poste this time next year? Will I still be badgering him after the forthcoming State Opening of Parliament? Who is to tell? Teasing apart, what future Acts can possibly be relevant, or, as the subsection has it, be likely to be relevant, to the move from income support to jobseeker’s allowance, or even ESA, and how could they accomplish something that is not accomplished by the Jobseekers Act 1995 as amended by this Bill, and the statutory instruments flowing from the amended Act? A cynic would suggest that the draftsman is covering himself in case the formulation in this Bill and the myriad regulations flowing from it are incomplete and future Acts and the regulations flowing from them will be needed to complete the job. If this were not the very epitome of a framework Bill, I would not be nearly so worried about subsection (5), as any specific measures would be in the Bill. However, here we have a situation where everything is done by regulations, the rationale for which is described in the various clauses in the Bill. In essence, the Bill allows the Government to do anything they like by means of regulations. What possible future Bills or orders do the Government think might just be necessary? Even if they become necessary in years to come, why cannot those future Bills contain provisions to amend earlier Acts of Parliament, as we all know does this one? I appreciate that my worries are of a more general nature than just this Bill. None the less, I hope that I have related them to social security law more generally, as amended by this Bill, which after all is the Bill currently before the Committee. I beg to move.