Welfare Reform Bill

I wonder whether there is a misconception here. No one is saying that the multitude of groups will be dealt with in a one-size-fits-all way. When one looks at the list—for example, pregnant women within 11 weeks of their expected confinement or young people in full-time non-advanced education who are estranged from their parents—one sees that none of the words we have heard covers them. I talked on an earlier amendment of those who are involved in court cases for more than eight weeks, which is another category so usefully listed in the Peers’ information pack. I was also alarmed that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, suggested that the switch to income support would mean loss of benefit altogether. I cannot believe that of any Government of whatever persuasion. The noble Baroness will know full well that I do not share her Government’s persuasion 100 per cent of the time and perhaps not even 50 per cent of the time. That thought beggars belief. Of course, Parliament will need to be satisfied that all these groups are being looked after before agreeing to regulations, which should not be allowed to be brushed aside unless a Member of either House notices as would have happened in years gone by. I do not believe that that is the case now because for some time we have had the assiduous services of your Lordships’ Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, on which we had a debate last Friday. Alas, I could not attend, although I should have liked to, due particularly to my small involvement in creating the committee, which was based on the frustration I felt as a long-term member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, whose standing orders have always precluded a discussion on the merits. However, I digress slightly from the point that I was making. There now has to be a better reason than formerly to choose an affirmative procedure over a negative one. The final abolition of income support is definitely not of such importance as to warrant an affirmative instrument, as it will have withered on the vine by that stage. Of course I accept that each of the categories of people who will remain on income support after this Bill is up and running will need legislation to move them on to another benefit—perhaps JSA, the single benefit currently being investigated by the Government and the Official Opposition, or some other benefit which is yet to be invented. The conundrum, which I share with other Members of this Committee, is, first, when; secondly, how; and, perhaps thirdly, where, as regards what benefit is most appropriate. The only clue we have is to be found in the Raising Expectations White Paper regarding carers. Apparently, there are no plans to move carers on to JSA until the Government have finished their examination of long-term care and have what the Peers’ information pack calls a clear and detailed plan. For the other categories, with the exception of the sick and disabled claimants who will I am sure migrate to ESA, the Government appear to be rather indecisive. Perhaps unhelpfully, the Peers’ information pack says that this might be appropriate for those on statutory sick pay, which I would have thought was inevitable and the right proposal. The Peers’ information pack goes on to say that the DWP currently plans to move all the other groups on to the modified form of JSA. This policy is being developed over a number of years. The fact that the pack says that the DWP currently plans to move them all to a modified JSA does not mean that that will happen. I do not have the least idea where they will all end up, but I have no doubt that for some of the groups a modified form of JSA would be appropriate. However, I am not clear about how the JSA can be the catch-all for all those groups currently on income support. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain, not least because for many of these groups jobseeking has nothing to do with their circumstances. I am thinking, for example, again of people who are involved in long court cases. By definition, they are not even in the progression-to-work group. Would it not be better if the court system took care of them, for example? To sum up, we need a progress report at regular intervals before income support is finally abolished. I think that we will get that because each of these categories will have a statutory instrument before they are allowed to be moved on to a new and different benefit. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that. I do not know whether they will be done in blocks of categories or if each category will have its own statutory instrument. The Minister probably cannot answer that yet, because he probably does not know. As I say, we are years ahead of actually achieving this. But when income support is finally abolished, we will have had a whole series of statutory instruments and reports—possibly reports from CSAC, on top of that—and maybe other information as well. We would then be satisfied that all the groups had been properly taken care of elsewhere in the social security system, so that when the time came, abolition by negative resolution would be the appropriate way in which to do it. I hope that that will help the Minister in what is likely to be rather a difficult response, given all noble Lords and the noble Baronesses who have spoken in support of the amendment.