Welfare Reform Bill

I thank my noble friend Lady Turner for her amendment, which gives me another opportunity to provide some reassurance—I hope—on issues on which, I acknowledge from what she and other noble Lords have said, they have had a lot of correspondence. On the issue about reference and engagement of the SSAC, I hope that I can specifically satisfy her on why it is not necessary for the provision to be in the form that she proposes. The amendment is aimed at ensuring that we cannot remove entitlement to income support from any category of person without the SSAC’s thorough examination of the proposals. Throughout the process, we have always maintained that abolishing income support is the next logical step in streamlining and simplifying the benefit system. It builds on much of the work we have already done and will move us to a system based on two main benefits for people of working age—employment and support allowance and jobseeker’s allowance. However, we have also maintained that the process cannot be rushed; I say that in response to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. Step-by-step change is the only way we can ensure safe delivery and minimise disruption for our customers. Income support will be abolished only when there are no longer any groups for which it is needed, because alternative provision will have been made using either the new powers in Clause 3 or other available powers. Although we have not made any final decisions yet, at this stage we do not expect to move everyone off income support at the same time. We have made it clear in previous debates that we will need to look carefully at the position of certain groups, particularly carers, which is why we need the flexibility that the clause provides. On that basis, the removal of entitlement to income support for most groups is likely to be achieved through regulations made under Section 124 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. As a result, they will be subject to scrutiny by the advisory committee as part of its statutory duty to examine any regulations under Acts of Parliament governing social security. It is true that when the clause is commenced, there may be some groups who have not yet moved off income support, although we will have set out where they will be moving to. As a result, the committee may not have the formal role suggested by the amendment when they are moved off it. However, in practice, we will continue to talk to the SSAC on issues such as this. There are voluntary arrangements currently in place that allow us to provide the committee with information on new legislation that would not normally fall within its remit. This includes new primary powers and the regulations made within six months of the commencement of those powers—the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, quite correctly referred to that. These arrangements are certainly something that we would pursue in respect of the clause. Furthermore, as I said earlier, we have accepted the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee, which concluded that Clause 7 should be subject to affirmative procedures, and will be tabling an amendment on Report to do just that. I reiterate that income support is not abolished in the Bill; the Bill provides a mechanism to abolish income support by order. One of the main reasons for that approach is that there is no firm timetable because of the need for flexibility to ensure that all groups are properly provided for. The Bill provides for income support to be abolished when there are no longer any groups who need it, but not before. To reiterate, no firm decision has yet been taken on the timetable. I hope that that is a reassurance to my noble friend and other noble Lords who have spoken that the SSAC will inevitably be involved in the detail as these matters move forward.