Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, I think that Clauses 93 and 94, and I speak only for myself, are incapable of satisfactory amendment. They constitute a direct and dangerous attack on entitlement and the concept of entitlement. They subvert the scrutiny of Parliament and they will cost more than they save. Apart from that, they are absolutely fine. I understand colleagues’ attempts to try to mitigate some of the damage. The speeches have been powerful; I have supported some of them and agree with all of them. If the Minister decided to take on all the suggestions that he has had today on exemption, it would be so complex that it would add some £270 million to add some agile computing to get the exemptions properly carried out—and I would like to think that simplicity is an overriding principle in developing new policy. The thing that really causes me sleepless nights is looking at the clauses themselves. I have just three points. I spent some time—not quite in my bath, as I do not take social security Bills to my bath with me—looking at three aspects in particular. The Minister might help me with this. Clause 93(1) starts with the wording: "““Regulations may provide for a benefit cap to be applied””." I think that that is a first. I do not think that there is any other social security legislation that aggregates entitlement and then depresses the total amount by regulation. If I am wrong, I would really like to hear about whether any other legislation does that—and I have been looking at this area of policy since 1986. We need to be careful that the step we are taking is not taken lightly, because subsection (2) contains some language that is also worrying if you follow the thread all the way through the rest of the clause. It says inter alia that, "““where a single person’s or couple’s total entitlement to welfare benefits in respect of the reference period exceeds the relevant amount, their entitlement to welfare benefits ... is reduced by an amount up to or equalling the excess””" We find out about the relevant amount from subsection (5), which tells us that it is going to be contained in regulations. It also tells us at subsection (6) that the relevant amount will be, "““determined by reference to estimated average earnings””," and we have had some important discussions about exactly what that does and does not mean. Then we have subsection (8), which is wonderful. It says: "““The Secretary of State may estimate such earnings in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit””." That is quite novel as well. Is there another social security regulation where the Secretary of State can exercise that level of discretion on top of the attack on entitlement contained in subsection (1)?