Danny
Alexander: I am grateful for that comment. These are
questions that may need to be probed further in another place. If the
Under-Secretary cannot give a little more detail on what is proposed at
the moment, I hope that she will ensure that Lord Hunt can do so when
the time
comes.
Mrs.
McGuire: I am delighted that the Liberal Democrat
spokesperson has now worked out the strategy for his party in another
place. I admire his ingenuity, even given his own admission that we
have had an extensive discussion of the issues that he has highlighted
and that were more than adequately—indeed,
brilliantly—answered by the Minister of State.
Question put and agreed
to. Clause 65
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
8Repeals Amendments
made: No. 111, in schedule 8, page 81, line 9, at end
insert— ‘Income
and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c.
1) | ‘In
section 347B(12)(b), the word “or” at the end of
sub-paragraph
(i).’. |
No. 112, in
schedule 8, page 81, line 12, before
‘Section’
insert— | ‘In
section 6A(3), the word “and” at the end of paragraph
(c).’. |
No.
113, in
schedule 8, page 81, line 38, at
end
insert— No.
114, in
schedule 8, page 81, line 38, at
end
insert— | ‘In
section 44(4), the words from “except that” to the
end.’. |
No.
115, in
schedule 8, page 81, line 38, at
end
insert— | ‘Section
44A(2)(d) and
(6).’. |
No.
116, in
schedule 8, page 81, line 38, at
end
insert— No.
117, in
schedule 8, page 81, line 38, at
end
insert— | ‘In
section 61— (a) in subsection (1), the words “under
section 47(1) above or”; (b) subsection
(2).’. |
No.
118, in
schedule 8, page 81, line 38, at
end
insert— | ‘In
section 61A(3), paragraph (d), and the word “and”
immediately preceding
it.’. |
No.
119, in
schedule 8, page 81, line 41, at
end
insert— No.
120, in
schedule 8, page 81, line 41, at
end
insert— No.
121, in
schedule 8, page 81, line 41, at
end
insert— No.
122, in
schedule 8, page 81, line 41, at
end
insert— | ‘In
section 89(1) and (1A), the words “, and in regulations under
section 86A
above,”.’. |
No.
123, in
schedule 8, page 82, line 2, leave
out ‘paragraph’ and insert
‘paragraphs’. No.
124, in
schedule 8, page 82, line 2, at
end insert ‘and
5(6)’. No. 125,
in
schedule 8, page 82, line 9, before
‘In’
insert— | ‘Section
2A(2)(e) and
(f).’. |
No. 126, in
schedule 8, page 82, line 18, at
end
insert— | ‘Section
130(1)(a) and
(c).’. |
No.
127, in
schedule 8, page 82, line 36, at
end
insert— | ‘In
Schedule 8, paragraph
39.’. |
No.
128, in
schedule 8, page 82, line 38, after
‘(3)’ insert ‘,
(5)’. No. 129,
in
schedule 8, page 82, line 39, after
‘3(3),’ insert ‘8 to
10,’. No. 130,
in
schedule 8, page 82, line 39, after
‘3(3),’ insert
‘13,’. No.
131, in
schedule 8, page 82, line 39, after
‘3(3),’ insert ‘24(2) and
(4),’. No. 132,
in
schedule 8, page 82, line 39, at
end insert ‘and
(3),’. No. 133,
in
schedule 8, page 82, line 43, after
‘paragraphs’ insert ‘19(2), (3) and
(5),’. No. 134,
in
schedule 8, page 82, line 43, after
‘paragraphs’ insert
‘25,’. No.
135, in
schedule 8, page 82, line 43, after
‘paragraphs’ insert
‘26,’. No.
136, in
schedule 8, page 82, line 44, at
end insert ‘and
(4),’. No. 137,
in
schedule 8, page 83, line 21, after
‘16(3),’ insert
‘18(3),’. No.
138, in
schedule 8, page 83, line 25, leave
out
‘and’. No.
139, in
schedule 8, page 83, line 25, at
end insert ‘and 30’.—[Mrs.
McGuire.] Schedule
8, as amended, agreed
to Clause 66
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
67Extent Amendments
made: No. 72, in
clause 67, page 47,line 24, leave
out ‘Sections 41(1) to (10) and 42’ and insert
‘The following
provisions’. No.
73, in
clause 67, page 47, line 24, at
end insert— ‘(a) sections
41(1) to (10) and 42, and (b)
paragraphs 6, 11(2) and 15 of Schedule
3.’. No.
74, in
clause 67, page 47, line 24, at
end insert— ‘( ) Paragraphs
1, 2, 4, 11(3), 13 and 21 of Schedule 3 extend to Scotland
only.’. No.
75, in
clause 67, page 47, line 30, after
‘paragraphs’ insert
‘5,’. No.
76, in
clause 67, page 47, line 30, after
‘(2)’ insert ‘,
18’. No. 77, in
clause 67, page 47, line 34, after
‘17),’ insert ‘the Income and
Corporation Taxes Act 1988
(c. 1),’.—[Mrs.
McGuire.] Clause
67, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
68 and 69 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
New Clause
15Social
Security Advisory Committee
consultation ‘In section 173
of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (cases in which
consultation is not required) subsection (5) ceases to have
effect.’.—[John
Robertson.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
John
Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. May I wish
everyone here today a happy St. Andrew’s day? On such a
day, it is again sad that the Scottish National party has
failed to turn up for Scotland if only to listen to our
debate.
Danny
Alexander: May I, on behalf of my party, echo the hon.
Gentleman’s good wishes for St. Andrew’s day? I also
share his complete lack of surprise that hon. Members from the Scottish
National party have shown no interest in these proceedings, or indeed
in anything else that is in the greater interests of the United
Kingdom.
John
Robertson: Perhaps there is more than one unionist party
in the Committee.
This is the last new clause on
the selection list so, with your indulgence, Mr. Hood, I
would like to say a number of “thank yous” to
organisations that have helped me during the proceedings. They are:
Macmillan Cancer Support, Citizens Advice, Citizens Advice Scotland,
the Royal National Institute of the Blind, the Child Poverty Action
Group, the Disability Alliance, Barnardo’s, Action for Blind
People, Age Concern, Arthritis Care, Carers UK, Contact a Family,
L’Arche UK, Leonard Cheshire, Mencap, Mind, the Motor Neurone
Disease Association, the National Autistic Society, the
Parkinson’s Disease Society, RADAR—the Royal Association
for Disability and Rehabilitation—Rethink, the Royal National
Institute for Deaf People, Scope, Sense and, last but by no means
least, Skill and the TUC. It is important that those organisations,
which have helped and which deal with the kind of people whom it is
hoped the Bill will help, are mentioned.
The new clause is intended to
probe the Under-Secretary’s thinking, and makes some serious and
genuine points that she needs to address. Under the arrangements set
out in part VIII of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, draft
regulations made within six months of the parent Act need not be
referred to the Social Security Advisory Commission, as per section
173(5) of that Act. The Secretary of State and Parliament are thus
denied the SSAC’s expertise when considering such draft
regulations. The
expertise of the SSAC has long been recognised, and was described by
Lady Justice Hale, as she was then, in the case of Howker in the Court
of Appeal as
follows: “Parliament
has determined that we should have a system of social security benefits
for those who are unable to provide for themselves. The broad outlines
are laid down in legislation but the scheme is necessarily extremely
complicated and requires frequent amendment to take account of social,
economic and (as in this case) legal change. The details have to be
contained in
delegated legislation. But Parliament has also recognised the need for
both the Secretary of State and for Parliament to have independent and
expert social policy advice before making changes to the scheme. There
are complex questions involved, about the definition of need, about
equity between different groups, about the right kind of incentives,
all in the context of very large numbers of people and very large sums
of public money. In the context of a scheme whose fundamental purpose
is to relieve ‘want’, the need for independent and expert
advice is particularly clear when a change to the regulations might
deprive a large number of existing claimants of their
benefit”. I
apologise for the long quotation, but it is important that the issue is
seen in the context of the Bill. Of necessity, many regulations are
made within six months of the parent Act coming into effect, mainly
because they are needed to bring the detail of the Act into effect.
However, the consequence of section 173(5) of the 1992 Act is that the
Secretary of State and then Parliament are often deprived of the
SSAC’s expert views at a critical stage, namely when the new
benefits schemes are being set up.
Professor Hazel Genn’s
report of the quinquennial review of the Social Security Advisory
Committee recommended that the rule be abolished. She noted that with
more regulations being made within the six-month window, the
SSAC’s ability properly to influence the shape and direction of
the legislation was diminished. She recommended that the regulations
referred to the SSAC within the six-month window should be limited to
those identified at the Committee stage of the Bill as bringing about
significant change. In his response the Secretary of State accepted the
recommendation, but said that an amendment was needed to the Social
Security Administration Act 1992. The Bill provides an opportunity for
that, and the new clause would achieve
it.
10
am In its 19th
report, the SSAC stated about the six month
rule: “We
reported last year that we were still working with the Department on
the implementation of the recommended strengthening of our role in
relation to regulations laid within six months of an Act coming into
force. These regulations remain excluded from our statutory scrutiny,
but we are pleased to report that we have now reached an agreement with
the Department that will enable us to familiarise ourselves with new
legislation and, when we wish to do so, offer informal comments and
advice. As it happens, we shall have an opportunity to test these new
arrangements by reference to regulations made under powers contained in
the Welfare Reform Bill that is now before
Parliament.” It may
therefore be thought necessary to allow the arrangements to be worked
through before implementation through the new clause and the abolition
of the six month rule. That can be done by ensuring that the new clause
does not come into effect for a period of time. However, we should not
miss the legislative opportunity to put into effect the stated view of
the Secretary of State that the six month exclusion rule should be
removed. I consider
new clause 15 to be necessary and the Court of Appeal and the Secretary
of State appear to agree, so why was the matter not dealt with in the
Bill? What are the present views of the Secretary of State on the state
of the six month
rule?
Danny
Alexander: I welcome and endorse the important points made
by the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West. I am sure that all hon.
Members, no matter how brief a period they have so far spent in the
House, are aware of the excellent work that the Social Security
Advisory Committee does. The new clause is important for the
availability of the committee’s advice across the full range of
primary and secondary legislation. I hope that the Under-Secretary of
State will be able to give a positive response. As we are coming to the
close of the Committee’s business, Mr. Hood, and it
is the first time I have served on a Public Bill Committee, I want to
mention how much I have enjoyed it. I look forward to the
Under-Secretary’s
response. Mr.
Hunt: May I also say that I have much enjoyed serving
under your chairmanship in the Committee, Mr. Hood, and that
I have greatly valued the constructive discussions that we have, for
the most part, had. I want briefly to speak in support of the new
clause; some of my remarks will be points that I thought I would make
on clause 59, but on reflection I think they are more relevant to the
new clause. The valuable work of the Social Security Advisory Committee
could be very helpful in clarifying some concerns that people have
about the wording of clause 59 in relation to the definition
of care
homes.
|
