Letter from the Rt Hon. James
Purnell MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to the Chairman
1. Thank you for your letter dated 8 October,
regarding the handling of secondary legislation in DWP. I am grateful
to you for letting me know about the Committee's concerns, and
I'm sorry to learn that the Committee was unhappy with our approach
on SI 2008/2424 in particular.
2. You express concern that the Explanatory Memorandum
(EM) to this SI makes no mention of any consultation by the Department.
I agree it would have been useful if the memorandum had said more
about this. My Department held informal discussions with Age Concern
and Help the Aged to help ensure that the interests of pensioners
were represented when the policies were being formulated. With
specific regard to the proposals relating to the reduction in
Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit period, we also invited welfare
rights and similar organisations to send details of case studies
and information on the impact of the proposals. This was in addition
to our statutory requirement to consult the Local Authority Associations,
which we followed. We also took account of the SSAC consultation
exercise and report, which gave evidence of potential hardship
to some people which could result from these changes. In response
to this, we decided to relax the new provisions as they affect
people of working age.
3. With regard to the Explanatory Memorandum
to these regulations, I regret that the Committee finds it unsatisfactory.
We have identified the learning points from this particular case
and will ensure that all future material supporting Statutory
Instruments will take these higher standards on board.
4. You express concern that the Department may
seek to use referral to the SSAC as a substitute for its own proper
consultation. We will always take a departmental view as to what
public consultation arrangements are appropriate for a particular
policy proposal. We take into account any consultations undertaken
by SSAC, which functions as a statutory body independent of the
Department.
5. More widely, you express concern about the
rule which exempts regulations made within six months of commencement
of the relevant primary power from the general statutory requirement
to refer amending regulations to the SSAC. The purpose of the
exemption, as your Committee is aware, is to allow the Department
to implement new legislation quickly by avoiding the need to mount
a statutory consultation with the SSAC. The Government has taken
the view that it would not be right to delay the implementation
of major reforms to the social security system by building in
a statutory requirement to consult the SSAC in these circumstances.
Such a requirement could delay the implementation of major reforms
by approximately six months if the SSAC decided to seek formal
referral of such regulations.
6. A recent pilot whereby the SSAC had sight
of draft regulations statutorily exempted through the operation
of the six months rule is currently being jointly evaluated by
the SSAC and DWP. The primary aim of the pilot was to better acquaint
the SSAC with the content of new regulations, however, we have
undertaken to consider any implications for the SSAC's future
functions that the pilot may have raised.
7. In other areas, our work on consultation and
engagement has been praised by stakeholders, in particular the
process we put in place around Lone Parent Regulations. We aim
to take lessons from this success, as well as from the issues
you have raised in relation to SI 2008/2424.
8. Thanks again for your letter. I hope the above
has gone some way to address your concerns. My Department remains
committed to consultation and we aim to build on the successful
engagement processes we have undertaken.
14 October 2008
7 
