Welfare Reform Bill

Public Bill Committee, 30 November 2006.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

On a point of order, Mr. Hood, would you allow me an opportunity to correct the Official Report? The record shows that I told the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey that, since its introduction, the two strikes measure has been applicable to 320 cases a year, of which 190 have had the sanction applied. I now wish to make it clear that 320 is the total number of cases to which the measure has been applied since the legislation commenced in April 2002 and that the sanction was applied in 190 cases.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

That was not a point of order; it was a point of information, but thank you.

Clause 54

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for that point of information. It is a lovely day in London, but not in my constituency in the highlands. Sadly, not everybody in this United Kingdom—long may it remain so—is benefiting from the weather that we are enjoying here.

Let me probe the Minister for a few more points of clarification. My understanding is that the purpose of the clause is to allow him more flexibility with regard to the allocation of moneys that can be used for social fund purposes and how they can be distributed at national and regional level. Does the measure also give flexibility as to the nature of grants and loans that may be given from the social fund? If it does not, is that something that he will look at again?

A number of organisations have made representations to me about whether there might be a case for making additional types of grant available through the social fund, over and above those that are currently allowed. I am well aware, as I am sure the Committee is, that the social fund is cash limited; it is used for precise purposes. In particular, the Child Poverty Action Group has proposed ideas such as using the social fund for a child development grant, payable at key stages in a child’s life, and a health and safety grant. In the early years of a child’s life, that might be particularly useful for key items in the home that are considered essential for a child’s health and safety, such as a cot or bedding, or for the repair and replacement of gas and electrical appliances.

That organisation has also proposed the idea of an opportunity grant or allowance to assist claimants in getting back to work, recognising that additional costs might be incurred in that process. That would certainly be relevant to part 1 of the Bill. Currently, as the Committee knows, such payments can be made as discretionary payments through the adviser’s discretionary fund. However, that is not formally advertised or promoted, so it is not necessarily known to claimants unless the adviser makes them aware of it. The additional option of a specific grant within the social fund may be a way of getting around that.

The purpose of my questions is to elicit from the Minister whether the clause will give him the powers to make it clear that additional sorts of grant may be allowable under the social fund, and whether he has considered those ideas.

Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)

The hon. Gentleman referred to representations that he received. Has anybody mentioned to him an experience that I have encountered? A number of people in my constituency who have made unsuccessful applications for a raft of benefits have been told to go for the social fund. The result is that the local office in my constituency is often almost inundated with phone calls at certain times of day. An individual will often have to try for literally two days before he gets a response on whether an application may be successful.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The experience that he described has been shared by some of my constituents with regard to crisis loans. Both he and I were at the recent meeting of the all-party group on citizens advice, where Citizens Advice representatives reported that the experience was common to people living in many constituencies. The Minister may therefore wish to deal with the issue of timeliness. Given the nature of social fund payments, which are sometimes for emergencies, especially in the case of crisis loans, what steps are being taken to ensure that telephone lines are answered as quickly as possible so that people do not have the experience that the hon. Member for Caerphilly accurately described?

Within the social fund, what scope does the Minister have to allow additional categories of grant or loan? If he has such powers, is he minded to use them in a particular way, and if he does not, is he minded to take them?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

We started in sunshine and, although there have been storm clouds over my right shoulder from time to time, we end in sunshine.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to respond to the debate on clause 54, having spent most of last evening reading the detail of clause 53.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

On a point of clarification, I thought I heard the Minister say “reading”, but of course he meant to say “re-reading”.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

Sorry, I should have said “writing”.

We turn a little earlier than I had hoped, therefore, to clause 54. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey is right that the clause provides for flexibility in the allocation of funds for discretionary social fund payments. The clause makes it clear that there can be a single nationwide allocation from which loans may be made, so that expenditure can be controlled and managed centrally. A national loans budget, managed centrally, provides all loan applicants in Great Britain with the same treatment. That is crucial to the fairness and transparency of the budgeting loans scheme. In particular, it will ensure that all eligible applicants in the same circumstances will have the same amount of budgeting loan available to them wherever they live.

In response to the specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised, as he knows, the social fund already provides regulated grants for easily identifiable life events and situations such as maternity, funeral and cold weather expenses—be the cold weather in Inverness or elsewhere—as he fairly said. The case for further regulated grants needs to be considered in the context of increasing personal responsibility without encouraging worklessness. It is about getting the balance right. For most people, the main route out of poverty is the opportunity to work—work that pays and which, if sustained, leads to a career.

The hon. Gentleman was fair in pointing out that the clause gives a degree of flexibility within a national budget, which is how we want to allocate funds in future.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

The Minister rightly referred to personal responsibility, and people’s responsibility to get back into work, which is, after all, a major feature of the Bill. My point is that the idea of additional forms of grant within the social fund to aid that process is at least worth considering. Likewise, in Committee, he has rightly often referred to the need to tackle child poverty. I argue that it would be useful, if possible, to restructure the social fund with perhaps more focus on that objective.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right. He shares our commitment to the eradication of child poverty, to which the Bill is important. We look forward to his party signing up to the 2020 target before 2020.

The hon. Gentleman raised the specific matter of flexibility, and made a fair point. He reasonably alighted on the fact that the clause contains the power to make different types of grant, and we continue to consider improvements to the social fund scheme, including possible reforms to the community care grant scheme. We have said publicly, and I say again for the record, that we are keen to discuss longer-term reform of the social fund with interested parties, organisations and Members of this House and the other place. The power in the clause is generally welcomed and builds on the progress that we have made on the social fund in recent years, such as lower interest-free loans and additional funding for the next three years of £210 million.

As I said, myself and the Under-Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling and for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), are keen to have conversations with interested parties about the longer-term reform of the social fund, and the clause plays an important part in giving it flexibility.

Schedule 6

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 110, in schedule 6, page 77, line 19, at end insert—

‘1A A person is not a relevant employer in relation to a person disabled by a disease to which this Act applies if the disabled person has had no period of employment with him which is a qualifying period of employment.’.

Again, we have come to this amendment a little earlier than I anticipated, but I and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East, are as one in our delight that we are making such good progress.

The Pneumonoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 provides for lump-sum payments to be made to people with certain dust-related diseased caused by their work. To qualify for a payment, a person must be unable to take civil action against their employer because that employer is no longer in business. In the Act, that is called the “relevant employer condition.” It became clear within months of the Act coming into force that applying the relevant employer condition meant that most claims would be rejected. The changes that we are making to the 1979 Act will incorporate in legislation a more practical version of the relevant employer condition than officials have been applying since 1980. There will be five circumstances in which an employer will not be regarded as a relevant employer, therefore enabling a person to bring a claim. Without the amendment, those relevant employer disregards that we wish to introduce will not apply in cases in which all periods of employment with the employer ended more than 20 years before the qualifying date.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Plymouth ranks third in the UK in terms of deaths from mesothelioma, and we believe that the amendment is useful. The dockyard is a single employer, but there was also a myriad of other employers, some of which have gone out of business as the dockyard has declined. This change is very important.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

My hon. Friend is correct, and we know about Plymouth’s traditional role in the shipbuilding industry. Although I do not recall it, I lived in Plymouth much earlier in my life, because my father worked in the shipyards. I believe that it is the furthest city in the UK from Glasgow—which is an interesting and relevant point. Things got so bad that we had to find the furthest point from home.

My hon. Friend, along with many other right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government, is determined to ensure that there is a fairer deal for mesothelioma sufferers. The time that it takes to apply for, process and receive a payment is still, on average, longer than the post-diagnosis life expectancy for mesothelioma sufferers. No one can tolerate that as the status quo. Certainly we in government do not, and I do not think that it is a matter of party political disagreement.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) for the points that he has raised and the dogged determination that he has shown as chair of the all-party group on coalfield communities and that the other members of that group have shown. Technically, it is an all-party group, but I think that all those I met who represent mining communities were Labour Members of Parliament. However, there is consensus that we must go further in supporting people with mesothelioma to get a fairer deal.

In mesothelioma cases, when all employment with the employer began not more than 15 years before the qualifying date, claims for payments of compensation under the 1979 Act might be turned down in some cases in which an extra-statutory payment is currently made. That is not acceptable to the Government, and I do not believe that it would be acceptable to any member of this Committee.

Let me pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced in July this year a number of interim measures to ensure faster compensation for those with mesothelioma, as well as his intention to put in place a long-term solution to ensure that, wherever possible, sufferers of mesothelioma receive compensation while alive. He committed to consulting stakeholders on a long-term solution, and the formal consultation period ended on 23 November. We are analysing the responses and next March we will host a mesothelioma summit with stakeholders to discuss the options for action. We have also asked officials to carry out a review of the current industrial injuries disablement benefit scheme, and intend to publish a consultation paper early in 2007.

Finally, I want to make a wider point on the amendment. I have paid tribute previously to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), and I am a close friend of someone who was a colleague of ours, the former Member of Parliament for Clydebank and Milngavie. He played a pivotal role in previous Parliaments on the issue of mesothelioma, and again it is appropriate for me to put on record his determination and the way in which he kept this issue at the forefront of people’s minds in Parliament. Often in Parliament, we think that history began when we arrived in this place. Sometimes we all suffer from that. As I said, we have announced a review of the industrial injuries disablement benefit scheme, and of course there are related issues involving mesothelioma and other matters.

I also want to put on record the continuing admiration of Labour Members for a gentleman by the name of Jim Griffiths, who introduced the first industrial injuries disablement benefit. I think that he was from Carmarthen in Wales.

Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)

Llanelli.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

Yes. Jim Griffiths spoke no English until the age of five and went on to serve as the first Secretary of State for Wales. It is no longer fashionable to celebrate post-war political leaders, but Labour Members pay tribute to the work that he did and we continue.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

Mrs. Thatcher.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

That is the point I was making—it is no longer fashionable to celebrate them, unless Polly Toynbee has become a post-war political leader.

Jim Griffiths was Minister of National Insurance in Attlee’s Government. Today, workers throughout the country are still benefiting in a very important way from his determination. It is appropriate, on the 60th anniversary of the industrial injuries disablement benefit, that we ensure that that legacy is kept contemporary by acknowledging the changing nature of industrial injury. I am referring to differences to do with gender, the changing of industry and the effect that that has had on industrial injuries.

Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)

May I acknowledge how warmly the Minister’s comments are received, certainly by Labour Members? He aptly referred to Jim Griffiths, the MP for Llanelli and a miners’ leader before the second world war, who experienced first hand the impact of industrial disease on the community of which he was part. It is apt and fitting that the Minister should have referred to him in the way that he did. If it is introduced, this Bill will be a continuation of the ethos to which pioneers of the labour movement such as Jim Griffiths aspired. We warmly welcome the Minister’s comments.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Perhaps more poignantly, Jim went on to be the deputy leader of the Labour party. I do not think that anyone in the Committee is currently seeking that post, but there is poignancy there—and a lesson, because Jim ended up being deputy leader in opposition, a sober reminder for us all.

Given all those wider comments, and the additional tribute that my hon. Friend quite fairly paid, I ask the Committee to support the amendment.

Clause 58

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I want not to tour through Labour party history, but to join the cross-party consensus on the importance of this clause, and the previous clause and schedule, to the righting of an injustice—in the system for a substantial period—against those unfortunate enough to be victims of mesothelioma.

I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the clause will deal with something of particular concern to those campaigning on this issue. I wish to add to the Minister’s list the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen), many of whose constituents suffer from mesothelioma. I hope that the implications of this clause are that compensation for the condition will be payable not only to the workers who were exposed to the particles that cause the horrendous disease, but to their wives, partners, civil partners and so forth, who may, for example, have taken in the particles while washing clothes or doing other household tasks.

Will the Minister clarify whether the coverage for partners, spouses and so forth will be on the same basis as that for the workers themselves? What would happen if a worker had already passed away, but their partner or spouse were suffering from the condition, which could be attributable to their late husband, wife or partner in respect of employment as defined under schedule 6?

With those few remarks and in a spirit of welcoming what the Government seek to do, I should be grateful if the Minister answered those brief points.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

The hon. Gentleman fairly draws the Committee’s attention to the work undertaken by the hon. Member for Rochdale on this issue, along with many others in that part of the country.

Untypically, the hon. Gentleman has not fully grasped the specific detail of what we are seeking to do, although not for any unreasonable purpose—he is not seeking to misconstrue the clause. I shall make a couple of comments about his request.

Clause 58 amends the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, to which I have already referred, so that civil partners, children of civil partners, a person who is living with a sufferer as if they were a civil partner and a person who is living with a sufferer as if they were husband and wife are included within the meaning of “dependant”. The clause makes the 1979 Act compatible with the Civil Partnerships Act 2004, which came into force in December 2005, and was largely unforeseen when the 1979 Act was passed. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, from a sedentary position, celebrates the passing of the Civil Partnerships Act.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Don’t we all.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

We all do, as I was about to say.

This important proposal corrects an anomaly in the 1979 Act in which provision for Scottish reputed spouses—a man and a woman living together as husband and wife—was omitted in error. If these changes are not made, there is a risk of challenge to the 1979 Act because of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Whether there is such a challenge or not, the Government wish to bring the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act up to date to fit in with the wider civil rights and equality legislation that came into force last year.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey mentioned the work of his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, who works closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin). They are parliamentary neighbours and both work hard on this issue.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey mentioned the case of someone who contracts mesothelioma from a particle from a piece of clothing in a household environment. For example, a wife—it is almost always a wife, but I am not trying to make a gender-specific point—may have contracted the disease by inhaling a particle from clothing as she washed it or hang it out to dry. Clause 58 does not capture that but we are looking at the issue in the context of a wider review of how we treat mesothelioma generally, although that is not the purpose of the clause. However, it is part of the considerations at the mesothelioma summit and the work being carried out by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. The clause does not, in itself, give legal effect in respect of the specific concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I referred to exactly the issues that he raises in my maiden speech, and we have moved on some distance since then. Sadly, we have now lost the constituents to whom I referred then and still time moves on. He acknowledged how speedy we must be in resolving these matters, but I hope that he also realises that people need resolution now. I accept what he says about the March time scale, but the matter must be settled before more people are lost.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why the Secretary of State announced interim measures in July and a longer-term review, the consultation on which closed a week ago. Last week, with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone, I met the entirely reputable and determined solicitors Thompsons, who made similar points. I acknowledge that even the time scale of March next year does not meet our collective impatience for an immediate resolution of the issue, but we are determined to get it right, for all our constituents who have lived with the disease or who, unbeknown to them, have the disease gestating within them.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I echo from the Opposition Benches the point made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley. It is critical that the matter is dealt with as quickly as possible. Will the Minister give us any indication of the time scales? Does he envisage legislation going through this Session in which it will be appropriate to include additional powers that are needed to address the point that he raises? In that way, the legislation can be got through this Session and we will not need another Queen’s Speech before moving the matter forward in the way referred to by the hon. Lady.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

We are determined to find a speedy remedy to this issue in any way possible. That is why we amended the Compensation Bill in the light of the Barker case, to right what we thought was a wrong judgment. We cannot pre-empt—the hon. Gentleman will accept that this is a fair comment—the outcome of the consultation that we have had from July to November, but if the outcome is that legislation would be needed, we will try to implement that speedily. There are, however, other things that we can do with the insurance industry and others to see whether a voluntary code would work.

My final point is that sufferers and relatives of those who have died from mesothelioma and related illnesses are right to be utterly impatient. At some point, they would lose faith in a voluntary code and a set of voluntary operations if we did not make such provisions work, so we are determined to make them work. Those comments are not intended to pre-empt in any way the outcome of the consultation and the deliberations ahead of the summit next March.

Clause 61

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise one or two points that fit appropriately under this clause. Schedule 7 makes minor amendments and amendments consequential to part 4. I would like to use this opportunity, under your guidance, Mr. Hood, to raise a related point, which is a matter that should have been considered under this part and may well be considered in more detail in another place, assuming that the Bill reaches that stage.

My point relates to the remit of the Social Security Advisory Committee, and hon. Members will be aware that that is not dealt with under schedule 7. Under the Tax Credits Act 2002, all functions in respect of child benefit and guardian’s allowance were transferred to what is now called Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, though they remain social security benefits, as entitlement to them arises under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, which is amended by schedule 7. I wish to put on record my point about the importance of amending the Bill to extend the remit of the Social Security Advisory Committee to cover guardian’s allowance and child benefit. As the Committee will know, that was the case before the administrative functions in respect of those benefits were transferred to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

Hon. Members will be aware of the important work done on this Bill by the Social Security Advisory Committee, and those with more experience in the House than I will no doubt be aware of its important work on many other pieces of legislation. However, it seems a little odd—to put it minimally—that its remit has not been extended to guardians allowance and child benefit as a consequence, albeit it perhaps an unforeseen one, of the Tax Credits Act 2002.

The Work and Pensions Committee has recommended that the Social Security Advisory Committee has its statutory remit extended to legislation that arises under the Tax Credits Act. I shall not go into great detail at the moment, Mr. Hood, as I do not wish to try your patience at this late stage in our proceedings. However, I hope that having brought this to the Under-Secretary’s attention, she will look again at the matter and, perhaps, bring forward, or get her hon. Friend the Minister of State to bring forward, further comment or consideration when the Bill is considered in another place.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

It is interesting to be asked about a schedule that is not actually in the Bill, but perhaps I should clarify for the Committee that those are matters for the Treasury. However, there are informal arrangements between Her Majesty’s Treasury and SSAC whereby the latter considers guardians allowance and child benefit. That was discussed at length during consideration of the Tax Credits Act. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that that discussion took place. Obviously, we will reflect further on his point, although there have been significant discussions already.

Clause 65

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

As the Committee will know, clause 65 gives effect to schedule 8, which repeals existing legislation relating to key parts of the Bill, not least part 1. It might seem like some time ago that we discussed it, but the matters that I wish to bring to the Committee’s attention relate back to changes consequential on part 1. The items repealed under schedule 8 include parts of existing legislation relating to rates, structures and the entitlement tests for incapacity benefit and income support. I hope, therefore, to draw a few things to the Committee’s attention—I think that the Under-Secretary will be responding to these points, for which I am very grateful, although, of course, I do not wish to undervalue the Minister of State’s extensive contributions to proceedings.

Given that the clause gives effect to schedule 8, which repeals much of the existing structure, we have an opportunity to gain a little more clarification on some important points to claimants about the existing structure that will be removed and the new structure that will replace it. I hope that I have your leave, Mr. Hood, to proceed with this point.

Little information is given in the Bill about the employment and support allowance structure, except for the broad shape of the components. As we know the employment and support allowance is expected to be above the current incapacity benefit long-term rate. It is currently £78.50 per week. The support component is expected to be higher than the work-related components. That raises some questions, and if we are talking about repealing clear and detailed legislation, we need a similarly clear and detailed understanding of the consequences.

What is the relationship between the means-tested and the contributory strands? What underpins the difference in the payments rates of the support component and the work-related activity components? How many existing claimants will receive more in incapacity benefit and income support than their employment and support allowance entitlement? We have debated some of these questions before, but we have not yet had sufficiently clear answers. The Under-Secretary may not necessarily be expecting to go back over some of this ground. On that basis and on the grounds of fairness and reasonableness, which Labour Members know are two of my favourite characteristics—

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

And the weather.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

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.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

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.

Schedule 8

Clause 67

New Clause 15

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

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 (Labour, Glasgow North West)

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.

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 (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

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.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

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.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is pushing his luck a little bit.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

I will briefly conclude my comments. I support the new clause because I hope that the Social Security Advisory Committee’s expertise could be useful in clarifying the fact that people in supported accommodation should continue to receive attendance allowance and disabled living allowance; I am sure that that is the Government’s intention.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West and Opposition Members about the value of SSAC’s advice to the Department. We have a very good relationship with SSAC, and indeed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as well as the Minister of State on this Committee, recently met its chairman, Sir Richard Tilt, to talk about its role. We certainly agree that SSAC’s regular meetings with officials about policy development, as well as its informal and formal scrutiny of the majority of amended regulations before they are made into law, has helped successive Governments—SSAC has not just advised this Government—to make better rules for claiming benefits.

I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West that we initially considered doing what he is suggesting in the new clause. However, subsequent exchanges between ourselves and SSAC have meant that we have agreed to maintain the status quo. Nevertheless, we have non-statutory informal exchanges with SSAC, as he said. For example, in relation to our deliberations in Committee, SSAC has already seen the green book on regulations, which has been presented to the Committee and to wider stakeholders.

The current remit means that it is not necessary to refer for scrutiny draft regulations made under powers recently enacted by Parliament. By “recently”, we mean the long-established period of six months after the commencement of the relevant powers. Referring such regulations to the committee for further scrutiny seems to us unnecessary and bureaucratic. It would threaten the speedy implementation of policy set out in the legislation that was recently approved by Parliament—and that, in itself, cannot be right. That is why both the Government and SSAC have agreed that the status quo is the best way forward, if the status quo can indeed be a way forward.

Given that the Committee has spent a long time scrutinising the Bill line by line, it would seem a bit strange if we as parliamentarians were to pass it to an external body to look at it again. To be frank, given the extensive consultation, including the Green Paper and the record number of respondents to it, in this particular instance I doubt whether anything new could or would be said.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

The Under-Secretary makes an interesting point. The draft regulations before the Committee, in terms of supporting evidence for the Bill, have been seen by SSAC and I understand that it has commented on them. May I ask whether she is willing to deposit in the Library of the House those comments on the draft regulations, so that Parliament might also have the benefit of that wisdom?

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

My understanding—I stand to be corrected—is that the relationship between SSAC and the Department is one of confidentiality and SSAC’s advice is given in that context. Such advice is freely given, but it is of a confidential nature. However, if there is anything that we feel we can put into the public domain—let us remember that that decision is not just our responsibility, as SSAC has its own terms of engagement with us, which are that its advice should be confidential—I obviously will pursue that. I hope that hon. Members understand that, if the relationship between SSAC and the Department is to be productive and fruitful, it needs to be maintained in that context of trust and confidence. Of course, we have a similar relationship with the Disability Employment Advisory Committee.

Therefore, although I understand the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West, who has made a reasonable case for the new clause, we think that the new clause is not appropriate. Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise legislation and we have scrutinised the new clause in this Committee and do not see any need—neither does the SSAC—to change the current situation. I ask him to withdraw the new clause.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. I will take advisement on what she has said. At this time I will withdraw the new clause, but I reserve the right to come back to it at a later stage if the advice is that what she has said is not all together factual.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Hood, which I hope is acceptable. I would just like to thank you—

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

Order. That is not a point of order—it is debatable.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

The fact that it is a point of order is debatable? [Laughter.]

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

We have had a wonderful time in this Committee and I am sure that we will end it in order. The question that I have just proposed to report the Bill to the House is debatable.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

I will allow the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds to go first.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I am grateful to the Minister, whose generosity has been a mark of this Committee. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State and other hon. Members on the Government Benches. The Committee has been a novel experience for me, Mr. Hood, and not just because of serving under your excellent chairmanship. I speak for the official Opposition in thanking you greatly for your courtesy and for the excellent way in which you have regulated proceedings.

Until this Committee, we have not always seen eye-to-eye with Government Front Benchers on what is an extremely important public policy area. We all know that welfare issues are rapidly going up the political agenda for all parties, as has the language of social justice and of getting a better deal for, yes, customers who are vulnerable people, but who do not want to be seen as vulnerable. Those people have a contribution to make. They want to work, to get over their disability and to make a contribution for themselves, their families and indeed for the rest of society and the local community.

This is a hugely important area. Therefore, I was wondering how proceedings in Committee would go. Our party was particularly keen to demonstrate that it has indeed changed and that we have different ways of looking at some thorny problems regarding the general area of social justice, which is at the heart of the Bill. I have been particularly pleased that our spirit of honest inquiry and our fresh approach have been met with courtesy and respect by Ministers. It would have been easy for Government Members to make a large number of points that the Conservative Opposition had got this or that wrong, or that our views and change of stance were ineffective or lacking in some way. During these proceedings, I have been greatly heartened by the democratic process. We have had a grown-up, interesting and technically impressive debate and we have teased out quite a few issues that many people watching and reading the proceedings have wanted to hear more about. In that spirit of optimism and hope, I congratulate you, Mr. Hood, and the future Opposition on the Government side.

Finally, and most importantly, we must remember the huge debt we owe to Government officials, the Clerks, Hansard and all the parliamentary support staff and advisers, without whom this act of democracy—the scrutiny of the Bill in Committee—could not have taken place. They work at all hours when we are not sitting. We have had a good few sessions of democracy and I thank all concerned.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

May I echo the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments, particularly in respect of your wise council, Mr. Hood, in chairing our debates? I should also make the same remarks in relation to Mr. Amess, who is not with us today but who has chaired several sittings during the preceding months.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I had to give the hon. Gentleman something to do.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

As a new Member of Parliament who has taken a full part in these proceedings, I have been grateful for guidance from you, Mr. Hood, and from Mr. Amess.

There has been an interesting political side-effect of this Committee, although perhaps I should not mention it. A newspaper article that I read the other day used the phrase, “new skin, same old reptile”. That would not be an appropriate description of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. However, it has been interesting to see the old Conservative party working hard to fit with the new veneer that is the modern Conservative party.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

That is fighting talk—outside now! The hon. Gentleman is not as bright as these proceedings have shown.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

Those are churlish remarks.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

You started it.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

Order. I shall attempt to rescue the Committee from itself.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I wanted to say that there has been a remarkable spirit of consensus. I concur with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds: we have had high-quality debates and useful exchanges. In many cases, we have solicited from Ministers useful clarification that has been important for the many organisations outside the House that pay close attention to our proceedings. I am grateful for the support of some of those, in terms of research and briefing, not least the Disability Rights Commission, the Child Poverty Action Group, Citizens Advice, Shelter and many other disability charities that the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West listed under a previous new clause. I do not intend to repeat that list—merely to echo the compliments that he passed to those worthwhile, important organisations.

It only remains for me to echo other hon. Members’ remarks in respect of Government officials, the Clerks, and all the other servants of the House, who have made our proceedings so procedurally flawless and allowed it to progress with great smoothness. Of course, I thank Hansard as well for the transcriptions of our debates, which are also of great use to those outside the House.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

I do not want to repeat comments made by my hon. Friends and colleagues on the Opposition Benches, but it would inappropriate for us to conclude these proceedings without thanking the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire for his silent contribution, which has no doubt stood the Minister in good stead.

I should just like to make a serious point, on which I hope that the Government will reflect. Our proceedings have been good. This is an opportunity for the Government to consider whether it would be possible to introduce more radical welfare reform policies to the House during this Parliament. There is widespread agreement on the need to simplify the benefits system and to make further progress in the direction that the Bill seeks to go, and I think that the Government would find that the Opposition welcomed such moves, should they choose to do so. I hope that they will reflect on that and I hope that the progress that we have made on legislation in this Committee is the harbinger of even more important legislation to come.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

We have five minutes, and I shall obviously do my utmost to conclude my comments in that time. Were I not to do so, I would not anticipate a busy 16th sitting.

I thank you, Mr. Hood, and Mr. Amess for the way in which you have overseen the 15 sittings of the Committee. You each brought your own style to the proceedings. As you will be aware, Mr. Hood, Mr. Amess introduced a new initiative by successfully filibustering from the Chair, enabling the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds to find his speaking notes.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

On a point of information, I have never lost my speaking notes. It was another member of the Front Bench whose name I cannot remember.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

The hon. Gentleman is of course correct—it was the hon. Member for South-West Surrey who lost them. I congratulate you, Mr. Hood, on not attempting a similar filibuster this morning when the hon. Member for South-West Surrey sought, not to find speaking notes, but the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who, in his dual role as a Front Bencher and as the Opposition Whip, allowed himself time out of the Committee when he was due to be addressing us.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

On a point of information, the consensus has really broken down—I was out of the Room by prior agreement.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

By prior agreement, I assume, with the hon. Gentleman’s Whip, who, of course, is himself.

You have allowed a wide-ranging debate, Mr. Hood, and the last few moments have been typical of that. We have had the opportunity not only to discuss Jim Griffiths, Winston Churchill, Karl Marx, Josef Stalin, Bonnie Prince Charlie, St. Joseph, St. Luke and many other saints, but Slaithwaite Dave, Sheffield Dave, Derbyshire Dave, Tunbridge Wells Tim, and all sorts of other characters—real or imagined.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, who has done a fantastic job on local housing allowance and other important parts of the Bill. There has already been testimony to the interesting and fascinating nature of the debate, though the debate was not interesting enough for the hon. Member for Yeovil to attend very often. In the same way that the Under-Secretary and I have offered to write to hon. Members, I wonder if he would be kind enough to send us all a photograph.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East, who has served not just as the Whip but as the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household. Not only has he ensured that we kept good time, but he has enabled us to finish a whole sitting early. Members from all sides played a full and active part in the Committee. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Devonport, for Glasgow, North-West, for Colne Valley, for North-East Derbyshire, for Caerphilly, for Dumfries and Galloway and for Ochil and South Perthshire. In an earlier sitting the hon. Member for South-West Surrey confused my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway, which reminds me of the story of the former Labour Chancellor Hugh Dalton, whose image was that of a “Hail fellow, well met” kind of man. He had a great habit of walking up to people, slapping them on the back and welcoming them as his best friend, and then calling them by the wrong name. The hon. Gentleman probably considers himself more of a Timothy Dalton than a Hugh Dalton. Nevertheless, I am sure that the analogy is pertinent in many ways.

I thank all those who ensured that the Bill was well crafted. I thank the police, the officials, the Bill team, the stakeholders who played such an important role in ensuring that we were all well informed, the Hansard staff, the attendants, the Clerks and the many others who made the Bill possible. The Bill is crucial, and it will help to change many people’s lives. It will change the nature of welfare and will transform opportunities for many who have been denied such opportunities in the past.

Finally, I know that at the end of the Committee stage it is traditional to retire to the bar, but even though it is St. Andrew’s day, that is not an invitation that I could extend with any confidence to my hon. Friends, so perhaps I might encourage them to adjourn to the Tea Room instead. With that, Mr. Hood, I thank you and Mr. Amess, and all those who made our proceedings as interesting and productive as they have been, and allowed them to be concluded in such good time.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

On behalf of my co-Chairman, David Amess, and myself, I thank hon. Gentlemen for their kind words, and I echo their kind and appreciative words about the Clerks, the police, the Hansard writers and all those who have facilitated the Committee’s proceedings.

This is an opportunity for the Chairman to get his own back. Members may be aware that under Standing Orders the Chairman has discretion to continue the proceedings for 15 more minutes, but, as we have all been invited for tea and buns in the Tea Room, I shall not impose that on Members.