| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
19: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
(1) In section 124 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (c. 4) (conditions for income support), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Regulations under paragraph (e) of subsection (1) must secure that a person who—
(a) is not a member of a couple, and
(b) is responsible for, and a member of the same household as, a child under the age of 7,
falls within a category of person prescribed under that paragraph.
(1B) Subsection (1A) does not apply if regulations under subsection (4)(c) of section 1A of the Jobseekers Act 1995 containing the provision mentioned in subsection (4A) of that section are in force.”
22 Oct 2009 : Column 890
(2) In section 2A of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c. 5) (work-focused interviews)—
(a) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) No requirement may be imposed by virtue of this section on a person who—
(a) is not a member of a couple, and
(b) is responsible for, and a member of the same household as, a child under the age of one.
(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A)(b) regulations may make provision—
(a) as to circumstances in which one person is to be treated as responsible or not responsible for another;
(b) as to circumstances in which persons are to be treated as being or not being members of the same household.”, and
(b) in subsection (8), after “In this section—” insert—
““couple” has the meaning given by section 137(1) of the Contributions and Benefits Act;”.
(3) In section 12 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007 (c. 5) (employment and support allowance: work-focused interviews), in subsection (1)(b), at the end insert “or a lone parent of a child under the age of one”.
(4) In section 13 of that Act (employment and support allowance: work-related activity)—
(a) in subsection (1), after “section 12(1)” insert “, and who is not a lone parent of a child under the age of 3,”, and
(b) after subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) Regulations under this section shall include provision for securing that lone parents are entitled (subject to meeting any prescribed conditions) to restrict the times at which they are required to undertake work-related activity.”
(5) In section 24 of that Act (interpretation of Part 1), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) For the purposes of this Part, a person is a lone parent if the person—
(a) is not a member of a couple (within the meaning given by section 137(1) of the Contributions and Benefits Act), and
(b) is responsible for, and a member of the same household as, a person under the age of 16.
(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A)(b) regulations may make provision—
(a) as to circumstances in which one person is to be treated as responsible or not responsible for another;
(b) as to circumstances in which persons are to be treated as being or not being members of the same household.””
Clause 3 : Entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance without seeking employment etc.
21: Clause 3, page 10, line 2, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations under paragraph (c) of subsection (4) must secure that a person who—
(a) is not a member of a couple, and
(b) is responsible for, and a member of the same household as, a child under the age of 7,
falls within a description of person prescribed under that paragraph.
22 Oct 2009 : Column 891
(4B) Subsection (4A) does not apply if regulations under subsection (1)(e) of section 124 of the Benefits Act containing the provision mentioned in subsection (1A) of that section are in force.”
Schedule 1 : Amendments connected to section 3
22: Schedule 1, page 54, line 30, at end insert—
“(2A) No requirement may be imposed by virtue of this section on a person who—
(a) is not a member of a couple, and
(b) is responsible for, and a member of the same household as, a child under the age of one.”
24: Schedule 1, page 57, line 11, at end insert—
“(5) In preparing any action plan, the Secretary of State must have regard (so far as practicable) to its impact on the well-being of any child who may be affected by it.””
26: Schedule 1, page 58, line 43, after “1A” insert “, and
(b) who is not a lone parent of a child under the age of 3,”
27: Schedule 1, page 59, line 16, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under this section must include provision for securing that lone parents are entitled (subject to meeting any prescribed conditions) to restrict the times at which they are required to undertake work-related activity.”
28: Schedule 1, page 59, line 23, at end insert—
“(4A) But a direction under subsection (4) may not specify medical or surgical treatment as the only activity which, in any person’s case, is to be regarded as being work-related activity.”
29: Schedule 1, page 59, line 34, after “section” insert “—
“lone parent” means a person who—
(a) is not a member of a couple, and
(b) is responsible for, and a member of the same household as, a child;”
Clause 7 : Abolition of income support
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I had intended that Amendments 30 and 31 would be grouped. Therefore, if I may, I shall speak also to Amendment 31.
22 Oct 2009 : Column 892
Clause 7 provides for the abolition of income support. This led to considerable discussion in Grand Committee. Many of us had received letters from people—mostly women—who were concerned that they could be left with no support at all. Indeed, I had a letter from the TUC expressing similar concerns. However, the Minister assured us that this was not the case. The amendment that he has tabled goes some way towards meeting our concerns, but not altogether.
My amendment suggests that specified categories should be considered and that an order should be proceeded with only after a very thorough examination by the Social Security Advisory Committee. I think that this gives much more of an assurance to those who are concerned about the abolition of income support that this will not happen without a very thorough examination and that everything possible will be done to ensure that poor and vulnerable people will not be left without support. I am sure that it is not the intention of the Minister or the Government that such people should be left without any form of benefit. However, we do not know what the future may hold or what a future Government may decide on; they may think it necessary to bow to pressure from the electorate to save money on benefits and so on. Therefore, it would seem to be much better if there were a very firm assurance in the Bill that would reassure those who are worried about the abolition of income support that they will not be endangered in the future. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes): My Lords, I gather that the noble Baroness would like both the amendments to be debated together and I trust that that meets with the approval of the House.
Lord Freud: My Lords, I am used to the Minister leaping up whenever I try to speak, so I was deferring to him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, is right to raise concerns about the categories of people who are left on income support. Most, as we understand it, will be carers, although there are some others. I am confident that the Government have put together detailed proposals for the timely migration of all these people. The noble Baroness’s Amendment 30 gives the Minister the opportunity to put that on the record, which will be valuable.
I am not sure that Amendment 31, which the noble Baroness touched on, would in practice add much value. There would not seem to be a need for a detailed report by the Social Security Advisory Committee. Clause 7 is a mechanism by which the Secretary of State can abolish a redundant benefits structure once everyone currently on it has been migrated. I favour parliamentary oversight of this procedure but I do not see the need to add unnecessary delays and cost while reports are compiled to examine a benefit that is no longer in use.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Turner for giving us the opportunity to come back to these issues and put something clearly on the record. Indeed, I am most
22 Oct 2009 : Column 893
Amendment 30 refers to the categories of people who are currently prescribed under Section 124(1)(e) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992—in other words, the categories of people who are entitled to receive income support. The amendment would ensure that we could not move specified categories of people off income support until the Secretary of State thought it no longer appropriate for them to be entitled to income support—that is, until those groups had appropriate alternative means of support.
My noble friend tabled a similar amendment in Grand Committee, when she eloquently expressed the fears that some groups, such as carers and pregnant women, had about being moved from income support to a regime where they had to commit themselves to work-related activity or some sort of waged employment. I have previously assured noble Lords that our intention in abolishing income support is to simplify and to streamline the current complex benefits system and to make it more sensitive to people's needs.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, could the Minister hazard a guess as to when that might be?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord any timeline, as he well knows. Clearly, this is not a short-term project and there are complexities around it, as he will well understand. In Grand Committee, I detailed that although people who receive income support will be moved to other benefits before it is abolished, they will not receive less money as a result and they will not be subject to the requirements based on people who are required to look for work. I repeat that assurance now.
During the passage of the Bill, we have listened to the genuine concerns of my noble friend and others and, as a result, we have put a number of safeguards in place to ensure that, before any category of person is moved from income support, there will be ample opportunity for scrutiny by the Social Security Advisory Committee and both Houses of Parliament. We have also made commitments in both Houses that 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. That includes carers, whom we will not move until we have looked carefully at their position as part of our work on long-term care and until we have a clear and detailed plan for the longer term which includes the right to the provision for carers. I hope those reassurances are helpful.
In Amendment 31, my noble friend touches on the role of the advisory committee. In Grand Committee, I detailed the role which I believe the advisory committee will have. I am happy to repeat that. First, any regulations made under Section 124 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 will be subject to scrutiny by SSAC as part of its duty to examine any
22 Oct 2009 : Column 894
In Grand Committee, I gave the assurance that we would pursue those arrangements in respect of his clause. I repeat that assurance here. As well as that scrutiny, we have agreed with the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee in respect of the clause, and have tabled an amendment to ensure that any order made to provide that Section 124 should cease to have effect will be subject to affirmative procedures. That will ensure there is further debate before income support can be abolished.
Finally, as I said earlier, we have made commitments in both Houses that we will abolish income support only when there are no longer any groups for which it is needed, and that includes carers. I hope that my noble friend is reassured by that. Certainly the people who make representations to her will be reassured, on reading the record, and we stand ready to do everything we can to reinforce that reassurance if my noble friend thinks it would be helpful. Accordingly, I ask her not to press her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that assurance. I have made a careful note of it because it is very important: people will only be affected where there is already appropriate alternative means of support. That is a crucial element as regards my amendments and that is why I wanted a very full examination to ensure that that happened before this was preceded with and the order was produced. In view of what my noble friend has said, for which I am very grateful, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment and I shall not move Amendment 31.
32: Clause 7, page 13, line 36, at end insert—
“(8A) An order under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order (whether alone or with other provision) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
4.45 pm
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am the mechanism by which my noble friend gets his breath back. During Committee in the other place, Ministers gave assurances that they would study with great care the memo from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—always a wise thing to do in government—in relation to use of the affirmative procedures in a number of areas, specifically on the clauses covering the powers to abolish income support, the changes to the Social Fund, the disclosure of information and
22 Oct 2009 : Column 895
Amendments 32 and 33 deal with the delegated powers in Clause 7. As noble Lords know, this clause provides a mechanism to abolish income support once there are no longer any groups of people who require it, and enables the Government to simplify and streamline the benefit system. It outlines the conditions required before income support can be abolished, and it is only once these conditions exist that an order can be made that will effectively switch it off. In its report, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated that it was,
As a result, the first of these amendments honours the assurances we gave by making it clear that any order made under subsection (2) should be subject to affirmative procedures.
Amendment 33 relates to the order-making power in Clause 7(4). The amendment provides that any orders made under this subsection remain subject to the negative resolution procedure, except where such provision is contained within the same order as provision made under Clause 7(2). In the latter case, the order would be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
I turn now to the provisions relating to the Social Fund. Amendment 55 relates to external provider social loans and community care grants. The effect of this amendment will be to introduce some parliamentary control over the provisions on the availability of Social Fund loans in areas where there are external provider social loans. As originally drafted, the Bill would have allowed the Government to set out the provisions on the withdrawal of Social Fund provision in directions, which are not formally laid before Parliament. This amendment ensures that, if and when these restrictions are brought in, the details will be set out in regulations subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Amendment 56 addresses regulations about unauthorised use or disclosure of information and the associated creation of offences and penalties. The effect of the amendment is to make the regulations covering the detail of the offences and penalties subject to the affirmative procedure and therefore to discussion in the House and to parliamentary approval.
Finally, Amendments 84, 90, 91 and 92 cover the joint birth registration provisions. New Section 2B(1) provides that the information to be given by a mother about her child’s father will be prescribed in regulations. This information is essentially contact information enabling the registrar to contact the man concerned in those exceptional cases where a child’s parents are not co-operating with each other. As currently drafted, the power to prescribe this information lies with the Registrar-General rather than the Minister and is not therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny. However, the Delegated Powers Committee’s report made clear its view that this power is substantive in nature and similar to the powers conferred by subsections (4) and (6) of new Section 2B, which are to be exercised by negative
22 Oct 2009 : Column 896
The amendments include in that list of relevant provisions the regulation-making power conferred by new Section 2B(1). They address the concerns of the committee by seeking to ensure that the information given by a mother about her child’s father is prescribed by the Minister and therefore subject to the negative procedure. I beg to move.
33: Clause 7, page 13, line 37, leave out “this section is” and insert “subsection (4) is (unless a draft of it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament)”
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: My Lords, the House cannot get away with the abolition of income support quite so easily. Amendment 34 seeks to remove Clause 7. I know that we have spoken about this already, and the Minister has given us assurances, but I do not think that we have quite registered that this is one of the most feared parts of the Bill, and it is worth having one more go at discussing the whole clause.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |