Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Lords Chamber

17A: Clause 11, page 5, line 23, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations shall not permit any reduction of housing benefit or amounts included for accommodation in an award of universal credit in respect of under occupation, deemed or actual where—
(a) the landlord is local authority or registered provider of social housing, and(b) any such landlord is not able to offer suitable alternative accommodation which would not cause a person to under occupy.(4B) Regulations may make provision for determining when accommodation is suitable for the purposes of these provisions.”

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, first, may I ask a question of the Opposition at this point? There has been no claim that this amendment is consequential, and it clearly is not consequential. I say so in a spirit of wishing to elucidate information and explanation from the Opposition, and it is not necessarily overtly hostile, because the Opposition are looking rather puzzled. The Opposition have not at any time said that this is consequential. It is the view of the Government, on advice, that something that refers to regulations is so clearly not consequential upon the earlier loss.

I wonder if the noble Lord could say, for the benefit of the House and before the Minister is able to take a decision, why he considers it to be consequential.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I do not believe I considered it to be consequential, but I believe that we debated it as part of that first group. We had a wide group, of which this was part. I was not anxious to revisit that debate. If the noble Baroness insists that we do, perhaps we could set aside another couple of hours to do that.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I shall respond in the same helpful measure. I am grateful to the noble Lord. The Chair put this as moved formally; that was the improper thing. I hasten to add that I know that the Chair was not trying to be improper.

Of course, I have to put on record that this is a separate matter. If the Opposition wish to press this to a Division, that is their absolute right, and I recognise that. However, the Government cannot accept Amendment 17A because it is not consequential, and the Minister clearly has not accepted it. I hope that that is an explanation which is a little clearer than mud.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

May I very rudely interrupt the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis? I am reminded, of course, by those who know the rules well, that if we are to debate this amendment—which we are, albeit very briefly—it is right that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, should move it. I will, of course, be able in procedural terms to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and explain the position. However, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for the sake of the formalities, might quickly like to move the amendment, and then we can deal with the process.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

If it has not been moved already, then I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, as I say, the Government do not accept the amendment. I will certainly ask my colleagues behind me—including the Minister, who must be wondering what on earth this is all about—that when the Question is put, no person on the coalition Benches calls against it.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

In which case, I think that all I need to do is to say, I beg to move.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I thought we were going to have a quicker canter through these issues, and we may wish to return to at least one of them at Third Reading. In relation to the mitigation issue, I am obviously grateful for the Minister’s consideration of that and recognition that there is an issue to address. However, like my noble friend, I am a bit dismayed that the route to dealing with it is the six months—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I know that we are in a cordial mood and we have reached a magical moment as far as noble Lords and perhaps the staff, too, are concerned. As Government Chief Whip, I ought gently to remind the noble Lord, who was a Minister himself with distinction, that Third Reading rules are very carefully framed by this House and I know he would not wish to breach them. There are matters which may very properly be brought back at Third Reading. I know that he will consider whether any wish he expresses now to bring back at Third Reading will later be translated into action only within the rules.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Indeed, my Lords. We aspire to do nothing but stay within the rules. We would not dream of treading outside of them.

It is disappointing, for the reason my noble friend gave, that if the idea is to get somebody to re-engage, it must surely be possible to evaluate prior to them actually getting into work. After they have been in work for six months, it may be that there is frankly not a lot to sanction in any event. It depends on the level of earnings and the impact of universal credit on that. I would urge the Minister to reflect and think again on this point. We have had our exchange on targets and I understand that the data are still going to be collected. I trust they are not going to be posted on office notice boards to act as an indirect incentive. I accept the Minister’s assurance on that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made a very important point which has not, I think, been fully addressed. In summary, she is seeking a requirement for the department to be proactive with people before they are sanctioned, not just relying on them to respond, question and challenge.

My noble friend Lady Turner’s amendment raises an interesting point. If the decision maker is going to make an up-front judgment as to whether there has been misconduct by an individual who has left work or whose employment has been terminated, this might pre-empt the role of the tribunal itself, whose job it is to make that assessment.

I am not sure how that sits four-square but, given the hour, I would urge the Minister to reconsider the first item in relation to mitigation. I am sure we will all be happy if we can avoid Third Reading and a possible challenge from the noble Lords’ Chief Whip. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we were happy to try and continue a bit further to reach the target amendment. My noble friends are nodding in agreement. Perhaps it is not too late.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I know that it is unusual for the noble Lord to put such a matter. I certainly am content to accept that offer, but I do not wish in any way to make the House feel that it is being overworked. I am looking carefully at the opposition Front Bench and I see the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, giving his consent. Perhaps I may check with my noble friend the Minister. We are all aware of the other side of the coin of that offer, to which I have no objection whatever. It is a perfectly normal way for an Opposition to behave and I certainly recognise it as such. It is a generous offer met in generous spirit. Perhaps we may continue.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, it may be convenient if I respond to the points but I understand that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, wishes to speak.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I remind the House that I had ministerial responsibility for the last two Welfare Reform Bills, which, as has been explained, were taken in the Moses Room. However, the scale and scope of those Bills was nothing like the Welfare Reform Bill before us at the moment. This is not our description, it is the Government’s description. The Government have said that this is a landmark Bill, the biggest change in the welfare system since the 1940s, and how important it is for the future of our country. That is the Government’s position. Therefore, it deserves enough time on the Floor of the House.

Anybody who listened to the debate yesterday would have noted that a big aspect of the Bill, recasting DLA into a new system, has caused real consternation in the disabled community, with millions of people potentially affected by it. For their sakes, if nobody else’s, we need to make sure that we can debate that in this Chamber so they have the best possible access. We did agree a split of the Bill, mostly on the basis of what was tabled by the Government; I think there was one adjustment we wished to make to it. We have co-operated. As my noble friend Lord Corbett says, we are talking about just four days. If that is what divides us we should take this away, rethink and get back to the usual channels.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I think we have covered all the issues because I am hearing the same arguments again. The arguments are keenly felt and I do not undervalue them but it is right that I should be able to respond to those points.

Obviously my greatest concern is about those who wish to ensure that there is proper access for all Peers, particularly those with mobility issues, and also for those who wish to watch, hear, understand and read. I am assured that there is more space for wheelchair users upstairs than downstairs, for both Peers and members of the public. When bringing visitors here, I am all too keenly aware of the difficulties for members of the public in getting upstairs to watch the Chamber.

I was concerned by the presumption that those who wish to follow our proceedings will not be able to do so properly unless they are in the Chamber. All the proceedings in Grand Committee are webcast—I know because I watch them—and they are all recorded in Hansard. There is no difference in accessibility through the internet or paperwork between the Chamber and Grand Committee.

There is an allegation that the Government have too much legislation. I remember making the same allegation against the Opposition when they were in government but I agreed to controversial Bills going into Grand Committee to ensure that all Bills could have time for proper consideration.

There was a comment about the importance of scrutiny of Bills. Scrutiny by Members of this House is valuable, and valued by me, wherever it takes place, whether it is at the Dispatch Box opposite, on the Cross Benches or on the Back Benches behind and in front of me. It does not matter whether it takes place in this Chamber or in Grand Committee—the arguments are as strong wherever they may be made.

The point has been made that there is little difference between us, and that is precisely the case. The Government made an offer which the Opposition rejected. Our offer was to ensure that there was a reasonable split between Grand Committee and the Chamber—a split that would have meant that Peers who are interested in all the other Bills have a proper opportunity to consider those Bills as well. I am convinced that it is right to ask the House to take a decision on this matter.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Can the noble Baroness please explain to me this: if we are going to forbear and not move our amendments today on the basis that they could all come back at Report, why does not the same run for the government amendments?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, there have been discussions about this. There are circumstances in which that happens, and it was a possibility. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will know, it is a procedure that is happily adopted in Grand Committee, whereby if there is agreement, a government amendment may go in; later on, if the Opposition find that they have not had time for proper thought, and find the amendment totally objectionable, it is possible for an amendment to be brought at Report, by agreement within the usual channels. If a government amendment is accepted and thereby inserted it into the Bill, but this subsequently appears to have been done in a way that the Opposition did not quite expect—if they have found out information later on and, had they known it then, the amendment would have been objectionable to them—then the assurance that I can give both to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, who was a distinguished Minister himself so I know he has been through this, and to the House is that they can bring an amendment at Report. There have been thorough-going discussions about how we may properly address issues at Report. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

One further point: is the noble Baroness going to guarantee that we will have sufficient time at Report to bring back the amendments which we are forbearing to move? We have a lot to get through at Report in any event, quite apart from this. I would not want to feel that we were precluded, and end up in the same position as we have ended up in tonight, which has, frankly, mostly been a waste of time in terms of our chance to focus on the detail of these amendments.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

The usual channels have taken those issues into consideration, and have come to an agreement which I hope will accommodate proper scrutiny at Report.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Perhaps I may say that the mood of the House on this side is not to delay the Bill but to make sure that we do have proper scrutiny of what is a very long and complex Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will answer for himself, but I think he has been done an injustice.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, proper scrutiny is what we are all about, of course. My noble friend has just given an extremely lengthy answer which shows that this Government are also committed to just that.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this is disgraceful. To help the Government we agreed to a back-to-back Committee stage, which is most unusual. We agreed to an early start tomorrow to help the Government. We have already stretched to 11 o’clock tonight. This manuscript amendment is closely linked to Clause 124 which is a substantial debate that we ought to have when minds are relatively fresh. It is best done tomorrow. I can see nods of assent from some of the coalition Benches. That is the way we should leave it tonight. We have made better progress than I thought we would today, and we have played our part in that. I think we should now draw the line.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I know that it has been a long and hard-working day and all in the Chamber will appreciate the work that has been put in by colleagues around the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, was perhaps not party to some of the earlier discussions. I did not reach an agreement with the usual channels at any point to finish at 10 o’clock or close to 10’clock this evening. I was clear about the progress that we all wished to make—I am sorry, I am a little out of breath from seeking to ensure that I reached the Chamber in order to respond to the Leader of the Opposition. I was clear in the discussions I had that, in order to assist the House to complete the Committee stage of the Localism Bill tomorrow, which I know is the ambition of all noble Lords, it was likely that we would need to sit until around 11 o’clock tonight depending, of course, on the progress of business. I know that colleagues on these Benches and on the Front Bench opposite have striven to work through our business today.

When my noble friend Lord Shutt referred to the manuscript amendment, he was genuinely trying to be helpful. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, looks puzzled because I know that Whips are not usually like that, but I can assure him that in this House, the Whips do try to be helpful because I understand that there have been discussions with the Minister that might elucidate this issue. It looked as though it would be helpful to do that tonight, and clearly anything that is done now reduces the amount of time we need to spend on the Bill tomorrow. I know that the opposition Front Bench is as keen as anyone to complete the Committee stage. I hope that this is helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I wonder if I might assist the Committee. We are in Committee and we try to enable as much discussion and latitude as possible. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, may not be aware that the procedure is that, once the Minister has concluded his answer, and then the person moving the amendment seeks to sum up and decide what to do with the amendment, the Minister should not then be subject to further questioning. Naturally, the Minister has wanted to assist the Committee as much as possible but the noble Lord has trespassed a little far on our usual procedures. I invite the Minister not to comment further. However, I am sure that, like all Ministers—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, used to do when she was a Minister—he will be pleased to consider constructive discussions between now and Report.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful to the Minister for participating in the additional exchanges. However, we still need clarity over what the structure will look like in the future and what in practice enhanced ministerial responsibility and accountability will come from that. Having heard the Minister’s comments, I cannot see a great difference from current practice.

I return to the options service, which was not a responsibility of the DWP or the CSA before the creation of the commission. It has been heavily, and properly, marketed as offering support for parents and information and guidance that is independent of government. I have not heard the Minister address my next point directly, but it seems to me that we need to think through the consequences of putting at risk the status that that service has achieved, where parents with care and non-resident parents can feel that they can genuinely and confidentially engage with the service and get impartial advice. I remember that during the passage of the Bill we had interesting discussions about the obligations on that service in terms of reporting its findings if it became aware of information that was inconsistent with other information in the system on benefits and income. One of my questions is whether that will change with the service no longer being conducted by an NDPB but directly by an executive agency of the DWP. It would be good to have clarity on those sorts of issues.

We have probably had a useful starting exchange on this. We would now like to read the record and reflect. If there is an opportunity, perhaps we can get some clarity on these issues even before we reach Report stage. My colleagues and I would greatly appreciate that. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.