Source · Select Committees · Work and Pensions Committee
Recommendation 10
10
Rejected
Paragraph: 109
Devise further opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise government benefit uprating decisions.
Recommendation
We understand that to increase legacy benefits, changes must be made to DWP IT systems several months in advance—with work needing to be completed by the end of November, for increases to be enacted the following April. Parliament however is not presented with the secondary legislation to approve these changes until months after the decision is announced, by which time it would not be possible for the Government to change its course should it be persuaded. We are concerned that the process does not provide genuine opportunity for Members to scrutinise the Government’s plans. The Government should devise and bring forward further opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise its decisions on benefit uprating. For example, ahead of debate on the benefit Uprating Order, the Government should provide this Committee with a statement of how its decision on benefit uprating has taken into account its newly stated set of principles and objectives.
Government Response Summary
The government effectively rejected the recommendation to provide further scrutiny opportunities ahead of the Uprating Order, explaining that the existing statutory process and implementation timelines prevent earlier parliamentary debate.
Paragraph Reference:
109
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
The Social Security Administration Act 1992 requires the Secretary of State to give effect to the outcome of his annual review of State pension and benefit rates in an Uprating Order, which is subject to the affirmative procedure and therefore a debate and vote in both Houses. The Secretary of State’s statutory review is concluded in November and its outcome is announced to Parliament, normally by way of a Written Ministerial Statement. As noted by the Committee, implementation of the decision must commence in late November to take effect from the following April. The Uprating Order is normally laid in mid-January and debated in February. It is a Statutory Instrument subject to the affirmative Parliamentary procedure, so it cannot be amended, but it can be voted down in its entirety. As has been the case under successive governments, this means that implementation of the Secretary of State’s decision takes place at risk since the Parliamentary debates and votes take place after the implementation process has begun. The only way of removing this risk would be to lay the Order in time Benefit levels in the UK overnment’s response to the Committee’s Second eport 9 for it to be voted on before the end of November. This would mean using even earlier CPI and earnings growth figures than the ones published in October, increasing still further the lag between the indices used and the coming into effect of the new rates. In terms of matters that the Secretary of State takes into account when conducting their annual review of benefit rates over which he has discretion, such as Universal Credit, they receive information and advice from a range of policy and analytical teams. This includes equality analyses and modelling of the work incentive and poverty effects of different scenarios, with the OBR assumption of increases in line with CPI as the baseline; analysis from stakeholders outside government; and, with HM Treasury counterparts, they consider the overall fiscal position of the country. As outlined in the response to Recommendations 3 and 4, the Government does not intend to establish a benchmark for income-replacement benefits.