In advance of the parliamentary debates next week on the introduction of a means test for the Winter Fuel Payment, the @UKHouseofLords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has published its report on the regulations and does not pull its punches! 1/
The Committee is "unconvinced by the reasons given for the urgency attached to laying these Regulations" & notes "It is generally regarded as poor practice to implement major policy changes during a Parliamentary recess". (the regs were laid on 22 August). 2/
The Govt says the Regulations need to come into force on the first day of the qualifying week, 16 September 2024, otherwise they would not be able to supersede the previous Regulations. 3/
The Committee suggests "it would surely have been possible to delay or remove the existing trigger date and then present the replacement scheme at a later date, which would have afforded greater time for scrutiny in Parliament and elsewhere." 4/
The Social Security Advisory Committee is legally required to consider benefit regulations, usually in advance of them being laid before Parliament. But Ministers have chosen an urgency route which means @The_SSAC scrutiny is retrospective. 5/
The Lords Committee has asked @DWPgovuk what would happen if @The_SSAC's report was adverse, when it can only be published after the regulations have come into force. It seems statements would be laid before Parliament but it is unclear what practical impact they would have. 6/
The Committee "found the Explanatory Memorandum (EM) lacking in information about the expected impact of the policy change". 7/
The EM "makes clear that the policy objective is to make savings to the public finances, estimated at £1.3 billion in 2024– 25 and around £1.5 billion in subsequent years, but does not explain the number of people affected on which that estimate is presumably based." 8/
The Cmtt is "concerned that the Regulations may cause potential inequalities between low income pensioners claiming benefits and low income pensioners not claiming benefits, and it is not clear whether DWP has assessed this risk." 9/
The Cmtt has been told by @DWPgovuk that its estimates for the number of Winter Fuel Payment claimants in 2024–25 assumes that take-up of Pension Credit will increase by 5 percentage points. 10/
The Committee suggests Ministers be asked what the cost (including administrative costs) of the estimated additional 5 percentage point take up in Pension Credit is expected to be. It is apparently not covered
in the Explanatory Memorandum. 11/
The Committee had some questions about the "practicalities" of bringing in the means-test change at short notice and was "surprised that the EM does not mention this aspect or even refer to the relevant page of the website that provides more detail." 12/Gov.uk
Due to delays in processing Pension Credit claims, the Cmtt suggests Ministers be asked whether the timetable "will provide claimants with sufficient reassurance that their Winter Fuel Payment will be paid, so that they feel confident to put their heating on when needed." 13/
Noting that energy bills are going up in October, the Committee suggests Ministers be asked whether they have taken account of the impact on pensioners of these two changes coinciding. Plus due to freezing of personal allowances more pensioners are paying income tax. 14/
So the Committee is concerned about the urgency which "precludes appropriate scrutiny and creates issues with the practicalities of bringing in the change at short notice." 15/
The Committee concludes "the policy seems to be being introduced at a pace that does not permit appropriate scrutiny, particularly given that key information is missing from the EM and the SSAC has not been preconsulted." 16/
I'd add that one set of amending regulations has already been produced because of errors found in the main Regulations after they were laid before Parliament on 22 August..... 17/
We discuss the Winter Fuel Allowance regulations and next week's debate on the Regulations on this weeks episode of the @HansardSociety's Parliament Matters podcast. 19/ podfollow.com/parliamentmatt…
And we will have the latest updates on next week's parliamentary business in both the @HouseofCommons & @UKHouseofLords in our Parliament Matters Bulletin. Subscribe to our newsletter and get it straight to your inbox this weekend. 20/END hansardsociety.org.uk/about/subscribe
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵1/ Unpacking the realpolitik behind parliamentary ping-pong on the Rwanda Bill: as MPs and Peers clash over legislative amendments, how credible are their claims about the political maneuvering of the other side? #RwandaBill #Politics #Realpolitik
2/ There’s a degree of hypocrisy on both sides: the public arguments don’t quite match political reality.
3/ Let's start with the Government: it claims the #RwandaBill is emergency legislation that has been held up by the Lords (specifically Labour Peers). Emergency legislation can be ‘fast-tracked’ through both Houses within days.
🧵When the clock strikes 12 tonight, it will bring forth not just a new year, but some significant changes in UK law. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 lists nearly 600 items of retained EU law (REUL) to be revoked "immediately before the end of 2023". 1/
The Bill originally provided for an automatic revocation of *all* retained EU law today (Dec 31), with ministers specifying what should be kept. Imagine what the last few months would have been like politically if that provision had been kept! 2/
But late in the Bill's passage through Parliament, @KemiBadenoch switched the burden around. Rather than being automatically revoked, REUL that was to be revoked had to be specified in Schedule 1 of the Act. 3/
🧵As a friend reminded me yesterday, this is like the European Arrest Warrant debate in 2014. It’s not a minor procedural matter. Opinions about Brexit & N/I shouldn’t blind us to the underlying question it raises: should the Govt alone get to decide the terms of a debate? 1/
If Ministers can assert that a resolution of the @HouseofCommons means whatever they would like it to mean, rather than what the actual wording of the resolution says, where does this lead? 2/
A robust debate on Weds will be a sign of the @HouseofCommons working effectively, as MPs grapple with this question. Expect to see lots of Points or Order during the debate. That rare procedural device, 'the Previous Question' might even make an appearance as it did in 2014. 3/
🧵If this report is accurate, it’s the latest example of the Govt deliberately eliding scrutiny and approval of policy with scrutiny and approval of actual legal text - ie the legislation, in this case the Statutory Instrument (SI). Why does this matter? 1/
MPs will be asked next Wed (22/3) to approve the legal text of the SI on the Stormont brake but No 10 has reportedly said this will also be their vote on the wider Windsor deal. But SIs are not amendable. MPs can only accept or reject a Statutory Instrument in its entirety. 2/
So, MPs who support some aspects of the deal but have concerns about other aspects won’t be able to formally test whether other MPs support their concerns because the approval motion can’t be amended. It's a 'take it or leave it' vote. 3/
NEW: The Delegated Powers & Regulatory Reform Committee in the @UKHouseofLords has just published its report on the Retained EU Law Bill and it doesn't mince its words. It calls for 5 of the 6 most important provisions in the Bill to be removed. #REUL publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5803/ldse…
The report demolishes the Govt's argument that this Bill will re-establish Parliament as the principal source of law in the UK. It won't. The Bill undermines Parliament by granting Ministers 'extraordinary powers' to dispose, retain, or re-write #REUL by Statutory Instrument.
The report then hammers the absence of policy substance in the #REUL Bill. It's "all powers, no policy" says the Cmtt. The Bill is so lacking in substance it's not a skeletal Bill it's 'hyper-skeletal'.
🧵1/ In his final newsletter of the year @pmdfoster suggests if you're interested in the #REUL Bill then you should read the evidence that I and @SirJJKC gave last month to the @UKHouseofLords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
2/ For all the talk by ministers that the process to review Retained EU Law will be straightforward, 2 SIs published this week illustrate the risk of sunset deadlines and how the review process will involve grindingly difficult technical policy & legislative drafting work.
3/ The two SIs are the Plant Health & Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) Regulations 2022 and the Health and Safety and Nuclear (Fees) Regulations 2022). It's complicated, so bear with me......