Welfare Reform Bill

It is pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee, who made a characteristically well-informed critique of the Bill. It is nearly four years since I last shadowed this Department. I seem to recall that, at that time, a Secretary of State had just published welfare reform proposals that were the boldest since Beveridge—or since the ones that came immediately before; I cannot remember which. That Secretary of State had just promised a crackdown on dads who would not pay child maintenance, so today seems like déjà vu. I thank the Secretary of State for his earlier welcome. He and I go back a long way in this field. He will recall that his predecessor but seven, new Labour's first Secretary of State in this area, was the present Leader of the House. Introducing the Bill that became the Social Security Act 1998, she said that she wanted to"““develop a modern, integrated system that is simpler, streamlined and more efficient.””—[Official Report, 22 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 784.]" That Act did not quite achieve that aim, so when the present Chancellor introduced the Bill that became the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, he said that it was a ““radical package of measures”” that would be"““fair to those who meet their responsibilities…but…tougher on those who are not prepared to face up to their responsibilities.””—[Official Report, 11 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 164.]" However, the proposals were clearly not tough enough, so when the present Defence Secretary introduced the Bill that became the Welfare Reform Act 2007, he said that it"““set a new direction of travel for the welfare system.””" He added that it was a"““major shift from…established orthodoxy””.—[Official Report, 24 July 2006; Vol. 449, c. 616.]" Inevitably, the 2007 Act was tougher in some places and tenderer in others. So here we are again. Earlier, I thought of intervening on the Secretary of State to ask whether he thought that welfare reform was in a state of permanent revolution, or whether this Bill showed that the Government had arrived at the right balance between rights and responsibilities. Alternatively, if he stays in his post, does he envisage another Welfare Reform Bill being introduced in the next Parliament, and yet another in the one after that? One is tempted to think that a Government who keep on reforming things and then coming back and reforming them again may not have got their approach right. I wonder whether the Secretary of State thinks that the Bill is the end, or the final leg, of the journey, or whether the attitude is, ““We'll have another go next year, and the year after.”” Welfare reform Bills are not quite as frequent as Home Office justice Bills, which fail every year; welfare reform Bills are about three years apart. It would be interesting to know whether he thinks that the journey is broadly over.