WELFARE REFORM AND PENSIONS BILL—POWER TO INCUR EXPENDITURE

You and David Davis met Stephen Timms here on 22 July to discuss how your respective Committees could be involved in the scrutiny of draft expenditure reports relating to the proposed power to incur expenditure provisions. I know that Stephen Timms found the meeting useful in giving us a better idea of how your Committees can help with these reports, and I hope that in return he was able to reassure you in respect of your concerns.

I am now writing to confirm how we see the arrangements operating.

First, you both agreed that the main role in the scrutiny of these reports will be for the Social Security Select Committee. However, we will send drafts of the reports to the Public Accounts Committee as well and that Committee will comment if it feels appropriate, for example if there is some exceptional nature to the planned expenditure.

Second, you discussed with Stephen whether draft reports should be sent to you before being laid before the House. You had some concerns about the alternative approach of reports being laid before the House with you then considering them before the House considers authorising expenditure. You agreed that you would be able to consider, and comment, on draft reports within a few days, providing relevant officials were available to give evidence where necessary. I am very grateful for this assurance and, on this basis, I can confirm that I am content for draft reports to be sent to you, and David, before being laid before the House.

I know that you and David expressed some concerns to Stephen about his suggestion that reports should 'normally' be referred to the Committee in draft. You both felt that scrutiny of these reports would be essential in all cases. I have given further thought to this issue. As you know, our concern is that there could be emergency situations where the Government considered that it was in the public interest to commence preparing implementation immediately and that the House should be asked to give such an authority without delay. Whilst this scenario is very unlikely it would be irresponsible of the Government to rule it out entirely. The way round this is, I think, for a draft report to be sent to the Committees in all cases but for us to reserve the right, in exceptional circumstances, to lay the report formally shortly thereafter even if the Committees have not been able to complete their examination beforehand. The Government would of course have to justify this to the House in the circumstances of the time, and we would certainly ensure that officials were immediately available to give evidence to the Committees.

I am grateful for your helpful suggestions about the mechanics of the arrangements for the Committees scrutiny of draft expenditure reports, and hope that you agree the way forward suggested above. If you do have any further concerns then I will be very happy to discuss them.

A copy of this letter goes to David Davis.

Jeff Rooker MP