Standing Committee B
Tuesday 28 October 1997
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]
Clause 3
Use of Information
Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 113, in page 2, line 25, leave out `social security'.--[Mr. Rendel.]
4.30 pm
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking amendment No. 114, in page 2, line 29, at end insert--
`(2A) The Secretary of State shall as appropriate use any information to which subsection (2) applies to revise or supersede a decision on an award of a relevant benefit under section 10 or 11.
(2B) If it appears to the Secretary of State that, on the basis of information to which subsection (2) applies, a person who has not made a claim for a relevant benefit may be entitled to such a benefit he shall inform him of that fact.
(2C) Where the Secretary of State is in possession of information to which subsection (2) applies and which should have alerted him to the fact that a person might be entitled to claim a relevant benefit but he failed to discharge his duty under subsection (2B) and that person subsequently makes a claim for the benefit concerned which is determined in his favour, he shall be entitled to payment of the benefit from the time when the information came into the possession of the Secretary of State, provided that he would have been entitled from that time but for the requirement of section 1(1)(a) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (claim necessary for entitlement).
(2D) ``Relevant benefit'' shall have the same meaning for the purposes of this section as for section 9.'.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): Before the break, I was explaining that the Government are firmly committed to helping people who are most in need, especially pensioners who do not claim the income suport to which they are entitled. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) referred to that problem, and he may be aware that we are commissioning research that will help us to understand the complex reasons why pensioners do not take up their entitlement.
The research findings, which should be available next year, will show us how best to reach out to pensioners. We have made a firm commitment to examine the means of delivery and consider whether a more automatic system of help for the poorest pensioners is necessary. We shall then consider what further steps are needed.
As to the point made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) about clause 3(2)(a), the words are there essentially to ensure that nothing connected with the administration of social security, child suport or war pensions is not otherwise covered by the powers in the clause. The subsection will help us to ensure that all services are provided more efficiently, and that the Department is run as effectively as possible.
In certain instances, the Department's activities might be regarded as connected with the exercise of its functions, as when fines imposed by the criminal courts are deducted from benefit payments. Such deductions are governed by the Fines (Deduction from Income Support) Regulations 1992--S.I. 1992/2182--made under powers conferred by sections 24 and 30 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The fines themselves do not fall within the Department's functions, but their deduction from benefit payments is clearly connected with its functions. That is the purpose of this part of the clause.
Mr. David Rendel (Newbury): Is the Minister saying that that is the only instance of such a connection that the clause covers, or are there others?
Mr. Bradley: That was an example, but there are other circumstances in which the Department's activities might be regarded as connected with the exercise of its functions. For example, if someone has received social security benefits for a particular period and then receives an industrial tribunal award, the Department may be entitled to recover payments from that award.
A further example would involve a person who has been overpaid certain benefits, perhaps because he or she has failed to declare a change in circumstances. If that person is working and therefore no longer claiming, the Department may wish to recover the overpayments directly from wages.
We expect, however, that in most circumstances the general wording of the clause providing for the use of information for the purposes of the exercise of functions related to social security will be sufficient. In the examples that I have given, the connection must be made for the efficient administration of the Department.
The amendments would not provide the best way of tackling the problem of helping those who are most in need. They would place a huge administrative burden on the Department by forcing it repeatedly to check all the information held on every person in the country with a record on the social security or national insurance system.
I hope that my assurances and the explanation of the operation of the clause will allow the hon. Member for Newbury to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He has reassured me to some extent about the way in which the clause has been drafted. Some Committee members have been confused--perhaps not surprisingly--about the way in which the amendment was drafted. I apologise if the drafting is inadequate. The Minister indicated that the amendment would not achieve what I intended, but I hope that he understands why we think that our proposals would improve the Bill.
I should have liked the Minister to say that he would adopt the amendment's good aspects and bring them back, with the correct wording, at a later date. The Minister seemed to suggest that his only objection to the amendment's proposed subsection (2B) was that his computers were not yet capable of managing the system that it proposes. I had hoped that he would show more good will towards that proposal.
The Minister seemed to suggest that he would be pleased to include the proposal in the Bill if his computers were capable of managing it. To some extent that was encouraging, but he gave no hint as to when his computers would have that capability. At the very least, I hoped to have the suggestion included in the Bill as soon as it could be managed technologically, but he Minister does not seem willing to take that line at present.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman: For the benefit of members of the public listening to the debate, I should say that it has been agreed that the Bill will be scrutinised clause by clause, but not in direct numerical sequence. We shall now proceed to clauses 9 to 12.
Clause 9
Decisions by Secretary of State
Mr. Keith Bradley: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 5, line 3, after `(c)' insert
`subject to subsection (4) below.'.
The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 62.
Mr. Bradley: The amendments will ensure that, with two exceptions, decisions about class 4 contributions--I was going to say clause IV, but that is not right--will be taken by the Inland Revenue, and will be subject to appeal through the tax commissioners. This simply takes forward the current arrangements for handling class 4 decisions.
Class 4 contributions are paid by self-employed people at a rate of 6 per cent. on all profits between a lower and upper limit. Assessment of class 4 contributions is the responsibility of the Inland Revenue, and those contributions are collected alongside schedule D tax.
The amendments will ensure that the tax commissioners still have the sole right to deal with appeals relating to the amount of class 4 contributions. They will ensure, however, that, as now, decisions about the liability to pay class 4 contributions and the deferment of that liability will remain with the Secretary of State.
The amendments are necessary to carry forward the current arrangements for efficient decisions and appeals on class 4 matters. I commend them to the Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Keith Bradley: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 5, line 7, and at end insert--
`( ) Where at any time a claim for a relevant benefit is decided by the Secretary of State--
(a) the claim shall not be regarded as subsisting after that time; and
(b) accordingly, the claimant shall not (without making a further claim) be entitled to the benefit on the basis of circumstances not obtaining at that time'.
The amendment will put it beyond doubt that a claim, once decided under clause 9, will cease to exist as a claim. Such an amendment is necessary because, until recently, it has been understood that once a claim for benefit has been determined, the claim is disposed of and extinguished. It was possible to revise the award, but not to resurrect the claim itself. When the benefit terminated, entitlement could be re-established only if a new claim was made.
As a result of a recent decision by tribunal commissioners, there is now some doubt about whether that will be achieved by the current legislation. A claim might survive even a nil decision on entitlement, and be resurrected some years later.
An efficient, modern benefits system must have clarity about the responsibility both of customers and of the Department. Customers must be made aware that unless a claim has been made, there can be no entitlement to benefit. If no entitlement results from an initial claim, or if an award is made but is revised at a later date so that entitlements ends, there can be no further entitlement without a further claim. That is a key benefit provision and the Government are putting it beyond doubt with the amendment. I commend it to the Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
| 
