Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Wednesday 12 May 1999
[Mr. Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]
Draft Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) Regulations 1999
The Chairman: May I say what a learned gathering of parliamentarians is here this afternoon.
4.30 pm
The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) Regulations 1999.
May I say what a great pleasure it is to have you here, Mr. Winterton, to supervise our thorough and detailed consideration of the pages of regulations that the Committee is about to consider.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): How long do we have?
Mr. Hoon: The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) indicates his enthusiasm for the process. I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome his detailed contributions to our debate.
Before going on to discuss the regulations, it may help the Committee if I outline their background. The regulations are made in the context of the major modernisation and reform of the decision-making and appeals procedures for social security benefits and child support that were introduced by the Social Security Act 1998, which received Royal Assent on 21 May 1998. The Act aims to deliver a clearer, more streamlined and accessible welfare system, with emphasis on delivering real improvements for claimants, particularly to ensure more straightforward and helpful notification and guidance.
Detailed provision for the first stage of the new decision-making procedures set out in the 1998 Act have already been made in the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999, considered by the Committee on 22 March. First, that involves major reforms of the decision-taking process. All first tier decisions will be taken on behalf of the Secretary of State and there will be a new internal DSS dispute resolution procedure.
After that, as now, there will be two formal levels of appeal provisions. The five existing tribunal jurisdictions are replaced by a single, unified appeal tribunal with a single set of powers to determine all cases. The Lord Chancellor will appoint a president of appeal tribunals and set up a panel of people qualified in law, medicine, finance and the needs of the disabled. The qualifications of the members of each tribunal who will be chosen will match the needs of each case. The intention is to make the procedures simpler. New powers are being introduced to enable tribunals to correct their own decisions, reducing the number of appeals that need to be taken further. We intend to reduce the number of appeals made to commissioners.
The regulations put in place consequential procedures for social security commissioners, who are effectively the final tier of the appeal process and to whom appeals are made only on points of law. Similar regulations dealing with child support provisions, which were subject to the negative resolution procedure, have already been made.
I wish to put on record my appreciation of the work of his honour Judge Machin, the chief commissioner of the social security and child support commissioners, and his colleagues for their valuable help in developing the regulations. I shall now explain the content of the regulations in slightly more detail.
The regulations replace the Social Security Commissioners Procedure Regulations 1987. They aim to improve procedures in two ways. Most important, they are simpler and clearer. As many appellants represent themselves, it is important that the regulations explain the procedures clearly. The current regulations were drafted in 1987, and despite being amended in 1992 and 1997, the language could have been clearer. We have taken the opportunity to recast them in rather plainer English. The requirement for new regulations also provided a valuable opportunity for a thorouh review, which has allowed us to clarify a number of aspects of the regulations.
The provisions for time limits have been simplified as part of the arrangements for a more consistent and streamlined appeals procedure. One of the problems that appellants faced was the confusing array of time limits, first at the tribunal level and then before the comissioners.
Hon. Members considered the principles behind the changes when debating the earlier tribunal regulations. The regulations have undergone major simplification. We have adopted a consistent approach to the two appeal levels. It is important for appellants to bear in mind that they now have a month for each stage. For the commissioners, that means that the current time limit of 42 days in which to apply for leave to appeal where an applicant has not been granted leave at tribunal level, and in which to appeal where leave has been obtained, are both replaced. However, that does not mean that applicants will have only a month to decide whether to appeal. They will first be told the result of their appeal to the tribunal. They will then have one month to seek a full statement of the reasons for that, and another month to decide whether to appeal further—making two months in all.
The limit of 30 days for submitting a written observation and making an application to set aside a decision will also be changed to one month. Time limits for a notice of hearing and a notice to a witness, now 10 and seven days respectively, will change to 14 days. Those time-limit changes are all in line with the changes at tribunal level.
The regulations contain their own transitional provisions to allow for the phased introduction of the new systems, ensuring that an appellant whose case is already pending should not be prejudiced by the changes. The commissioners also retain their unfettered power to accept late applications for leave to appeal and late appeals for special reasons.
The opportunity has been taken to make express provision, in regulation 6, for a case to be dealt with by another commissioner if the original commissioner is unable to do so because of long absence or death, so removing a doubt under the previous rules.
Procedural provisions governing the special jurisdiction of the commissioners under the Forfeiture Act 1982 have also been simplified. The 1982 Act requires any question of whether social security benefits have been forfeited in cases of unlawful killing to be determined by social security commissioners. However, such proceedings would not be covered by the Social Security Act 1998 without making special provision. The regulations therefore prescribe the Social Security Act as a relevant enactment for that purpose, and regulations 14 and 15 set out the relevant procedure.
We have also made some specific procedural improvements. In addition to the commissioners' current power, the regulations will now enable commissioners to strike out a proceeding for abuse of process as well as for want of prosecution. In both cases, the parties will be given the opportunity to make representations before any such action is taken. The aim is to enable commissioners to dispose expeditiously of cases where the appellant declines to take any step or where the proceedings have been improperly brought.
In the social security jurisdiction, many thousands of individual claimants' cases can sometimes depend on a point of legal principle awaiting a test case ruling from the commissioners or the higher courts. The 1998 Act therefore provides for handling appeals that raise similar issues and depend also on a test case.
Regulation 21 sets out the minimum procedural requirements for the Secretary of State to identify those cases already before the commissioner where the new procedure is to be operated.
I have listed the main changes in the package. Unless specifically required, I do not intend to burden the Committee by going over each drafting change—although I could, especially as they largely simplify the language of the existing regulations. The new regulations should be easier for people to understand and use. I commend them to the Committee.
4.38 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): I join the Minister in welcoming you to our Committee, Mr. Winterton. I also acknowledge the valuable work of Judge Machin in preparing the rules. The rules are simple and self-explanatory. They make good sense. I support them. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to do likewise.
The Chairman: What a wonderful start!
4.39 pm
Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon): I shall endeavour to be almost as brief, although I am rather less satisfied. Today, Mr. Winterton, is the first time that I have had the privilege of your chairing a Committee of which I am a member. I look forward to it happening again.
Regulation 13 deals with how long people have to decide whether to appeal to the commissioners. The Minister said that appellants have a month to receive notification of the outcome of the appeal and a further month to decide whether to appeal to the commissioners. I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Social Security Act 1998, in which it was always being said that people should have adequate time to make such decisions.
The further one goes in the appeal process, the more complex the issues become. Trivial cases are dealt with by adjudication officers; the more tricky cases are dealt with by appeal tribunals; only the knottiest legal issues reach the commissioners. The average benefit claimant who is the subject of a contentious decision on appeal might, therefore, need more than a month to decide whether it is worth pursuing an appeal to the commissioners and to access legal advice. Advice services, especially free advice services, on which benefits claimants may rely, may have long waiting lists. It might be a month before the legal specialist at the citizens advice bureau can go through the paperwork.
Although I understand why it is desirable to streamline the appeals process, a balance must be struck. I am worried that too short a time period has been set. There seems to be a view that the door should be closed if people do not act quickly. However, there may be good reasons for their not acting quickly when they nevertheless want to pursue the matter. Appeals and references to the commissioner can be struck out for want of prosecution, but there may be good reasons why it has taken someone a long time to be able to deal with such matters. For some social security benefits, entitlement may come at a time of personal difficulty, such as bereavement, illness or family breakdown. All those reason would explain why the process might take some time.
It is often said that social security legislation is among the most complex in many respects. We are dealing with people, possibly at a difficult time in their lives, who need good quality legal advice in order to discover whether it is worth approaching the commissioners, and I am worried that 30 days may not strike the right balance.
Regulation 13(2) states that
``A Commissioner may for special reasons accept a late notice of appeal.''
The key question for the Committee is what are those special reasons. Obviously, we were all grateful that the Minister did not elaborate on every paragraph of the regulations, but I hope that we shall allow him to elaborate on that one. In what circumstances might a late appeal to the commissioners be allowed? We would be reassured if we felt that that provision will be applied liberally, for want of a better word—although there is no better word, really—so that anyone who had a good reason for acting after the 30-day period would be granted leave to appeal. Having noted that reservation, I look forward to the Minister's response.
4.42 pm
| 
