Fifth Standing Committee on Deligated Legislation
Tuesday 18 May 1999
[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]
Draft Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 1999
10.33 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 1999.
I welcome you, Mr. Hood, and other hon. Members to the Committee to discuss the issues that the regulations raise.
The regulations provide for the new arrangements that will be introduced over the next few months. Hon. Members may recall that during debate on the regulations on 22 March, I said that we were reconsidering regulation 36 to ensure that it provided for all appeals relating to incapacity for work to be heard by a lawyer and a doctor. We have found that the provision was not complete in the main regulations, allowing a two-person tribunal only in cases involving incapacity benefit. However, as hon. Members will know, work-test appeals can also arise in income support and severe disablement allowance cases. These regulations correct that omission.
The president of the independent tribunal service, Judge Michael Harris, has asked me to make a further amendment to regulation 36, which allows all appeals involving medical issues arising in industrial injuries benefits cases to be heard by a lawyer and one doctor. If additional medical input is needed, it would be provided by an expert who was not part of the tribunal. The president has requested that the regulation be amended to give him discretion to appoint a second doctor as a member of the tribunal if the appeal is sufficiently complex—for example, because the appellant has multiple disabilities. The second amendment to regulation 36 would allow the president such discretion.
Both amendments to regulation 36 are entirely beneficial. They will ensure that tribunal members have the appropriate expertise to hear the range of issues presented to them in medical appeals. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
10.35 am
Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. Hood. I do not think that I have had that experience since I left the European Scrutiny Committee. It is a pleasure to be in familiar company; very little that I do these days avoids having the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) to my left and the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) alternately grinning and scowling rather menacingly at me from the other side.
I am glad to say that I am extremely happy with what the Government propose. It is undoubtedly an improvement to the system. I am sorry that the Minister did not add, as she might have, that my predecessor called for such improvements, before my time as a Front-Bench spokesman, during consideration of the Social Security Bill last year. I am glad that that contribution has now been recognised, if not attributed.
Angela Eagle: I should make it clear that that was also before my time.
Mr. Davies: The Minister is forgiven. I wanted to make it clear that in this case I was not asking for praise for my personal contribution.
It is extremely important that the unified social security tribunal is genuinely independent of the Benefits Agency, so that it is a genuine tribunal. It should operate on consistent, quasi-judicial principles, and for that purpose, a trained lawyer should always be involved. When medical evidence is relevant—or, indeed, of the essence, as is the case in disability-related appeals—it is extremely important to have a doctor available. Only doctors can properly evaluate medical evidence. There must be considerable risk of misunderstandings and unjust evaluation of evidence if a doctor is not present. The possibility of appointing a second medical member of the tribunal on special occasions at the president's discretion can only improve the system.
I am delighted to hear that one of the reasons for the change that the Minister described was that it was necessary to ensure that an appropriate trained medical member of the tribunal was present at tribunals dealing with severe disablement allowance cases. The Minister's Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill contains proposals to abolish severe disablement allowance. We oppose those proposals, and I am glad to understand from the drift of the Minister's remarks that she expects severe disablement allowance to remain part of the system, contrary to those proposals. Last night, we had some fun at the Government's expense because of their changes of mind. Perhaps the Minister's Freudian slip, if that is what it was, suggests another change of mind about severe disablement allowance, to which we very much look forward. However, I shall not tease the Government further; I have done enough of that in the past 24 hours for one Session. I confine myself to welcoming the changes, which will strengthen the system and are very much in appellants' interests in ensuring that they genuinely receive a hearing that is not only fair but seen to be fair.
10.39 am
Mr. David Rendel (Newbury): It is nice to have you in the Chair, Mr. Hood; I do not think that I have served in a Committee chaired by you. You are welcome, although I suspect that our acquaintance in our respective positions may be rather short this morning.
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) mentioned—but did not want to claim any credit for—the fact that his party supported the changes that are being made. The Minister pointed out that she was not in her current office when the changes were suggested during consideration of the Social Security Bill. I have no such scruples: I claim the entire credit for having been one of those who proposed such a change during consideration of that Bill, and am absolutely delighted that the Government have come round to our point of view.
10.39 am
Angela Eagle: Peace and tranquillity appear to have broken out; perhaps we should stay up all night more often. It gives me great pleasure to say that the changes are entirely beneficial. I hope that they demonstrate the Government's willingness constantly to examine how regulations are written. The original regulations are complex, and during their consideration I said that we did not think that regulation 36 would do its intended job. I welcome the fact that these entirely beneficial changes have been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 1999.
Committee rose at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.
The following Members attended the Committee:
Hood, Mr. Jimmy (Chairman)
Ballard, Jackie
Brown, Mr. Russell
Coaker, Mr.
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs.
Davies, Mr. Quentin
Eagle, Angela
Eagle, Maria
Hughes, Mr. Kevin
Lawrence, Ms
Miller, Mr.
Rendel, Mr.
Taylor, Mr. Ian
Temple-Morris, Mr.
Turner, Dr. Desmond
|
