Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Baroness Cumberlege: The accounts of health authorities are open to scrutiny. I believe that the National Audit Office, Audit Commission and internal and external audit will provide plenty of opportunities for people to see where the money is spent.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1995

6.1 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].

30 Mar 1995 : Column 1756

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1995, which were laid before the House on 2nd March, be approved.

These regulations introduce a number of minor changes to the regulations which the House debated and approved on 9th February: the Social Security (Incapacity Benefit) Transitional Regulations 1995 and the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations 1995. They also introduce a minor amendment to the 1976 Social Security (Medical Evidence) Regulations.

The new system of benefits for incapacity comes into force on 13th April. These regulations complete the detailed provisions which will govern the operation of the new system. When introducing major structural reforms, such as this clearly is, there is always likely to be the need for some clarifying amendments. That is the sole purpose of the regulations before us today. Indeed, I foreshadowed them when I spoke in the debate on 9th February. The regulations before us today introduce no change in the Government's stated policy.

Today's debate reflects the unusual procedures for parliamentary scrutiny which are laid down in the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act. Any regulations introduced under certain powers in that Act within four years of Royal Assent must be passed by an affirmative resolution of each House. This novel approach, proposed by my department, meets concerns raised directly by the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers during the passage of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill. It ensures parliamentary debate of any changes, however minor, which are introduced during the infancy of the new arrangements.

A number of these amendments are beneficial in nature, and some follow enquiries from organisations representing disabled people. For example, following concerns raised by the Terrence Higgins Trust, we are making a slight change to the wording of the regulation which will exempt people suffering from immune deficiency states from the all-work test. This is a complex provision, and we want to be absolutely sure that it covers all the people we wish to exempt from the test. We have also added to the list of exempt conditions people receiving certain categories of the constant attendance allowance which may be paid with war pensions or industrial injuries benefit. We have uprated the weekly earnings limit for therapeutic work to £44.

The minor amendment to the Social Security (Medical Evidence) Regulations 1976 is necessary to ensure that rules which govern the completion of medical certificates by GPs will apply also to the new certificate, the Med4, which will be issued when the all-work test is applied.

We believe that the measures to be introduced this April will ensure proper provision for those people who are incapable of working because of their medical condition within a system which is also fair to the taxpayer. The regulations before us today complete the detailed provisions of the new arrangements, and I commend them to the House.

30 Mar 1995 : Column 1757

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)

Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for explaining the purpose of these amending regulations. I do not intend to repeat all of the arguments which were rehearsed at length when we debated the Bill last summer. We know that the Act is to take effect in April. The Act will eventually save the Treasury over £2 billion per year by taking invalidity benefit away from many thousands of the chronically sick and disabled and reducing the benefit of the rest, that is, those who are so sick and disabled that they continue to receive the benefit. It is estimated that 220,000 people will lose their benefit over the next two years. It is also estimated that about a quarter of those required to take the test—a further 70,000 a year—who would in the past have been eligible for benefit, will no longer receive it. When one looks back at the shambles of the Child Support Act and the introduction of the disability living allowance, this Act bids fair to become a third member of that sorry troika.

The Minister said that these were minor changes and that under the Act he was required to report them to the House. I believe that each time a minor change is reported it will lead to further questions. I have three questions that I wish to put to the Minister. Perhaps he will reply now or, if he wishes, in writing later. New Regulation 17A in 3(3) appears to offer the choice to disabled people whether to claim unemployment benefit or incapacity benefit. Can the Minister tell us what information and guidance will be given to claimants about which way to sign on? When it is wise for them to sign on, will they be eligible for contributory unemployment benefit? Affecting the whole of this matter will be the implications posed by the jobseeker's allowance.

The second question concerns appeals. It would be helpful if the Minister could give the House some guidance about the role of the medical assessor. When we debated the Bill in this House the Minister said that the assessor would give advice openly, but would leave the room while the tribunal deliberated. Will the claimant or his representative be able to cross-question the medical assessor on the advice that he or she has given to the tribunal?

I also understand that some confusion remains about whether someone who claims to be exempt from the all-work test, but has been refused exemption by the benefits agency and the medical service, has a right of appeal against that decision. If so, to whom? If not, what right of redress does that person have?

The third question concerns the interlocking of these regulations with other benefits, such as housing benefit and child benefit. I believe that the Minister in another place confirmed that someone could have his disability premium on these benefits backdated as long as there was acceptable evidence. Can the Minister say what acceptable evidence is? For example, will it be certification by the GP, or will some other form of evidence be regarded as acceptable?

30 Mar 1995 : Column 1758

With those three questions, without welcoming the regulations we accept the need to have them.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not think there is any need to go into past history at the moment. We have here a use of what the Minister described as the unusual procedures for the scrutiny of regulations under the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act. I welcomed those procedures at the time, and I continue to welcome them. But because we need to have scrutiny, it does not mean that we need to have a fuss every time. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I have no intention of making a fuss about anything in these regulations. I agree with the Minister that many of them are beneficial and all of them are small. I am not making complaints about them.

In that context, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in the First Report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. It is printed as an appendix. The noble Lord argued that there are many cases, of which I would argue this is one, where the House has need of the affirmative procedure because things might be done under regulations which might need really close attention. But the noble Lord argued—and I agree with him—that it does not follow that we need to use all this scrutiny on every occasion when those powers are used. What the noble Lord suggested is that even where the affirmative procedure is used, it ought to be possible, by agreement between the usual channels and if no noble Lord objects, for the House to choose not actually to have the regulations before it. This is a case —I think the noble Lord, Lord Carter, may agree—where if we had had that power, we might have chosen to use it. But, nevertheless, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for coming to the House and helping to explain the regulations which, as with most regulations, are not always of the easiest to understand.

I welcome very warmly the concession and the change in the definition of HIV and the exemption from the test. I am glad to know that the Terrence Higgins Trust has seen this and agreed with it. That is thoroughly welcome. But it gives me occasion to say that there is a fairly strong case for giving schizophrenics exemption from that medical test. Since we are having continuing monitoring and continuing adaptation, I hope that that is a point to which the Minister may pay some attention.

I also welcome the concession allowing those who are technically incapable of working to register for unemployment benefit and to work. There are many people who might be found to be incapable of work who nevertheless, as we all know, do work and to great effect. But I should like to second the request of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for clarification of the circumstances in which that might happen: whether there are any qualifying conditions or snags, or any conditions about the rate of incapacity benefit being received beforehand, or whether it is just simply a blanket use of a local option—that the claimant can choose what he likes best.

I mention, because I think it may save us a little time on the Jobseekers Bill, one other point which has come before us before. That is the possibility that people who are found fit to work under the Social Security

30 Mar 1995 : Column 1759

(Incapacity for Work) Bill may go along to their employment office and try to register and be sent away being told that they are not fit to work or that they will not be accepted as fit to work pending their appeal. We had an assurance on that point at Second Reading from the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, whose helpfulness throughout was very great. We are still continuing, no doubt as a result of thoughtlessness at lower levels, to get cases coming through and being reported where that is not working. I should be grateful if the Minister would think a little further, before we come onto this point during proceedings on the Jobseekers Bill, about some way of trying to make sure that we do not have to make this point again. We are all agreed, after all, so we ought to be able to make the will of Parliament prevail.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page