| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
As I explained, I am happy to accept the first amendment tabled by my noble friend, but I urge her not to proceed with the second as we simply cannot commit to a timeframe, and certainly not to a timetable of “within three months”. That is simply not deliverable, and it would be quite wrong for me to stand here and suggest otherwise to noble Lords.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that extensive explanation, and for his acceptance of my Amendment 3. He is quite right that the fact that the Government accept the amendment gives people who are interested in it—and in the change in name—the assurance they seek; that the Government are serious about it. I am very grateful for his acknowledgement that it is necessary and that he is prepared to accept Amendment 3.
On the timeframe, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in support of that question. It is a problem, but I accept that there are complications because of the involvement of local authorities. I am grateful for the assurances we have had that the Government desire to have the measure operative as soon as possible and that this is not what you might call a “long-grass” type of legislation where everybody votes for it and then nothing happens. That is not the Government’s intention, as I understand it. I am very grateful for the extensive explanation, which will appear on the record, illustrating the difficulties involved with such a detailed measure involving local authorities. I thank the Minister
3 Nov 2009 : Column 164
4: Clause 35, page 41, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert “(council tax benefit) to be known instead, either generally or in cases prescribed by the order, as council tax rebate.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 4 and speak to the other amendments with which it is grouped. We have just debated setting a clear timeframe for introducing a change in the name of the benefit. As I explained, I am unable to commit to a clear timetable for implementing the name change until the further work needed has been completed, but the Government have listened to the debate and the strength of feeling behind the issue. As I have already said, a key point that noble Lords made on Report was on the central importance of the name. The Royal British Legion focused particularly on the impact that a simple name change, from council tax benefit to council tax rebate, could have on take-up of the entitlement.
During our debates there has been considerable support, from all sides of the House, for the name change to “rebate” proposed by my noble friend. There are other possibilities, but we agree that a name change from council tax benefit to council tax rebate accurately describes the true nature of the benefit. It is hard to imagine that another title would improve on this. I am therefore very pleased to come back to noble Lords with further amendments which reflect the consensus that the new name for council tax benefit should be council tax rebate, and that this should be clearly stated in the Bill. This means we can get on with the important work of preparing local authorities for the change of council tax benefit to council tax rebate.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, all I can say in response to that is thank you very much.
Lord Freud: We thoroughly approve of the noble Lord’s amendments.
3 Nov 2009 : Column 165
Clause 47 : Power to repeal exclusion of community care services
8: Clause 47, page 49, line 33, at end insert—
“(7) The power to make an order under subsection (1) or (5) is exercisable by statutory instrument.”
9: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on operation of travel authorisation amendments
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on the operation during the review period of the amendments of the 1991 Act made by section 50 and Schedule 5 so far as those amendments relate to the disqualification of any person for holding or obtaining a travel authorisation.
(2) “The review period” is the period of 24 months beginning with the day on which section 50 and Schedule 5 come into force in relation to the disqualification of any person for holding or obtaining a travel authorisation.
(3) The Secretary of State must—
(a) prepare the report, and
(b) lay it before Parliament,
within 6 months from the end of the review period.
(4) The continued effect of the travel authorisation amendments depends on whether the Secretary of State makes an order under this subsection within the relevant period providing for those amendments to continue to have effect.
(5) “The relevant period” means the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the report is laid before Parliament; and, in reckoning this period, no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament—
(a) is dissolved or prorogued, or
(b) is adjourned for more than 4 days.
(6) If no order is made as mentioned in subsection (4), the Secretary of State must instead make an order under this subsection containing such amendments of the 1991 Act as the Secretary of State considers necessary to secure that the effect of the travel authorisation amendments is reversed.
(7) The effect of the travel authorisation amendments is to be regarded as reversed if the 1991 Act is amended so that it has the same effect in relation to the disqualification of any person for holding or obtaining a travel authorisation as it would have had if this Act had not been passed.
(8) An order under subsection (6) may contain consequential provision and transitional provision or savings.
(9) The consequential provision that may be made by an order under subsection (6) includes, in particular, provision amending, repealing or revoking—
(a) any provision of any Act passed before the making of the order, or
(b) any provision of any instrument made under any Act before the making of the order.
(10) Any power to make an order under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(11) An order under subsection (4) may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
3 Nov 2009 : Column 166
(12) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (6) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
“the 1991 Act” means the Child Support Act 1991 (c. 48);
“travel authorisation” has the same meaning as in section 39B of the 1991 Act;
“the travel authorisation amendments” means the amendments of the 1991 Act made by section 50 and Schedule 5 so far as relating to the disqualification of any person for holding or obtaining a travel authorisation.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, Amendment 9 fulfils the commitment made on Report, and follows a similar amendment put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Freud and Lord Taylor, on Report. It will help to ensure that Parliament can properly review the effectiveness of the power to disqualify a recalcitrant, non-resident parent from holding travel authorisation. It will do this in the same way as already provided for in relation to the driving licence provisions by Clause 51, prior to the legislation coming into permanent effect.
This amendment will ensure that a report on the operation of the driving licence and travel authorisation powers must be put before Parliament within six months from the end of a two-year review period. Based on the success of these measures, the Secretary of State will have the option of making the administrative system permanent or reverting to the existing court-based powers for either or both. Any decision to maintain an administrative system must be made by an order subject to the affirmative procedure and noble Lords will thereby have an opportunity to debate the success of each of these measures prior to a permanent administrative system being introduced.
As I said on Report, I appreciate the movement that the Opposition have made on this issue since it was first raised in 2007. I believe this amendment represents a significant workable compromise. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, I feel a bit short-changed in regard to this matter. I thought that we were talking about sunset clauses, but actually this is a pilot scheme. A pilot scheme is not a sunset clause. I do not want to labour that because we are where we are, but I would be much happier with a straightforward measure. The very powerful arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, during the passage of last year’s child support legislation were much more in that vein than the amendment we are discussing, which stands in the Minister’s name. I wish to register that objection but, more importantly, what will the report contain that will make it a useful tool for the House to consider in two years’ time to enable it to decide whether it is sensible to continue with these powers? The House will have nothing to compare the report with. It would be much more sensible to, say, run one system in Callendar Park and another in Plymouth and compare and contrast them after two years. You would then be able to see what the counterfactual was.
CMEC and the Child Support Agency will change their behaviour as soon as this amendment is passed and motor as hard as they can for the next two years to ensure that the measure looks as good as possible
3 Nov 2009 : Column 167
Lord Freud: My Lords, I come at this with somewhat less passion than the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. I thank the Minister for the amendment, which I believe achieves the ends that I sought on Report. It was extremely peculiar to have two different approaches to assessing the impact of removing driving licences and passports respectively from non-resident and recalcitrant—as the noble Lord described it—parents. The amendment brings the measures into line. I welcome that attack of common sense.
On that point of agreement, of which we have had many, and as we draw to the end of Third Reading, I thank the Minister and the Bill team for shepherding us through the Bill, which we are extremely pleased to support.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have been pursuing this matter for almost two years. However, since just before the Summer Recess, I have been extremely careful not to interfere publicly in the deliberations of my noble friend Lord Freud. The Minister has my personal thanks for coming up with a sensible answer at a sensible time. I say more power to his elbow.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this issue. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Freud and Lord Skelmersdale, for their support and kind words, and for their kind words about the Bill as a whole and the work of the Bill team. This is not the time to reopen and go over the debates about the difference between driving licences and travel documents, as we have debated that previously.
I should to say to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that the provisions have the same effect as a sunset clause. A power cannot be used for more than two years without another process kicking in. He asked, “What on earth good will these reports be at the end of that period?”. I have not sat down to work out in detail what they might cover, but I presume that such reports would cover the number of occasions that the provisions have been used, what might happen under the appeals process, and how that has progressed. They might touch on the amount of money that has been collected for children by using these processes. One could envisage a range of useful things coming out of a report that would enable a judgment to be made about whether or not they continue. However, that is a debate to have when we see the reports in due course.
3 Nov 2009 : Column 168
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Freud and Lord Skelmersdale, for their support. I am not sure where the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, stands on this, but I hope that he will not seek to divide the House.
6 pm
Schedule 3 : Claimants dependent on drugs etc.
10: Schedule 3, page 78, line 7, at end insert “and a subsequent interview (a “drugs interview”) with an approved person to discuss any matters arising out of that assessment”
13: Schedule 3, page 78, line 35, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations under this paragraph may, in particular, make provision for a requirement imposed on a person (“P”) under this paragraph to cease to have effect if—
(a) P agrees to provide a sample, in accordance with instructions given by an approved person, for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is or has been any drug in P’s body, and
(b) the sample provided indicates that no drug is or has been in P’s body.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. I bring them forward to place in the Bill the reassurances that I gave in response to concerns expressed in Committee on medical details and the passing on of information that the department receives.
These amendments tighten up the data-sharing powers considerably, in particular by preventing Jobcentre Plus from obtaining information about a person’s medical and social work history. The amendments also provide that the information provided by the police and probation service can be used only by those involved in administering the new programme.
The revised data-sharing provisions are intended to help Jobcentre Plus identify problem drug users so that they can be provided with the support that they need to prepare for and find work. We are aware that some problem drug users will not disclose that they have a drug problem due to stigma or embarrassment, or for other reasons. I also take this opportunity to remind noble Lords that in criminal proceedings the prosecution may adduce no evidence relating to any answer given by a person to the department about his or her drug use.
3 Nov 2009 : Column 169
Information will be provided about persons who have tested positive for drug use when arrested or charged for an offence by the police, but who fail to attend either an initial or a follow-up assessment of their drug use. Information will also be provided by the probation service to Jobcentre Plus on individuals subject to drug rehabilitation requirements issued by the court as part of a community sentence. Such people should already be in treatment, but provision of their details will enable them to be included in the programme. Existing powers will allow information about people who have recently left prison to be provided by the Prison Service. However, all these information flows will be one-way. Jobcentre Plus will not provide data to the criminal justice system. The information will be passed on only to Jobcentre Plus service providers or the drugs workers responsible for carrying out the substance-related assessments.
The information will be disclosed elsewhere only if Jobcentre Plus, or the person holding the information, is ordered by a court to do so, or where they are required to disclose in order to comply with a statutory duty. As a further safeguard, the affirmative parliamentary procedure will apply to all the regulations made under Schedule 3. Before they can come into force, they will have to be approved in draft by both Houses. The regulations will also be drafted to ensure that the requirements that they impose on benefit claimants are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
With these restrictions now in place and the reassurances I have given, I hope that noble Lords will accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Meacher: My Lords, I apologise to the House and particularly the Minister that I was unable to be in the Chamber when he moved the raft of government amendments relating to Clause 9 and Schedule 3, which offer a real opportunity to draw in claimants who are dependent on drugs to a process which might induce them over time to accept treatment, and thus offer them a real opportunity—probably not immediately—to find a way back to a normal life and health, and to work. I am most grateful to the Minister, other Ministers and the Bill team for their work on those amendments.
This group of amendments in relation to information supports the general thrust of the earlier amendments and, therefore, is critical in enabling the DWP to play its part in the real rehabilitation of this most excluded group of claimants. If these claimants are criminalised under our Home Office provisions, they will run a mile if they feel that information that they give to the DWP is passed to others who could cause them severe damage. That would prevent the other important amendments having the effect that I believe they will have.
I pay tribute to the Minister and the Bill team for this series of amendments that dovetails with the others. We now have a coherent and constructive Clause 9 and Schedule 3, and this has transformed my feeling about the potential of the Bill for public good.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for her comments in support of these provisions and the earlier amendments. Particularly, I
3 Nov 2009 : Column 170
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |