| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill [H.L.]
8.58 p.m.
Clause 18 [Lump sum and periodical payments]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 40:
The noble Lord said: The amendment makes it clear that the provisions of Clause 18, dealing with cases where more than one compensation payment is made to the same victim, concern only payments in respect of the same accident, injury or disease. The amendment makes clear our intentions to carry forward existing provisions as far as is possible. I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: The Minister has given us a very welcome clarification, for which I thank him. I am happy to support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended agreed to.
Clause 19 [Payments by more than one person]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 42:
The noble Baroness said: At an earlier stage in the evening Amendments Nos. 42 and 46 were ungrouped from the cluster beginning with Amendment No. 31. I apologise if that was not made clear.
Amendment No. 42 is, I hope, a simple, straightforward amendment. It deals with a situation where there is more than one defendant or compensator. Normally at the moment they get together and one acts for the other, and the victim and the DSS get their money in the appropriate way. As the clause stands, it looks as if the DSS is asking for each compensator--when there are several involved--to be separately billed, so to speak. Why is that necessary?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. We are on Amendment No. 42, which is about consultation. I rather think that because the amendment has been discussed rather late the noble Baroness is now speaking to her intention to oppose Clause 19.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is absolutely true but we have to discuss what is wrong with the clause before we can then say--if the Government are not
Earl Russell: Like the noble Baroness, I am not sure why this provision is needed. I can see the Minister arguing perhaps that there must be some way of providing for a situation where the parties are unable to reach an agreement with each other. If he would consider redrafting the clause to make it a reserve power, to operate in that eventuality only, that might be a little more acceptable than this blanket, bureaucratic intervention in a bottom up procedure which normally works perfectly well.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The problem I have is encapsulated by the noble Earl's final point. He said that the procedure normally works perfectly well. Unfortunately we have to try to take account of the abnormal situation where it may not work perfectly well. That is the problem here. Whether or not we have regulations, and how I should consult on them, are matters that are intertwined. I shall say a few words about Clause 19 and then discuss whether or not I should be obliged to consult along the lines suggested in the amendment.
Clause 19 provides for regulations to be made where compensation payments are made by more than one person to the same injured person in respect of the same accident, injury or disease. Under the present scheme, recovery is always made from the victim's compensation. It is therefore straightforward to calculate the amount recoverable from a later payment by taking into account any amounts recovered from earlier payments. Therefore it is fairly straightforward at the present moment because we do not make the divisions that we intend to make hereafter. Under the reformed scheme, however, the expense of the recovery of benefits may be met in part by both the compensator and the victim in varying proportions, depending on the claim in question. It will not always be known to the Secretary of State, nor even agreed between the negotiating parties, what proportion of the cost of benefit recovery expense has to be met by each party.
Under the reformed scheme, it will therefore be a more complex matter to determine fair and workable rules to govern the movement of funds where more than
Where the parties agree--as the noble Earl pointed out, that is normally the case--the normal procedure is that one of the parties makes the single payment for both. In those circumstances there is no problem and Clause 19 would not come into play at all because the Secretary of State has no desire to become involved in matters which are primarily the concern of the negotiating parties. However, it is possible that left to their own devices those parties may not always negotiate an amicable settlement. This clause provides scope to deal with that situation.
The intention is that the regulation-making powers in the clause should be used to facilitate the creation of such rules. Regulations made under the clause should mirror as far as possible the current provisions in the 1992 Act. The regulations will be subject to the negative procedure. That is why we feel we need Clause 19. It is not a measure we believe will be used often, but in a limited number of circumstances it is possible that two or more compensators may not be able to agree on the recovery part of the settlement.
If I have to have this clause, it has been suggested that I should incorporate the amendment moved by the noble Baroness as regards consultation with a number of different interested parties. That comes well within the remarks I made at the beginning of our Committee stage today on the general subject of consultation. The regulations made under the provisions of this Bill will be subject in the longer term to referral to the Social Security Advisory Committee. I have also signalled our intention to consult interested parties where appropriate before the first set of regulations under the provisions of the Bill is made. I can give the Committee an assurance that we shall consult with all these people who seem to us to have an interest and involvement in these matters. We shall take their advice and opinion before we come to a conclusion about the format of any regulations under the clause.
I seem to say this on every occasion, but I hope that with that assurance the noble Baroness will feel it unnecessary to put on the face of the Bill a list of people whom the Secretary of State might consult in the circumstances of the regulations.
I hope that I have explained why we believe that it is necessary to have Clause 19, in the event, in certain limited cases, of the compensators not being able to agree and the Secretary of State therefore being in a difficult position on the recovery of benefits as regards which one and how much.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. The Committee stage seems to be working, as it should, towards narrowing the differences between us.
I am extremely grateful that the Minister accepts that there is no need for the Secretary of State to intervene in an arrangement reached between the parties which works. I am grateful that he accepts that that is normally the way it works. But what he says is a great deal more
My next question is this. Why does the Secretary of State have to impose order as regards those cases where clearly something must be done where agreement is not reached voluntarily; and why not the courts? Why does it need to be an Executive authority when it might have been a judicial one? No doubt there is a reason in the Minister's mind. However, I must admit that at present that reason is obscure to me.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe that we are discussing cases where so far as concerns the victim there is no need to go to court, but the compensators cannot agree among themselves about how the recovery of benefit will be divided up and paid. I understand the noble Earl's point that the Secretary of State could then go to court. But I am not sure that that would not then drag in the victim. I shall have to think about it. Clearly the court may well say, "Surely we should have some indication about how these matters should be divided up in order to allow the recovery of benefit from the appropriate compensator".
As always I shall give some thought to what the noble Earl says. I accept that as regards the limited number of cases about which we speak I appear to be dealing with the issue in a fairly cumbersome way. Equally, I suspect that if we were to refer these matters to the court, even on the infrequent occasions that they occur, the courts might think that to a certain extent we were passing the buck.
However, as I have been invited to do on a number of occasions, I can discuss these matters with my noble and learned clansman's department.
Page 9, line 10, at end insert ("in consequence of the same accident, injury or disease").
9 p.m.
Page 10, line 13, at end insert--
("( ) Regulations under this section shall be made only after consultation by the Secretary of State with interested persons, including persons who appear to him to be representative of employers, employees, disabled people, consumers, the insurance industry, lawyers and other persons providing advice services.")
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page