| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Russell: Clause 31(2) is worth a little of our attention. It is our old friend the Humpty-Dumpty clause where words mean whatever I say they mean. Let us consider the clause for a moment:
- "Regulations under this section may (among other things) provide--
- (a) for compensation payments in relation to which, by virtue of section 2, this Act does not apply to be treated as payments in relation to which this Act applies,
- (b) for compensation payments in relation to which, by virtue of section 2, this Act applies to be treated as payments in relation to which this Act does not apply".
It is clear how this clause got the name Humpty-Dumpty. I am sure the Minister remembers well his baptism of fire over the Humpty-Dumpty clause in the Jobseekers Bill. As I recollect it, it was Clause 6. That clause was recommitted and had to be redrafted. Why is it that when this Committee, the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and a good many others outside the Chamber express themselves so forcefully about this means of legislation not very much later we see a practically identical formula?
I am reminded of an incident shortly after I joined the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, was looking at the qualifications for members of the Universities Funding Council. She asked that there be deleted a provision that people should not be qualified to sit if they were disabled or otherwise incapacitated from doing their job. Very reasonably, she argued that that provision was entirely redundant. The Minister deleted it without a moment's hesitation. The identical words came back in another Bill and were deleted. They came back in another Bill and were deleted, until the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked where these words came from. It was discovered that there existed a series of model articles for drafting Bills in which those words were included. Thanks to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, those words were taken out of the model articles and we have had no trouble with them since. Cannot the same thing happen to the Humpty-Dumpty clause?
9.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Earl. When I studied this Bill I indicated to my advisers--I might even have taken on a small wager--that the noble Earl would undoubtedly raise this matter. They promptly took me on. (I will now have to make up what the wager was.) I could not have remembered that it was Section 6 of the Jobseekers Act. I marvel at the memory of the noble Earl in all these matters.
The intention of this amendment is to prevent the making of regulations under Clause 31 of the Bill which might modify Clause 2 which applies the reformed scheme to agreements or awards made on or after the point of change. I would like to assure the noble Baroness and the noble Earl that we have no intention of using the regulation-making powers in Clause 31 in such a way. The provision for transitional or consequential arrangements and savings are a common feature of social security legislation. They enable cases to which the new provisions do not apply to be dealt with under previous legislation. In any event, I have already said that we intend to consult on the detail of regulations to be made. I give that commitment to consult.
If one has a situation in which a payment has been agreed prior to the date on which the new procedures come in but it has not yet been paid and perhaps an appeal is to be made, there must be a method for working out under what rules the appeal is to proceed. Does it take place under the old regulation or the new regulation? In such cases we require regulations to make sure either that all cases can be treated as new cases, although they appear to be pretty close to settlement before the new date, or that new cases can be treated as old cases. That is why this Humpty-Dumpty clause, as the noble Earl has described it, appears here. I hope he accepts that this simply allows for the difficult point of transfer from the old to the new scheme. There may be cases so far advanced that the old rules have to be kept, although in other circumstances one may decide that the new rules should apply, or vice versa. There is nothing more sinister than that in it. I fully accept that it is a complex way to do it, but I can assure the noble Baroness and the noble Earl that we will consult about the exact detail in the regulations to do with the cases which are at that critical stage in their path towards settlement when the due date of the commencement of the new proposals comes in.
I hope that that explanation will allay any fears and perhaps the next time I have a piece of legislation I shall ask the draftsman to draft it slightly differently.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister warmly for that last line. I was never worried about his intentions. When one drafts a clause one sends out a piece of legislation like a rocket into space. One does not know where it may go nor what it may meet. Leaving loose powers around is as bad as leaving unexploded mines, so I was extremely glad to hear the Minister's final comment and I thank him.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I may wish to dissociate myself slightly from the noble Earl's comment. I believe that there is a lot to be said for loose powers under differing circumstances and I would not regard that as a Humpty-Dumpty statement. The previous occasion on
which we engaged in a debate on Section 6 of the JSA brought forward some notorious lie that all income can be treated as capital and all capital can be treated as income, whichever the Secretary of State prefers at the time. I remember that we had some fun with that argument. We understood that the provision related to the transitional stage during which cases had not completed their passage and therefore there was a need to continue to operate the old system. We welcome the Minister's clarification of that point and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Consequential amendments]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 50:
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 50 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 57 and 58. Amendments Nos. 50 and 57 remove an outdated provision which allows a compensator to reduce a compensation payment by 50 per cent. of the value of any industrial injuries benefit, industrial disablement benefit or sickness benefit paid in the defined period where the amount of the compensation payment is below the small payments limit and is not therefore subject to the current recoupment provisions.
As I have explained, we do not propose to set a small payments limit in the reformed scheme. Should we decide to do so in the light of experience once the reformed scheme is operational, compensators will no longer be allowed to reduce compensation payments which are below that limit. This means that victims who have received sickness benefit, industrial injuries benefit or industrial disablement benefit will be in the same position as all other victims who have received state benefit and who do not have their compensation payments reduced in the circumstances I have described.
The third amendment is a technical one which repeals a provision in the Jobseekers Act 1995 which is no longer required because of the provisions of this Bill. I commend the amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 51:
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 51 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 52 to 56, which are of a similar algebraic nature. The amendments are technical and merely substitute correct subparagraph numbers into amendments to Section 170 of the Social Security Administration Act made in the current draft of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 52 to 56:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 57 and 58:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Page 18, leave out lines 39 to 44 and insert ("subsections (1), (1A), (3) and (6) are omitted.").
Page 19, line 29, leave out ("(aa)") and insert ("(ab)").
Page 19, line 31, leave out ("(ab)") and insert ("(ac)").
Page 19, line 32, after ("1997") insert ("; and"").
Page 19, line 34, leave out ("(aa)") and insert ("(ab)").
Page 19, line 35, leave out ("(ab)") and insert ("(ac)").
Page 19, line 37, at end insert ("; and"").
Page 20, line 4, at end insert--
("1948 c. 41. The Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948. In section 2, subsections (1), (1A), (3) and (6).
1985 c. 66. The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. In section 31(8), the words "and to section 89(2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992".")
Page 20, line 23, column 3, leave out ("paragraph 52") and insert ("paragraphs 52 and 54")
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page