| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Page 47, line 37, after ("Service") insert ("(Scotland)")
Schedule 3, page 49, line 34, column 3, at beginning insert--
Page 50, line 12, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 12(1)(c).")
Page 50, line 15, column 3, after ("paragraphs") insert ("6(c),")
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 to 115 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 to 115 en bloc.--(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
112
113
("In section 3(1), the words from ", for the purpose of" to the end.")
114
115
116
In the Title, line 3, leave out ("ophthalmic,")
Line 6, after ("Authorities") insert ("and Health Boards; to make provision about ophthalmic services")
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 116 and 117. These amendments change the Long Title of the Bill to reflect two provisions added to the Bill since its original introduction in this House. At Report stage in this House we introduced an amendment to deal with the expenditure of health boards and in another place we added a provision which amended the Opticians Act 1989. These amendments ensure that the Long Title covers both of these and thus correctly reflects the contents of the Bill. I commend the amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 116 and 117.--(Baroness Cumberlege.)
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we welcome these amendments, which reflect changes made in the Bill. As this is the last group of amendments, I thank the Minister for her kindness in discussing this complicated process with those of us on these Benches in the past few days. Although I said at the beginning of consideration of Commons amendments that we were concerned about the speed with which this had to be done, the Minister did everything that she could to help us consider the amendments. They have improved the Bill and we welcome them.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the Minister. She has, as usual, been always delightful in guiding us in the right direction--and has not been very "lengthy", which I appreciate. I believe that all of us are absolutely certain that the Bill has been improved by these amendments. Many of us feel that what has been said
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I pay tribute to all noble Lords who have taken part in debates on the Bill. I thank them for their unfailing courtesy and, where necessary, the co-operation of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and her colleagues, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. I thank my noble friends for the support that they gave. I also thank my outstanding Whip, who has kept me in order throughout the course of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.--(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Lockwood) in the Chair.]
Clause 12 [Inspectors appointed by authorities):
Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 75:
The noble Baroness said: It is not my intention to speak on most of the amendments in my name. However, this is so simple and so straightforward an amendment that I thought I should take the opportunity to present it to the Committee.
The clause that it seeks to amend is the clause that provides for the inspection of private dwelling-houses by an inspector where he or she has cause to believe that trade or businesses are being carried out. It goes on in subsection (6) to define:
It seems to us necessary to define precisely the length of period required to qualify as a benefit claimant under this clause of the Bill. Is the position "once a claimant, always a claimant", as was put to me by one of the organisations that wrote to me about the clause? It seems to me that we must have some sort of qualification, otherwise there is a lack of clarity about what a benefit claimant is and whether that person continues indefinitely to be subject to the inspections provided for in this clause. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: Without more ado, I support this amendment. The Minister may not wish to accept it at this stage of proceedings, but would he consider incorporating the point in guidance?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall certainly bear in mind the point that the noble Earl has made, but I hope that, once I have explained Clause 12 and put on record how we see it operating, both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl will feel that that will be sufficient.
Clause 12 provides for an authority administering housing benefit or council tax benefit to appoint inspectors who may enter business premises to make inquiries about any person believed to be a benefit claimant or recipient. This measure is needed because at present local authority investigators have no more power to make investigations than any ordinary citizen. Investigations can be halted by the refusal of a landlord or an employer to co-operate in providing details of their tenants or employees. This clause will provide those appointed as inspectors with the powers that they need to investigate fraud thoroughly.
The powers are broadly comparable with those already available to Department of Social Security staff. Local authority inspectors will have the right to enter a place of business, inspect records, copy records and interview anyone found there. The clause will allow an inspector to seek information or documents from or about anyone who has claimed or received housing benefit or council tax benefit.
The effect of the noble Baroness's amendments would be to limit this provision by allowing details to be sought in relation only to persons who had claimed or received those benefits within the previous three years. It may be argued--and indeed that is what the noble Baroness has done--that there should be a time limit beyond which someone suspected of fraud should be safe from investigation. I believe that that ignores the different types of benefit fraud with which investigators may need to deal. For example, in the case of an individual who years ago obtained small sums by fraud--perhaps by failing to report an increase in wages--it is extremely unlikely that authorities would go back several years with their inquiries.
But what about the large scale fraudster operating on an extensive scale, the crooked landlord whose frauds extend over a large number of properties and who has been operating for years? It may be that suspicion relating to a particular claim only surfaces some considerable time after the event. Possibly in the course
In the case of big-time fraudsters--possibly landlords, managing agents, collusive employers or even individual claimants who are organised or professional criminals--local authorities may well need to go back as far as is necessary to collect sufficient evidence to ensure that the large-scale cheats do not escape the consequences of their crimes.
I hope that, in the light of that explanation of how we believe the clause will operate when looking back a long time and of why I believe it is needed for the serious cases I referred to--which I know all Members of the Committee treat very seriously indeed--the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendments.
117
4.58 p.m.
Page 21, line 18, after second ("benefit") insert ("within the preceding 3 years").
"For the purposes of this section--
(a) a benefit claimant is a person who has claimed housing benefit or council tax benefit; and
(b) a benefit recipient is a person to whom housing benefit or council tax benefit has been paid".
It does not define how long one has been a claimant. It is possible, I suppose, to have been a claimant some years ago and still qualify for inspection under the terms of this clause. The intention of Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 is to provide that:
"(a) a benefit claimant is a person who has claimed housing benefit or council tax benefit within the preceding 3 years; and
(b) a benefit recipient is a person to whom housing benefit or council tax benefit has been paid within the preceding 3 years".
20 Mar 1997 : Column 1093
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page