| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. Perhaps I may begin, as ever, by reminding the House of my unpaid interest as patron of the Restaurant Association of Great Britain. The association will benefit from the making of this order.
The Minister rightly pointed out that we are making a little history tonight. I hope that on future occasions orders will not run up against some of the time constraints and the redrafting that has been required on this occasion—although it might be argued that the super-affirmative process that has been introduced by this system provides a greater opportunity for proper consideration and thereby the redrafting of orders. As a result of that it behoves the Government even more to think of the time limits with regard to the laying of orders.
I make it clear from the start that I support the making of the order. I certainly take full account of the points made by the Select Committee in its fourth report which were very firmly in favour of the order being made. I shall not take up the time of the House by referring to those points in detail. The Minister was absolutely right to add to that list the importance of the order to the tourism industry. As the Minister said, it has suffered two dreadful blows this year. The order will assist the industry, one hopes, to have a slightly better level of business than otherwise would be the
case and indeed should reduce the regulatory cost burden that otherwise it would have faced if it had to make applications for orders. Indeed, David Quarmby of the British Tourist Authority pointed out that the order will bring us into line with our European competitors and provide yet another reason for people to enjoy the New Year in Britain.I had concerns before I came to the House on three matters. I therefore gave notice to the Minister's office of those three matters. The first was the issue of the two-year rule. The second was the late coming into effect of the order, which means that there are only 11 court sitting days—if tomorrow is the day on which the order takes effect—on which magistrates can hear applications for restriction orders. I was also concerned about the need to withdraw the right of appeal by licensees because of the late bringing forward of the order. I am grateful for the explanation that the noble Baroness has given and particularly for the assurances that she has given on these matters. She has therefore made it possible for me to cut out about three-quarters of my speech and I simply support the making of the order.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support the order. Most of my questions were about the timing restriction. As both noble Baronesses have covered them I should like to say that we are generally in favour of the order. It is a hopeful sign which will enable people to enjoy their holidays slightly more and give a little input into an industry which has taken rather a battering.
I hope that the general liberalisation of licensing laws, if it ever happens, will not be done on such a squeezed timescale. Having said that, generally speaking, I am in favour of the order.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their support for the order. I hope that the outcome will be as positive as it possibly can be and that plenty of people will be able to have an extremely enjoyable New Year's Eve and New Year's Day as a result. With hindsight we entirely accept that we should have begun the process slightly sooner. Part of the problem was that people did not anticipate that a delay would be caused by the general election and so parliamentary days were lost prior to the summer recess. I am grateful for the support expressed for the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Social Security (Loss of Benefit) Regulations 2001
8.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd November be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the subject is becoming increasingly sexy as the evening proceeds. I beg to move that the draft Social Security (Loss of Benefit) Regulations 2001 laid before the House on 22nd November be approved.
We spend over #100 billion each year on social security. It is our duty to make sure that the system is secure from both fraud and error so that the right money goes to the right people.
The latest figures announced on 29th November show that the measures we have introduced to tackle fraud are having a marked effect, reducing the level of social security fraud in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 18 per cent, which shows that we are going some way, and successfully so, to meeting our target of 25 per cent by 2004 and 50 per cent by 2006.
While we have made a good start towards achieving the duty, we need to do more. We introduced a number of powers in the 2001 Social Security Fraud Act that received Royal Assent this May to support the overall strategy of safeguarding social security. The regulations tonight provide the detail for one of those measures. A further set of negative regulations introducing consequential amendments will be laid in January next year.
The loss of benefit provisions are intended not only to act as a deterrent to recidivism; they also form part of the Government's continuing welfare reform programme. They build upon one of the key recommendations in the report of my noble friend Lord Grabiner on the informal economy that was published in March 2000. For the vast majority of people who cheat on their benefits their first conviction is their last. But for those who continue to offend we think it appropriate to bring an offence into play. The regulations describe the powers to take benefits away from people who persistently abuse the benefit system.
We do not seek to introduce these powers to target those who have slipped into the system by error. While we have reduced the level of social security fraud in income support and jobseeker's allowance we are still finding cases that involve the commission of deliberate, repeated fraud.
An investigation by the Benefits Agency security investigation services in May this year identified that three people were involved in the manipulation and subsequent encashment of order books. When arrested they had in their possession a number of order books, stolen identification and in excess of #1,050. The subsequent prosecution resulted in the conviction of all three defendants with sentences ranging from five months' imprisonment and a fine of #1,050 to 14 months' imprisonment. It was also revealed that one of the defendants had been prosecuted as part of a separate investigation in 1999. At the time they were sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment, suspended for two years. There is, and there continues to be, persistent wilful and serious fraud.
The Social Security (Loss of Benefit) Regulations 2001 introduce powers that will provide a deterrent to those who are considering committing further benefit
offences. These regulations are about ensuring that there is an effective deterrent in place to dissuade those who are subject to a first conviction for a benefit offence from re-offending providing that, where we have to apply a sanction, this is done in a uniform manner across all sanctionable benefits and that the level of the sanction applied is based upon experience gained from other areas of the department which are tried and tested. The regulations ensure that an absent or non-resident parent's responsibilities continue to be met by continuing to take child support maintenance deductions before a sanction is applied. They enforce that sanction, even where an offender tries to hide behind a partner by swapping benefit claims. This occurs in the case of a joint claim where an attempt is made to change who is the primary claimer. They continue related passport benefits when a sanction is applied, and the availability of fallback provisions to protect the vulnerable and those dependent on them by providing a scheme that is a close reflection of the hardship scheme that already operates for labour market sanctions. Finally, they ensure that a sanctionable benefit cannot be avoided by merely stopping and then re-starting a claim to benefit.These regulations are not disproportionate. They do not provide sanctions so hard that they will put people into serious destitution, nor do they target individual groups of customers. They are consistent across the board. What they do is introduce a fixed, 13-week disqualification period.
I shall run very quickly through the regulations. Regulation 2 describes how the disqualification period will be administered, ensuring that it is applied in a consistent manner to all sanctionable benefits and payment. It also describes how the sanction will be applied to those offenders who seek to avoid it by ending and then re-claiming benefit. The powers are not intended to cause undue hardship to those who have not maintained their responsibilities back to us in relation to the benefit system.
Regulation 3 describes how the level of reduction as a result of the application of the sanction is calculated for those offenders already in receipt of income support. The application of the two strikes sanction to all other sanctionable benefits will result in the removal of the full amount of benefit payable.
Regulations 5 to 16 provide fallback provisions for those clients who would otherwise have no means of supporting themselves. They reflect the hardship schemes and the vocabulary of vulnerable people that already operate in labour market sanctions.
In order to ensure that the sanctions do not impact upon the provision of housing—this, in my view, is extremely important because a dependent family must not be made homeless however wilful the offender's behaviour may have been—Regulation 18 provides for a continuance of housing and council tax benefit for those in receipt of income support or income based jobseeker's allowance.
To ensure that an offender's responsibility to dependants will continue to be met, Regulation 20 provides that child support maintenance deductions that are made from benefit will continue and will not be impacted on by the implications of the two strikes sanction.
I hope that your Lordships agree that we have already made useful progress in reducing social security fraud. We need to continue that momentum. We are not talking about errors or about trivial fraud; we are talking about sustained serious benefit fraud for which someone has twice been convicted by the courts. The regulations are part of our overall strategy on tackling fraud and rebuilding confidence in the welfare state that we all support. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd November be approved. [12th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page