| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I do not want to prolong the debate, but such a situation cannot arise under the regulations. If it did, it would be a breach of the regulations under Regulation 7(2) and a breach of the Act. That is as plain as the writing on the paper.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we shall have to agree to differ. That is not my interpretation and not the legal advice I have received.
My noble friend Lord Soulsby referred persuasively to the monitoring of communicable disease. I listened carefully to his remarks. The existing communicable disease legislation requires named data so that the occurrence and clusters of disease can be identified, investigated and controlled. It overrides the doctor's duty of confidence. My contention to the Minister and the tenor of my reply to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was that that provision could be extended to conditions such as E.coli, MRSA and CJD, with any unforeseen additions made subsequently by order. I still do not see why that model is not possible.
The Minister referred to the PAIG. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, wants to give it teeth; the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, placed great emphasis on it as a safeguard. I have nothing but the highest respect for its members. It is interesting to note that one of its key recommendations in relation to this measure was that the department should establish a publicly available register of all activities approved under the class support arrangements, yet under Regulation 6(4) the Secretary of State has the option to decide not to make public entries in the register.
The Government are clearly capable of a pick-and-mix approach to the PAIG's advice.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may place on the record that it is the Secretary of State's intention to publish all such approved applications in the register.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am pleased to hear that, but I do not understand why there is a provision in the regulations appearing to provide for exceptions.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. My understanding is that the flexibility in the regulations is more about the amount of information which can be provided rather than the relevant information as regards the entries. The entries will be in the register, but the discretion relates to the amount of detail that is provided.
Earl Howe: My Lords, again, I am grateful to the Minister. That comment is extremely helpful and reassuring.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on the subject of cancer registries that the range of purposes for disclosure, detailed at Regulation 2(1), is very wide. It goes well beyond activities for which cancer registries may require information and covers practically every use which might be made of patient information. The effect of such widely drawn
provision is to remove patient rights in relation to storage and use of information about them in any NHS or similar data base. I believe that that is of concern.I spoke of the wide scope of the regulations. The phrase "other risk to public health" is without constraint. There is a carte blanche element elsewhere. Section 4(a) coupled with Regulation 5(b) provides a general purpose for linking data from different sources identifiably for its own sake. I do not fully understand why that has been permitted.
Every so often there is a defining moment in the life of this House when it is right to stand up for basic principles. This is one such instance. I am proposing that we challenge the Government to abide by the precepts which their own Ministers repeatedly articulate. However, I have listened carefully to noble Lords, not least the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, my noble friend Lord Soulsby and all noble Lords who have spoken. I note with due seriousness what the Minister said about the wording of my amendment and in particular the last part of it.
Let there be no misunderstanding about the amendment. As it stands, it is not fatal to the regulations. It was not designed to be fatal. In tabling the amendment in such a form, my main hope was that it might commend itself to noble Lords generally and to the Government and that the Minister might feel able to give me the undertakings that I seek. As he will know, those matters are of immense importance to many people outside the House. It is no part of my purpose to frustrate the operation of the regulations. I am well aware of the immediate damage that would be done to cancer registries and to disease monitoring if the regulations were to be overturned.
It would be possible for us to go through the lobbies and vote on my amendment. However, I would rather reach a consensus with the Government. The Minister appeared to indicate that as regards the first part of my amendment he would have no difficulty about giving me the undertaking I am seeking. His difficulty lies in the second part of the amendment. I therefore have a proposal to put to him. If he will consent to give me an undertaking that the Government will protect the continuing work of cancer registries and protect the public from communicable diseases with the minimum infringement of patient confidentiality, and if furthermore he will undertake that in the early part of
the next Session of Parliament he will take a suitable opportunity to report back to the House on the operation of the regulations, on the progress that the Government are making on their plans to minimise the need for unconsented disclosure in all areas of activity covered by the order, and on the whole issue of safeguarding patient confidentiality, I in turn undertake that I will not press my amendment to a vote.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. Before responding to his invitation, perhaps I may say that the issue that he has raised makes a persuasive case for the regulations. They establish a clear framework in which the use of such information is very clearly set out.
We discussed the issue of civil proceedings. But the point of the regulations lies not only in the fact that they allow the use of such information under certain circumstances; they also lay down a clear set of rules under which such information can be used, and they go on to list an enforcement procedure under which proceedings can be taken against those who abuse their position and do not follow the rules.
The consultation paper that we produced in December on implementing the confidentiality strategy provides the right framework to take the NHS forward into a situation where we deal better with the issue of patient confidentiality. We are developing a code of practice for the NHS which it is our intention to publish during the summer. I am sure that all of us are united in wanting to make sure that the NHS conducts itself properly in these areas.
As regards the noble Earl's request that I report back to noble Lords on the operation of the regulations and on the progress being made in the area of patient consent, I am happy to agree. It would be extremely useful if, late this year and early in the next Session, we have a further debate on these issues. I am very happy to agree to that suggestion.
Earl Howe: My Lords, that brings our debate to a very satisfactory conclusion. I thank the Minister very much indeed for agreeing to my suggestion. There is nothing more for me to do other than to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
- House adjourned at twelve minutes past ten o'clock.
Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
Tax Credits Bill
Tuesday, 21st May 2002.
The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I remind your Lordships of what was read to you on the first day. We will go through the Bill clause by clause. Noble Lords will speak standing. It has been agreed that there will be no Divisions in Grand Committee. If there is a Division in the Chamber, we will adjourn for 10 minutes as soon as the bell starts.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 24:
- Page 2, line 35, after "credit" insert "for the whole or part of a tax year"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 24, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 25 and 27. These amendments to Clause 3 are part of a larger package of technical amendments designed to clarify and rationalise the distinction between "award" of tax credits and "entitlement" to tax credits.
The new tax credits introduced by the Bill are designed to target support according to the current circumstances of claimants within the context of a system that bases entitlement to tax credits on annual income and can respond by adjusting support for claimants who experience a change in their level of income.
Because the credits are designed to ensure that support is delivered to claimants during the year, the Bill enables the Inland Revenue to make awards, and payments under those awards, during the year, and to adjust those awards and payments as claimants' circumstances change. But because the credits will also respond to changes in income, entitlement cannot finally be determined until after the end of the year, when current year income is known. In short, awards—and any payments under those awards—are simply the vehicle for delivering support during the year.
Entitlement is different. It depends on the underlying facts, some of which—income—cannot be determined until after the end of the year. But this distinction is not clearly drawn by the Bill as it stands, and this gives rise to a number of technical problems.
Most obviously, as drafted, the provisions in the Bill that ought to deal with the finalisation of entitlement after the end of the year—in particular Clauses 17, l8 and 19—focus on the finalisation of awards. So Clause 17 currently deals with decisions about the correctness
of an award; Clause 18 deals with inquiries into awards; and Clause 19 deals with discoveries about awards. We shall discuss these provisions, and government amendments intended to clarify them, in more detail later.However, the straightforward point is simply that some people may have more than one award in any given tax year— for example, if they stop working and so stop receiving the working tax credit for a period before returning to work later in the year. At the moment, the end of year provisions I have mentioned would apply to each award separately. This means that the Inland Revenue could have separately to require information from claimants in respect of each award in the year, rather than being able to ask a claimant once for a single set of information and to finalise their entitlement for the whole year on the basis of that information.
In addition, there is a contradiction between Clause 5 and the decision-making provisions in Clauses 14 to 16. Clause 5(3) and (5) are actually aimed at making provision about claimants' entitlement. When a person ceases to meet the basic requirements necessary to qualify for one of the credits, it is sensible that their entitlement to that credit should stop. This is what Clause 5(5) is aimed at. And because couples will be jointly entitled to the new credits, it is axiomatic that the entitlement of a couple, as a couple, will stop if the partners break up. Similarly, the entitlement of a single person as an individual will stop if that person takes on a new partner. This is what Clause 5(3) is aimed at.
However, these provisions in Clause 5 are currently cast in terms of the effect on awards rather than entitlement. They therefore imply that awards will or will not end in particular circumstances. However, Clauses 14 to 16 make clear that the existence of awards is dependent on decisions made by the board. Thus, there is a conflict, and the Bill as it stands leaves unresolved the question of what should happen in a case where, under Clause 5, an award ought to end but no decision to bring it to an end has been made by the board under Clause 16, or vice versa.
I could go on. A number of technical amendments are required to straighten this out. It will be made clear in Clause 5 that awards run until the end of the tax year, and end during the year only if they are terminated by a decision of the board. These amendments make the first such necessary changes to the Bill.
Amendment No. 24 makes clear that a claim to a tax credit is needed each year. The amendment is needed because once a proper distinction between awards and entitlement is drawn, the requirement for a new claim each year will no longer be implied by Clause 5(1) and (2), which provides that an award on a claim ends at the end of each tax year.
Amendment No. 25 inserts a new subsection (1A) into Clause 3 to make clear that, where the board decides not to make an award or to terminate an award, any subsequent entitlement is dependent on the
making of a new claim. This makes clear that the position for second and subsequent claims is the same as that for new claims.Finally, I have already mentioned that Clause 5(3), which is intended to provide that entitlement ends when a couple splits up or a new couple forms, incorrectly refers to the effect of such a change on an award. It will be stripped out of Clause 5, re-cast in terms of entitlement and moved to Clause 3, where it more properly belongs, by Amendment No. 27.
With that technical explanation of the re-drafting for clarification of the distinction between reward and entitlement, I hope that Members of the Committee will feel able to endorse these amendments. I beg to move.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page