| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Northbrook: Are there any unofficial rules on whether the lateness of the tabling of amendments affects how they are treated in Grand Committee?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That matter has been raised. It was debated at our last meeting. As my noble friend Lady Hollis says, it is seven or eight days since the amendments were tabled. They have not been seen by the House of Commons, and it is clearly undesirable that government amendments should be considered less than seven days after they are tabled. However, they are being considered more than seven days after they have been tabled and additional support has been provided in the form of the speaking notes. That cannot be considered an objection. However, we are on the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
The Earl of Northesk: I defer, of course, to the greater experience of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, but I had always understood that one of the pillars on which scrutiny in Grand Committee was based was a lack of controversy on the Bill. The fact that, inadvertently, we have ended up with some controversy bubbling up because of the late tabling of amendments makes it much more difficult for us to deal with these issues than might have otherwise been the case.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, cannot have been at the Employment Bill Grand Committee. Controversy is of the essence of consideration of legislation, whether in Grand Committee or on the Floor of the House. Nobody is trying to avoid controversy; we are trying to avoid the time of the House being taken up in repetitive consideration.
The Earl of Northesk: I should have said "non-contentious".
Earl Russell: Speaking of time being taken up, may I ask that we proceed to the next group of amendments?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before we do so, does the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, recognise, on reflection, that the amendments simply make a distinction, which nobody has criticised, between awards and entitlement? That is all that they do. On Report, everybody, including the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will be able to see the Government's intent. As a result, they will be able to move any substantive amendments of policy then. Given that, I wonder whether the noble Lord is happy to see these amendments put into the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It happened under the last Government as well.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins: The Front Bench on this side of the House finds itself having to make instant decisions on a matter that they had not previously contemplated. I still have some cause for concern, because noble Baroness' explanation gives rise a number of genuine points of principle, in particular the relationship between taxpayers on the one hand and people in receipt of tax credits on the other.
We will wish to table an amendment on Report. The procedure merely changes the onus of proof one way rather than the other. Since it is clear that we will need to table such amendments, we will do so, but it seems to put an undue burden on the Opposition, rather than letting the Government move their own amendments and defend them on the Floor of the House. Having said that, I would not wish to dissent further on this group.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord has not challenged the need to distinguish between awards and entitlement, which is the point of the amendments. I am sure we will wish to revisit the substance on Report, as he has said. I thank him for his helpful response.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 25:
- Page 2, line 35, at end insert—
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 27:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Saatchi moved Amendment No. 28:
The noble Lord said: The aim of the amendment is to gain clarification from the Government on how they intend to know whether the separation between a couple is permanent. The Bill currently says that a married couple would not be considered to be married if they were,
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I may need the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi to help me a little more. When people are separated is well established in social security law. The judgment of that is that they maintain separate households, although it is possible to have separation within the same household. The normal tests would be whether there is a separate household, whether there is a sexual relationship, whether there are children, whether the relationship is stable and whether there is a financial sharing of resource. Those are the tests of whether two people are operating as a heterosexual couple for social security purposes. Separation is normally where people have separate households, although it is possible to be separated within a house if those tests of a sexual relationship, a financial relationship and the stable relationship are not in play. I do not know if there is anything further I can tell the noble Lord.
Obviously there is a lot of debate sometimes from lone parents as to whether a boyfriend is a cohabitee. We are not establishing any new principle from that already in place in social security. The Inland Revenue already has experience of that with the existing tax credits. If we do not have such a rule, a cohabiting couple will be treated more favourably than a married couple. I am not sure the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, would wish to advocate such a position.
Earl Russell: If it is any help, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who used to be President of the Family Division of the High Court, once rehearsed the answer to precisely this question. His answer was identical to the Minister's. This, like weather forecasting, is an uncertain art, but nobody, so far as I know, proposes that either of them should stop.
Lord Saatchi: I am most grateful for that description. It prompts me to ask how the characteristics of the separated couple, or the couple deemed to be permanently separated, are elicited from them. How do they answer those questions about the nature of the relationship and so on?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There is a very simple answer to that—if it is not the one the noble Lord is seeking, perhaps he will press me further—which is that the working tax credit and child tax credit forms are jointly signed. Therefore, if they are jointly signed, the presumption is that those two are acting as a couple. If it is not jointly signed, then we are possibly dealing with a lone parent and a non-resident parent or maybe a child in two separate households. The fact that it is a joint claim should overcome the noble Lord's concerns.
Lord Saatchi: I am grateful for that response. However, notwithstanding what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, with 50 per cent of marriages now ending in divorce the transition period between the first stage
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 29:
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 30 is grouped with Amendment No. 29, so for the convenience of the Committee I shall speak also to that.
Amendment No. 29 is based on the premise that individuals in receipt of British non-contributory benefits or tax credits should ordinarily be physically in the United Kingdom. As my noble friend Lord Higgins observed, the benefits and supports so conserved are a direct product of the generosity of the British taxpayer. It is therefore unreasonable that persons in receipt of such payments should be overseas except on one ground only: that is, limited periods of absence from our shores.
Accordingly, Amendment No. 29 is designed to limit the exceptions. Excuses of having to deal with family affairs overseas will in many cases be plausible but would be impossible to police. Logically, therefore, the only fair and practical rule is to exclude any exception, save for reasons defined by short periods of absence. The amendment leaves it open to the Government to prescribe the period but, by limiting the grounds of exception to a period only, it prevents the construction in regulations of complex arrangements which make exceptions for all manner of reasons. That would replicate the horrifically complicated and almost impossible-to-regulate provisions of Regulation 4 of the Income Support General Regulations 1987 as amended. Bluntly, is it too churlish to suggest that the system of tax credits is already complicated enough without adding to its complexity?
I have one final thought in this context. The Minister, during our debates last week, defined the tax credit system as a structural reorganisation and moved away from separate chimneys to a horizontal arrangement. Fair enough. But as my noble friend Lord Higgins intimated, it will take some time for us to assimilate the full implications of this. Within this reorganisation there has to be an explicit aspiration that over time and in order to deliver the Government's policy of encouraging people into employment, more and more people will be in work. That, together with poverty reduction, is the primary thrust of the Government's policy. The Minister emphasised that point again today. In such circumstances, there is every reason to assume that they should ordinarily be in the United Kingdom.
Amendment No. 30 merely seeks to probe whether the provision in subsection (5) is intended to apply equally to couples, whether or not married, submitting claims for tax credits as to individual claimants. I beg to move.
"(1A) Where the Board—
(a) decide under section 14 not to make an award of a tax credit on a claim, or
(b) decide under section 16 to terminate an award of a tax credit made on a claim,
(subject to any appeal) any entitlement, or subsequent entitlement, to the tax credit for any part of the same tax year is dependent on the making of a new claim."
Page 2, line 41, at end insert—
"(2A) Entitlement to a tax credit pursuant to a claim ceases—
(a) in the case of a joint claim, if the persons by whom it was made could no longer jointly make a joint claim, and
(b) in the case of a single claim, if the person by whom it was made could no longer make a single claim."
Page 3, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).
"separated in circumstances in which the separation is likely to be permanent".
We would be grateful if the noble Baroness would give us a little more information on how the Government would know the likelihood of the permanence of separation. I beg to move.
Page 3, line 5, after "prescribed" insert "by reference to the time absent from the United Kingdom"
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page