| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I appreciate the noble Earl's concerns, which will give the Secretary of State discretion to extend the time limit for claims in
particular circumstances, such as the claimant having been ill or other circumstances outside the claimant's control. Of course, the Secretary of State does not have authority over tax credits, which will be under the care and management of the Board of Inland Revenue. Nevertheless, the principle of the amendment is clear.I am not sure whether the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is pressing me on the issue of time limits or whether he envisages other categories of need that are not covered by the existing wording of Clause 4, which provides,
- "that a claim for a tax credit is to be treated as made by a person or persons in such other circumstances as may be prescribed."
I wonder to what extent the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is seeking to push me on time limits, or whether he is seeking to push me on circumstances that he thinks would not be covered by mental or physical illness. Perhaps he can help me on this.
Earl Russell: I was thinking of circumstances that might not be covered. One of the commonest delayed claims that I have to put in is failure of my P60 to appear when it should, and that sort of thing may delay a claim for reasons which are in no way the fault of the person who is making the claim. Is it possible to give any consideration to that type of case?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes. I have a comment on the life-support machine. It would be difficult to conceive of circumstances in which that would come into play. That individual would not be responsible for a child and would not be working, and therefore would not be eligible for tax credits in that particular situation. They may be one of a couple, and in those circumstances the other partner would claim on behalf of both of them; in other words, we get back to the "appointee" discussion we have just had.
The noble Earl was concerned about forms which go astray. At present, for the most part, under the general rules for income support, JSA, and so on, claims take effect the day they are made, and they can, in very limited circumstances, be back-dated for up to three months for severe illnesses. Currently, in other limited circumstances the claim may be back-dated for one month; for example, in cases of transport or postal difficulties.
These provisions introduce three-months backdating, which is considerably more generous. It is also the case that if, for example, claimants find their entitlement curtailed, despite the fact that they have done their best to comply with the rules—perhaps for technical reasons because one benefit hinged on another—we would treat the claim as made on the date earlier than the date on which it was actually made in order to prevent claimants losing out on a technicality. For example, eligibility for WPTC depends on a qualifying benefit, and if that was delayed someone might lose out on the timing of their eligibility for WPTC. We now handle that.
It is very hard to envisage postal and such delays going on beyond three-months. I am floundering slightly because I cannot think of a circumstance that the noble Earl's case would cover. The life-support
machine was dealt with; postal delays would surely be caught by the three-months limit. If a benefit depends on another benefit and is delayed due to that, then the regulations would cover that situation as they do now. Can the noble Earl, Lord Russell, give me some other help that physical or mental disabilities would not cover?
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister. On the matter of post I can quote the case of three envelopes which were posted to me at the Huntington library and reached me three years later. I take the point that the person on the life-support machine is not going to be caring for a child at the time, but they might have tax credits due to them at the time when they went onto the life-support machine.
Basically the Minister is relying here on Humpty Dumpty, who has ridden gallantly to the Minister's rescue. I wonder whether she might rely on that Humpty Dumpty case about treating a claim as being made at a time other than when it was actually made. I am sure she has very much enjoyed making me admit the virtue of the Humpty Dumpty clause. If so, she is entitled to. I believe she has given me about as much as I am entitled to ask for, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Freeman moved Amendment No. 38:
- Page 3, line 40, at end insert ", including any information about benefits and services provided by government departments to which the claimant or claimants have access by virtue of their entitlement to tax credits"
The noble Lord said: I live in hope and expectation that the Minister will accept this amendment for two reasons. First, it is not mandatory. It is an empowerment for the Inland Revenue to offer advice on passported benefits that are linked to the claim for tax credits.
Secondly, it is very much in line with the present Government's thinking about joined-up government. We have a situation where the Inland Revenue offices, using modern IT, have to link both to local government and to the offices of the Department for Work and Pensions, in order not only properly to assess any claim but, through the means of this amendment, to provide information about other benefits.
I am grateful to the Minister for her response sent on 8th May to my question about the IT systems to be used by the Inland Revenue. Perhaps I may read for the record the two relevant sentences:
- "You also expressed concern about the Inland Revenue's ability to deliver such a demanding IT project on time."
- "I can assure you that the Revenue is aware that delivering this policy places a huge requirement on that department to deliver an IT system that is both intricate, containing a number of cross government interactions, and capable of dealing with the large number of customers entitled to tax credits."
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, has so clearly explained, the amendment would require the Inland Revenue to provide claimants with details of other benefits they may become entitled to by reason of their entitlement to tax credits. By that I mean entitlement to the so-called passported benefits. I believe that those are what the noble Lord has primarily in mind.
I would suggest to the noble Lord that the amendment is not necessary. That may be good news, but the bad news may be that the amendment would not do what he hopes. Let me begin by seeking to assure Members of the Committee that the Revenue will be doing what it can to help people with the issue of the passported benefits. The aim is to provide basic advice on them through the tax credit helpline, and to direct claimants to where they can obtain more information. The Inland Revenue, however, cannot advise claimants on whether they will be entitled to passported benefits.
As the noble Lord knows very well, passported benefits are the responsibility of a variety of government departments or organisations, each of which sets its own entitlement criteria. Using entitlement to certain benefits and tax credits as a trigger is merely a way of cutting down on administration by using a ready-made income test to target those benefits, such as free school meals or free prescriptions. But they also include benefits not provided by government departments, such as reduced charges for utility services.
Because this is a complex area, the Treasury and the Inland Revenue have been discussing their needs for information from the tax credit system with the departments and organisations responsible. Claimants need to be able to access advice about passported benefits, but that advice must be the best and most reliable advice available. In that case, it must come mostly from the department or organisation directly responsible for the benefit. To support that, the Revenue will be looking to see how it can facilitate wider access to advice for claimants and how it can support the departments responsible for the benefits with the information they need to target those who are eligible.
I hope the noble Lord is reassured that we are taking what steps we can within the constraints of what is practicable. We cannot expressly provide entitlement to passported benefits in this Bill because it is not for us to determine entitlement to them. However, we are doing all we can to facilitate access to information about the benefits and to work with other departments to provide the relevant information. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will think that we are at least at one with the push of his amendment, if not with the wording.
Lord Higgins: I am slightly surprised by that reply. The amendment refers not to entitlement, but whether
people may have access to particular benefits. It refers specifically to government departments and not to benefits outside government departments, to which the Minister appeared to refer. One cannot help but feel that the Revenue, perhaps unlike the Department for Work and Pensions, is not enthusiastic about the broader aspects of giving information on passported benefits to those individuals who may be entitled to them.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |