| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Russell: I want to raise one point which is perhaps oblique to this amendment but which I think comes within its purposes. The amendment concerns itself with the supply of information. What concerns me is that information should not be distributed where it is to the detriment of a woman who is in danger of facing domestic violence. That is a situation probably a good deal more common than most of us know and certainly serious enough when it happens. I have not felt the need to table any separate amendment because of the presence of the word "may", which occurs, first, in the opening section of Clause 4(2), page 3, line 32 and, secondly, at the beginning of the noble Earl's own amendment.
To do what I am asking the Government to do probably does not require any changes in the wording of the Bill. I am simply asking for assurances that information about the whereabouts of the woman who is or has been in danger will not be communicated in ways in which it may reach the man from whom the danger arises. Such ways are more numerous and often more devious than many of us allow for. I have known it passed quite unwittingly and in all innocence through friends and relations of the man concerned in the local police station. They had no idea they were being accomplices to any such thing, and the cunning which goes into pursuit when exercised by men of property with their minds on the job can be quite fiercesome.
Clearly there is a vast apparatus here for the communication of information. The problem we have is that it is a need recognised by all people of goodwill but that a big cultural change is needed to make most of us think of it at the top of our minds at the moment when it is needed. I know that the Minister and I have been over this on a great many occasions. She probably understands the problem as well as anybody in the country does and certainly as well as anyone in politics does. All I am really asking is for her to try to communicate that awareness, probably in the form of guidance, to those who will be working on this Bill on the provision of information to make sure that they stop to ask the question. I await the answer with optimism.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hope that I shall be able to make the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, happy tonight, even if I cannot make other members of his Front Bench team happy. What we are proposing under Clause 17 does almost exactly what he is proposing. In other words, his amendment is similar to the annual notice that we will be providing for every case under Clause 17. It may be worth stating what that does and then, if the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, feels that it does not do enough we can come back to it.
Under Clause 17, the Inland Revenue must send a notice to each claimant, and in a joint claim to both claimants, at the end of the tax year. That notice will specify the circumstances upon which the award was based and the income upon which it was based. When circumstances have changed, the notice shall cover all the relevant circumstances that have applied over the course of the award—this is covered in Clause 17 itself. The claimant must then confirm the details in the notice or amend them if they are incorrect—this is his point about fraud—as the award is finalised. This is also treated as the basis of the claim for the subsequent year. Clearly, the notice will also state how much tax credit has been paid over the year.
Thus the process ensures that claimants will get a clear statement of the basis of their award at the end of the year. It also further simplifies things for the claimant because their claim for the following year does not start from scratch; the revenue produces or re-uses the notice with all the information it contains on the claimant. I hope the noble Earl will agree that we have covered the points he raised. He was concerned about the other side of this matter, when there are possibilities of domestic violence and the way that, by going back to a couple, information may be given to a violent or former partner that could be used to endanger his former partner.
While Clause 4(2) allows information on a claim to be given to either partner, there is no question of supplying new information to a former partner. When a couple split up, the entitlement of that couple as a couple ceases. From that point on, anything that happens to one partner is irrelevant to the other and there is no question of supplying information to a former partner which goes beyond information relating to the claim made by the couple when they were living together as a couple. For example,
information on the working hours of one partner at the time when they were a couple may be relevant, but employment details since the couple split up are not relevant.What would happen if one partner is in a refuge, for example? What protection would she receive in those circumstances? Clearly, she would need to tell the Inland Revenue or DWP her new address in order that she could continue to be eligible. The Inland Revenue will want to help her to put a new claim in place, but information about her whereabouts will not be disclosed. There will be separate communications.
I am very happy to look at the noble Earl's suggestion to ensure that our guidance about the handling of such information takes into account the concerns he has raised today. If I am not satisfied, I will seek to ensure that it covers the points he has raised.
Earl Russell: I am not at all surprised to find that the Minister has already thought through the problem. I am extremely grateful to her for her answers. I have confidence in the Minister's ability to carry them forward and I would like to thank her for what she has said.
The Earl of Northesk: I, too, am extremely grateful for the Minister's response. I shall re-read the provisions in the Bill to see precisely what Clause 17 does.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps the noble Lord will wait until after our deliberations.
Lord Northesk: Absolutely. I make no apology for being confused by the complexity of the Bill. For the moment, however, I am quite happy and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 40 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 41 and 42.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 40:
- Page 4, line 4, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—
The noble Baroness said: Amendments tabled by noble Lords opposite seek to remove subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 5. As I mentioned when we considered the government amendment to Clause 3, the Government have reached a similar conclusion. As part of the package of technical changes needed properly to distinguish between entitlement and award, government Amendment No. 40 removes those subsections. It would also remove subsection (3).
As I explained when we were considering Clause 3, we do not want claimants to have to make a new claim whenever their circumstances change. That would defeat one of the main purposes of moving to an annual system. That is why Clause 5(4) states that awards do not end when there is a change which may affect the rate of entitlement. On the other hand, when a person ceases to fulfil the basic qualifying conditions for the credits—where a person claiming working tax credits stops working, for example—it is sensible that their entitlement should stop. That is why Clause 5(5) currently states that an award ends if entitlement ceases because of a change of circumstances.
I have already explained the fact that these provisions refer incorrectly to awards and are inconsistent with the provisions later in the Bill about decision-making. They are therefore removed. Subsection (3) is moved to Clause 3 and subsections (4) and (5) are replaced by the provision which makes clear that an award is brought to an end during the year only by a decision made by the Board to end it, subject to a right of appeal. Thus, by virtue of this amendment, Clause 5 will be properly confined to making provision about the period for which awards last. It would no longer trespass onto entitlement, nor would it any longer be inconsistent with Clauses 14 to 16.
I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that Amendment No. 40 makes a technical but important change that will improve the Bill, and will feel able to support it. If that is the case, then Opposition Amendments Nos. 41 and 42, with which we otherwise would have sympathy, become unnecessary.
Finally, Amendment No. 43 deals with the making of notifications of changes in circumstances in advance of the changes actually occurring. Subsection (2)(c) provides for regulations to be made allowing for advance notifications in prescribed circumstances. This amendment would prevent advance notification from being allowed. It may be helpful if I gave an example to make sense of this.
The regulations will follow the approach taken by the regulations made under Clause 4(1)(d), which deals with advance claims. We intend, for example, to allow someone taking up a new job to make a claim for working tax credit up to seven days in advance of starting that job. The claim would take effect from the date the job was taken up and would, of course, be contingent on that job being taken up. This provision is to ensure that those who do take up a new job see the full benefit of that job—that is, the wage plus the top-up from the working tax credit—straight away.
Regulations under subsection (2)(c) of Clause 6 will follow that approach for changes of circumstances that are related to taking up a new job or increasing hours where the claimants are already eligible for working tax credit by working the requisite minimum number of hours.
The specific circumstances that these regulations will relate to are, for example, where one person in a couple is already working, and therefore an increase in hours to 30 or more per week means that they receive a higher rate of WTC. Or where, for example, a second earner starts to work at least 16 hours per week, which may entitle the couple to the 30-hour element if they add their hours together, or it may entitle them to the childcare element of WTC. Or, again, for a single person, an increase in hours to at least 30 hours per week would mean that they were eligible for the 30-hour element.
All of those changes may be related to a person starting a new job, and it is right that the person can see the benefit of taking that job from the outset. Therefore the regulations will allow notification of those changes to be made up to seven days in advance but will be subject to the change actually taking place. The change would have effect from the date it actually happened rather than the date of notification. We want to encourage people to tell us about changes as soon as practicable so that they can get the right amount of support when they need it.
I hope with that explanation your Lordships will be happy to accept the Government's amendment. I beg to move.
"(3) Subsections (1) and (2) are subject to any decision by the Board under section 16 to terminate an award."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page