| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful for that answer. Perhaps I may press the Minister on a couple of points. What is the definition of "serious" in the Government's mind? Would it include instances of organised crime committing fraud against tax credits?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Of course.
The Earl of Northesk: The noble Lord indicated that there was a figure that the Government had in mind as to where was the cut off for "serious" or "not serious". Can the noble Lord help us on that point?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As to the first point, I thought that I had made it clear that, yes, we do believe that organised criminal gangs come under the definition of "serious". As to the second point, it is very much a matter for the courts and is court-led.
Earl of Northesk: I thank the Minister for his response. I shall look carefully at what he said in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 201:
- Page 22, line 27, leave out "a date thirty days after the time" and insert "the date thirty days after the appropriate date.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 202:
The noble Lord said: This is another of those consequential amendments. In this instance it falls into the now infamous category one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 203:
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 203, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 204 to 209. Using the categories, which we are grateful to Members of the Committee for accepting, this group of amendments does two things: it continues to make the distinction between awards and entitlement under category one; and, because of category four, has the consequential effect of splitting Clause 17. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: Do they all cover both sections or are some of them specific to Clause 17?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendments Nos. 203 and 205 refer to Clause 17. The rest are in the first category relating to awards and entitlement. I am doing this on the wing and if I have made a mistake I will write to the noble Lord.
To make the situation clear, Amendments Nos. 203, 205, 206 and 208 are about the splitting of Clause 17. Amendments Nos. 204, 207 and 208 are about the separation between entitlements and awards.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 204 to 209:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 37 [Exercise of right of appeal]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 210:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 211:
The noble Earl said: The amendment deals with the question of appeals out of time. It would protect the case for the claimant whose appeal is out of time because of illness or other circumstances outside the claimant's control. The general line of argument is familiar to the Minister. There are cases in which one simply is not capable of appealing in time, rape victims, for example, are frequently unable to tell their story within the normal time. It is a normal human phenomenon; we are not going to change it. Since we are not going to change it, we might as well live with it on rather more generous terms than we sometimes do. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: This seems an admirable amendment and no doubt we will have a sympathetic response from the noble Baroness. If she is going to respond sympathetically, perhaps she could tell us who is going to exercise such discretion, since I doubt whether the Secretary of State personally will be involved.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This amendment would allow appeals to be made more than 30 days after the notice of a decision is issued. I agree with the sentiment behind it. There are obviously cases in which it is inappropriate to refuse an appeal that has strictly been made out of time. I am equally delighted to say that this mechanism already exists under Section 49 of the Taxes Management Act 1970, which allows someone to ask the Inland Revenue to accept a late appeal if there was a reasonable excuse—what we would call in social security a good cause—for not making the appeal under the time limit.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, under that section the matter is decided by the commissioners if the Inland Revenue does not agree with the appellant. Obviously there are transitional arrangements, but even so the ability to accept late
Earl Russell: I am delighted by the Minister's response. I have one further question. Does the Taxes Management Act apply to every part of the matter covered by the Bill, regardless of whether it crosses the line, which exists so clearly in the minds of some people, between tax and benefits?
Lord Higgins: I also have one rider to add. Does the existing legislation apply equally to payments as well as receipts?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not know whether the noble Lord is taking me beyond tax credits, but that is certainly the case once responsibility for the appeals transition period is over. The noble Lord's question may have a meaning other than the superficial, perhaps applying to behaviour. The situation should be fine once the transitional arrangements have finished. It applies to Part 1 tax credits, not to child benefit. I do not know whether that helps him. In other words, it applies to all taxes and tax credits—including those that he prefers to describe as benefits—apart from child benefit. We are about to come to the clauses on child benefit and it may be better if we deal with those under the Clause 44 stand part debate.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for his support. I am grateful to the Minister for her very kind words. Perhaps we might leave it to the Minister's discretion between now and Report to see whether any further tidying up in this area is needed. It is something I am entirely prepared to trust to her judgment. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 212:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 213:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 214:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Persons subject to immigration control]:
On Question, Whether Clause 38 shall stand part of the Bill?
(2A) "The appropriate date" is—
(a) in the case of an amount treated as an overpayment by virtue of section 27(6), the date of the decision under section 16 to terminate the award, and
(b) in any other case, the date"
Page 22, line 29, leave out "for the period"
Page 23, line 6, leave out "17" and insert "(Decisions after final notice)"
Page 23, line 7, leave out "period" and insert "tax year and any revision of that decision under that section"
Page 23, line 10, leave out "17" and insert "(Decisions after final notice)"
Page 23, line 11, leave out from "decision" to "in" in line 12 and insert "must be made under subsection (6) of section (Decisions after final notice)"
Page 23, line 13, leave out "period" and insert "tax year"
Page 23, line 14, leave out "(6)" and insert "(1)"
Page 23, line 15, leave out "period" and insert "tax year"
Page 23, line 19, at end insert "(or, in the case of a decision to which section 22(3) applies, the date of the decision)"
Page 23, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall have discretion to allow an appeal out of time where the delay was caused by illness or other circumstances not within the control of the claimant."
Page 23, line 21, leave out "shall be" and insert "is"
Page 23, line 28, after second "the" insert "General Commissioners or Special"
5.15 p.m.
Before Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
"ANNUAL REVIEW
(1) The Treasury must, in each tax year, review the amounts specified in subsection (2) in order to determine whether they have retained their value in relation to the general level of prices in the United Kingdom as estimated by the Treasury in such manner as it considers appropriate.
(2) The amounts are monetary amounts prescribed—
(a) under subsection (1)(a) of section 7,
(b) for the purposes of any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (3) of that section,
(c) under section 9,
(d) under section 11, otherwise than by virtue of section 12, or
(e) under subsection (2) of section 13, otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) of that section.
(3) The Treasury must prepare a report of each review.
(4) The report must include a statement of what each amount would be if it had fully retained its value.
(5) The Treasury must publish the report and lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page