Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is it really honourable that the money should come back to the NHS for the benefit of NHS patients rather than for the mentally handicapped, for which the land was originally given?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, if one looks at the history of the giving of land and property over the many years of the National Health Service, it is very difficult to say that for all time every element and value of the property should go back into the service for which it was originally bequeathed. That would be a nightmare to organise. I accept that we need to ensure that money is invested in learning disability services. I certainly hope that the extra money that we are putting into the health service creates the conditions for investment in the future.

I was disappointed with the response of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, to the comments made by my honourable friend in another place yesterday. Ms Jacqui Smith, who has responsibility for this policy area, made a very significant statement. She could not make any commitments but said that she was willing

12 Jun 2002 : Column 352

to consider the timetable for the sale of the land. That, indeed, is what the Government will do. But, equally, I cannot stand here and give hope that the Government will suddenly wave away the opportunity of the sale of that surplus. I believe that it is significant that she said that she would be willing to consider the timetable for the sale of that land. That is a commitment I repeat in your Lordships' House today.

I have spoken perhaps too long, but I wanted to respond to the important points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I understand the issues raised in St Ebba's with regard to village communities. I believe that the local authority has gone about its business in a professional and effective way and has reached its decisions on the basis of proper, multi-disciplinary, professional assessment.

I conclude by saying that I shall ensure that the parents and relatives group has a further opportunity to put its case to the statutory agencies. As my honourable friend said yesterday, she will take another look at the proposed timetable for the sale of the land, but without any commitment.

Tax Credits Bill

8.35 p.m.

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 10.

Lord Freeman moved Amendment No. 35:


    Page 8, line 1, at end insert ", and in particular whether the application of the 16 hour rule can be flexibly interpreted for those disabled persons who remain at work during a period of treatment"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment concerns entitlement to working tax credit for disabled people. Clause 10(3)(b), to which my amendment is addressed, covers the category of disabled people; and paragraph (d), under the description "any other factors", covers the very broad range of options available to those who draft and interpret the regulations for entitlement to working tax credit for those who are disabled.

I support the Government's view that the working tax credit mechanism should be used as far as possible for disabled people, both those who are able to continue in work and come back to work. I understand that the final draft of the regulations dealing with entitlement has yet to be considered. It may therefore be appropriate to probe a little further what the Minister said in Grand Committee. It would be very helpful if the Minister could add to and amplify some of the comments made.

I am not suggesting for one moment that the 16-hour rule, which is fundamental to the definition of "qualifying remunerative work" in relation to, for example, disabled people, should be in any way amended or broached. But flexibility is provided for on the face of the Bill and it may be helpful if I probe a little further the flexibility, its interpretation and imposition.

12 Jun 2002 : Column 353

I wish to stress that I am addressing the issue of people with short-term disability problems; not those suffering from long-term disability and inability to work anywhere close to the 16-hours per week. So I am not talking about those who would qualify for the longer term disability benefits together with the income disregards associated with that. I am dealing with short-term problems.

Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. It may be that a course of treatment—I believe that certain categories of renal dialysis would fit this example—which might not last more than a few months, would enable a patient to work three days a week for one week, two days a week the next, perhaps even only one day the week after, and then a full week. So there may be for those who fall into the category of "disabled" but who are having treatment which lasts for a few months—but certainly not beyond six months—a rather irregular pattern of work.

I have two questions for the Minister in anticipation of looking at the regulations in greater detail when we come to them. First, what is the degree of flexibility in determining whether or not the 16-hour rule has been met, if not in the letter each week but certainly within the spirit as a result, perhaps, of averaging? Secondly, how can we communicate this welcome flexibility to the disabled and to the organisations which care for and help disabled people? Some foreknowledge of how the working tax credit system might work for the disabled would be of enormous help. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting down the amendment. It is an important point. It was raised at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. It is one which calls quite urgently for attention. The stress on therapeutic effect is valuable. The stress on short-term conditions is also valuable.

While the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, was speaking I was thinking, for example, of slipped discs. When one is suffering from a slipped disc, one may be quite incapable of working for a month, then capable of working perhaps a half a day or a quarter of the day for another month, and three-quarters of a day for a third month and then be perhaps fully fit afterwards. If one tries to telescope that process one ends up unfit to work. I remember being told by a doctor, "Either you accept this discipline or you have this condition for life". Fortunately my employers took a generous view of the matter and I was able to accept the condition; otherwise I might not be here now. There could be real value in the amendment.

When in Opposition the noble Baroness dealt with the Jobseekers Bill. She raised the question as to whether one had necessarily to go by the number of hours in deciding what was full-time work. I do not know whether that question is worth revisiting. I can see difficulties in the way of it. But I could see then what the Minister was after and why. I felt considerable sympathy and tried to support her where I could. The issue is worth thinking about.

12 Jun 2002 : Column 354

Exactly how the principle would be applied will be difficult. The principle needs attention. Consultation with the disability organisations about how exactly it should be done and contact with the medical profession could be extremely valuable. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for raising it.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I support my noble friend. Clearly it is an important issue. As the noble Earl pointed out, it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, at Second Reading. Although his preoccupation over many years has been concerned with Mencap and so on, the issue may well affect other disabled people. It is particularly important in a period of treatment—it may be a temporary situation—but it would be inappropriate for the tax credit to be withdrawn during a period which is likely to be of a transitory nature. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will respond favourably.

8.45 p.m.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I hope very much that I shall be able to allay concerns. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, said that he was not seeking to change the 16-hour rule. That has read-across implications on the supportive, permitted work which has replaced therapeutic earnings. One may end up possibly with more losers than gainers among people who might be in the 10 to 16-hour range if they have, for example, a severe learning disability. I am glad that he did not go down that route. I may be able to meet his concerns on his substantive point.

With the support of other Members of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord sought to provide that disabled people who are receiving medical treatment should be able to satisfy the remunerative work test even if they cannot always work at least 16 hours a week. He gave the example of someone with fluctuating hours being given renal dialysis.

The working tax credit will look at the hours that a person usually works. That does not mean that a person has to work 16 or more hours every single week. For example, being off work and in receipt of statutory sick pay, which can run for up to six months, will not mean that the person no longer qualifies for working tax credit. That is substantial. I use the genderised "his"; I am sure noble Lords will allow that. If his usual working hours were at least 16 hours a week before the onset of the illness, and provided he expects to return to work once he has recovered, he will continue to be eligible for working tax credit because his "usual" working hours will not have changed.

As I said on Amendment No. 6, whether or not an employee's hours have changed will tend to be governed by the arrangements between the employer and his employee. In other words, if the employer expects someone in the normal course of events to be working 15 hours a week but there is a period in that timescale when the hours are less but the arrangement still exists between employer and employee the working tax credit will continue to be paid under those circumstances.

12 Jun 2002 : Column 355

Clearly if the situation continued beyond the statutory sick pay period one is getting into a very different situation relating to total incomes and total hours worked. But the situation in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, is already met. Given that one can be on statutory sick pay for up to six months, it is more than generously covered. With that assurance I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page