---

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I shall consider carefully what the noble Lord said. We are not concerned with errors or with mistakes. They have nothing to do with negligence. We are concerned with whether inadvertently, and for reasons beyond the individual's control, he might be thought to be negligent when there is a good reason why he is unable to fulfil his responsibilities. I shall read and consider what the noble Lord said. I thought he gave an inadequate answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 [Failure to comply with requirements]:

[Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 not moved.]

Schedule 2 [Penalties: supplementary]:

[Amendments Nos. 113 to 119 not moved.]

Clause 37 [Interest]:

[Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 not moved.]

Clause 38 [Appeals]:

[Amendments Nos. 122 to 128 not moved.]

Clause 39 [Exercise of right of appeal]:

[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]

Clause 40 [Annual review]:

[Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 not moved.]

Clause 41 [Persons subject to immigration control]:

[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]

Clause 42 [Polygamous marriages]:

Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 133:

Page 26, line 34, at end insert "which are the same as those made under the State Pension Credit Act 2002"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Baroness, the noble Earl and I spent many hours debating various aspects of the State Pensions Credit Act. The purpose of Amendment No. 133 is to ensure that the

13 Jun 2002 : Column 459

provisions mentioned in that Act are the same as those in the Bill. The amendment seeks merely to ensure conformity between the two pieces of legislation. That seems eminently sensible. We hope that the noble Baroness feels able to accept the amendment.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am deeply disappointed. I was hoping to be able to discuss again the differences between polygamy and polyandry and the principal forms of polyandry and the people from the Malabar coast of India. Instead, I have been denied the opportunity of exhibiting the research done by a young man from our department.

I shall do as I have asked other people to do, which is to stay with the words of the amendment. It seeks to align the rules of the new tax credits with the rules for pension credits. I do not think that we can do that. It would not work. The regulations regarding polygamy made under each Bill need to reflect the character of the respective credit introduced by those Bills. If the regulations made under Clause 42 of the Bill were the same as those made under Section 12 of the Pension Credit Act, they would obviously be about the pension credit, which would not be much help to people trying to claim the working tax credit or the child tax credit.

Perhaps I may give an example. The working tax credit will contain an additional element for couples. Regulations made under Clause 42 will need to deal specifically with that issue. By comparison, regulations regarding polygamy made under the State Pension Credit Act need to deal with the question of the availability in such cases of the guaranteed credit or savings credit within the pension credit. Therefore, I am afraid that one cannot cross-write in the way that the noble Lord seeks, mainly because the building blocks of the two systems are very different.

The noble Lord looks baffled. Pension credit, as he will recall—

Lord Higgins: I am surprised.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Never baffled, merely surprised. My Lords, the pension credit, as the noble Lord will recall, is the fact that between the retirement state pension for a single person of £77 (next year) and £100, which is the current MIG figure for 2003, there is no advantage to people in having a small pension. When pension credit comes into effect next year they will be able to keep 60 per cent of the difference between those two sums according to their pensioner status.

There is no read across from that to what is happening here, which is about a building block or a family need. Pension credit is about ensuring that an occupational pension is not tapered out against an entitlement to MIG. The couple or single person element obviously comes into play. But it is not a means test in the form of tax credit or child tax credit which must build in additional elements for each member of the family. That is basically why one cannot leap from one to the other. They are different structurally. But in both cases we treat the position of a second, third or fourth spouse in supportive ways.

13 Jun 2002 : Column 460

I should be happy to seek to enlarge on my remarks if the noble Lord wishes. But basically pension credit is saying that one can keep one's occupational pension between those two figures as opposed to working tax credit and child tax credit, which is actually building on the allowances given for the size of the family, which is a very different system.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, it is sometimes said that one should never ask a question unless one knows the answer. Generally speaking on a Bill one can anticipate a number of replies which the Government are likely to make—most of them unfavourable. Having said that, I am surprised by this. It seemed to me that there was an argument for some consistency. I understand the points made by the noble Baroness. I shall read carefully what she has said and read again the previous debates on the Bill. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43 [Crown employment]:

Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 134:

Leave out Clause 43.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 134 seeks to leave out Clause 43. It is an extremely short clause about Crown employment. It states:

"This Part applies in relation to persons employed by or under the Crown (as in relation to other employees)".

As the noble Baroness will understand, this is a probing amendment. I am not clear why those in Crown employment should require that provision to be included in the Bill. I should have thought that Crown employees are employed, so far as concerns the Bill, in exactly the same way as anyone else employs someone or is employed by someone. The wording is rather odd in the parentheses, where it says:

"as in relation to other employees".

I do not understand why a person employed by or under the Crown has any relationship to other employees, but no doubt the noble Baroness can elucidate that and explain why Crown employees require a specific mention in the clause. I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are here dealing with those employed directly by the Crown; in other words, members of Her Majesty's private staff and those who work for the Royal Household, as opposed to the more general application of the term, "Crown servant", which could mean any civil servant or person employed in the public sector. Without such a power, it would not be possible for the employees of Her Majesty to be eligible for tax credit. The Queen has graciously consented that her employees may have their wages topped up by tax credits. Therefore, there is a clause in the Bill to that effect.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply, which again I had not anticipated. I thought that lots of people were employed by the Crown in the sense of the Government. I had not realised that the provision referred to the Royal Household. I am not sure what

13 Jun 2002 : Column 461

would be the drafting if one wanted to refer to civil servants, rather than members of the Royal Household. But the noble Baronesses has explained that point.

However, I am still not clear why the expression is,

"as in relation to other employees".

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it means in a like manner as to other employees of other employers—in other words, the same income in the same circumstances generates the same tax credit.

Lord Higgins: Yes, my Lords, fine. We shall consider that carefully, but the noble Baroness has at least explained what the clause is intended to cover, for which we are grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 135:

Leave out Clause 45.

The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns notices issued by the board under Clause 45. Again, it is simply a probing amendment. The clause states:

"The board may give any notice which they are required or permitted to give under this Part in the manner and form which the Board considers appropriate in the circumstances".

I do not understand why the clause is necessary. I should have thought that it was apparent that the board could give notices that it is required to give in whatever form it considered appropriate. It is given total discretion to give notices in whatever form it likes. I do not think that anyone has suggested the contrary and I do not understand why we need the terms of Clause 45. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness is familiar with my concern for the rights of the illiterate. Perhaps I need to start to develop an equivalent concern for the rights of the computer illiterate. Notices can be addressed by e-mail to those who are not equipped for such a thing, as frequently happens to several of us now. I hope that, with the case of Pepper v Hart in mind, the Minister can assure us that that would not be regarded as an appropriate method of communication, because it does not reach its destination.

---