---

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry but I am unable to accept the amendment in the way it is presented on the Marshalled List.

The role of the committee is set out in Part 13 of the Social Security Administration Act. That role is to advise the Secretary of State in connection with the carrying out of his functions. This amendment seeks to widen the remit of the committee, giving it an advisory role in relation to the functions of the Treasury and the Inland Revenue under this Bill.

I understand the concern of your Lordships that the experience and knowledge of the Social Security Advisory Committee, to which we all pay tribute, in the area of social policy can inform the development of the tax credits and that proposals for draft regulations made under this Bill are subject to appropriate scrutiny and consultation. I agree with that sentiment.

When WFTC and DPTC were introduced—similarly when responsibility for national insurance contributions was transferred to the Inland Revenue—the Government were anxious to ensure that that

20 Jun 2002 : Column 956

scrutiny and consultation took place. Inland Revenue officials were asked to make sure that the committee was shown any relevant regulations in draft to ensure that we benefited from the expertise of its members. That practice has continued and I should like to take this opportunity to place on record our appreciation of the contribution those members have made.

I said in Grand Committee—I repeat it tonight—that the Inland Revenue and the Social Security Advisory Committee, although they do not have a formal arrangement because that would alter the whole basis of the committee, have an informal arrangement under which consultation takes place. That will continue once the new tax credits are in place. Indeed, officials at the Inland Revenue have already agreed with the Social Security Advisory Committee a basis for ongoing consultation, renewing and updating the arrangements put in place in 1999.

The committee is consulted regularly. It was consulted about the proposed introduction of these two new tax credits and officials met to discuss the Government's proposals. We shall be consulting its members to discuss the regulations. I hope that your Lordships will agree that that consultation exercise is going ahead satisfactorily.

Perhaps I may quote from two of the most recent reports of the advisory committee. In its 12th report, 1999-00, the committee said,

"While these are still early days, these informal procedures have in our opinion worked well and we are grateful to Inland Revenue officials for the care they have taken to keep the committee informed of all relevant developments".

In last year's report, 2000-01, it said,

"We also continue to comment informally on proposals from the Inland Revenue concerning matters such as WFTC. We are grateful to Inland Revenue officials who continue to keep us closely in touch with relevant developments within their areas of responsibility".

Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness can assist us a little further. She says that comments or, at least, judgments from the committee on these matters exist. Is there any chance that in the future those may be made available to the House?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, where the Inland Revenue and the Treasury introduce significant changes which go out to consultation, then, as with the original papers here and other major developments, there will be a response from the Social Security Advisory Committee. That would be published and placed in the Library of the House. The Social Security Advisory Committee does not publish its smaller—if I can put it that way—responses to the Department for Work and Pensions. Its major issues are put into its annual report. In that sense I hope the noble Earl will agree that there is some, although perhaps not perfect, analogy, between the two systems.

While I sympathise with what the noble Earl seeks to do, I think that the informal arrangements work very well, as do the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Inland Revenue. Where there are major changes which go out to consultation, the views

20 Jun 2002 : Column 957

of the Social Security Advisory Committee are sought by the Inland Revenue, and are placed in the Library of the House. With those assurances, I hope that it is not appropriate to change its formal terms of reference. The informal arrangements that we have are proving, so far as I can see, highly satisfactory and highly effective. I hope that the noble Earl is able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am not clear what the noble Earl who moved the amendment proposes—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, wished to intervene before the Minister sat down.

I am grateful to the Minister for the one crumb of comfort that she has given me. I think that it is a rich crumb. The making available of the reports of the committee to this House is of great value.

I knew perfectly well that I was proposing to change the committee's remit. I do not see why that is such a particularly desperate and dangerous thing to do. I understand that there is a culture which says that it has not happened before, therefore it is desperately dangerous. But there is substance in the remark of Edmund Burke that,

"Whatever now is established, once was innovation".

So, I am not persuaded by those arguments.

I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, but when he urges me to divide the House, I think of the story of the 18th century MP. He was a particularly boring MP, who spoke for well over three hours until the Chamber was completely empty. At the end of which he began to read the Riot Act until Edmund Burke, of all improbable people, got up and said:

"Ah, my friend, you are too late. See you not the crowd has dispersed?"

For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Higgins: My Lords—

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?

Lord Higgins: My Lords, we, on this Bench, decline. We believe that there is a case for putting the amendment formally on the face of the Bill. We therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

7.33 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 26) shall be agreed to?

20 Jun 2002 : Column 958

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 81.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS
Astor of Hever, L. [Teller]
Attlee, E.
Belstead, L.
Boardman, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Craig of Radley, L.
Elton, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Geddes, L.
Hanham, B. [Teller]
Higgins, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Lucas, L.
Northbrook, L.
Northesk, E.
O'Cathain, B.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Rawlings, B.
Rogan, L.
Seccombe, B.
Strathclyde, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Alli, L.
Amos, B.
Andrews, B.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Billingham, B.
Blackstone, B.
Brennan, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter, L.
Chandos, V.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Crawley, B.
Darcy de Knayth, B.
David, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Desai, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Gale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Gilbert, L.
Golding, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Grabiner, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Grenfell, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Hardy of Wath, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Hayman, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Breckland, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Layard, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Mitchell, L.
Prys-Davies, L.
Puttnam, L.
Rea, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Renwick of Clifton, L.
Rogers of Riverside, L.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Simon, V.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Temple-Morris, L.
Thornton, B.
Turner of Camden, B.
Uddin, B.
Walker of Doncaster, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

20 Jun 2002 : Column 958

Schedule 3 [Tax credits: consequential amendments.]:

[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]

Schedule 5 [Use and disclosure of information]:

[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]

20 Jun 2002 : Column 959

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

---