| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Viscount Simon: My Lords, it was about buses idling because of no conductors.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we would not stop buses with passengers in them anyway; I think that that would be counterproductive. However, if buses or coaches are idling outside bus garages or coach stations then we certainly would be stopping them. That is precisely the type of thing that we are looking to stop.
I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on Westminster and his point about taxis being maintained in cowboy garages. That is not the subject of these regulations; it is a matter for the Vehicle Inspectorate. However, I shall see to it that his comments are drawn to the attention of the Vehicle Inspectorate.
I think that I have dealt with most of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in answers to other noble Lords. I think that it was he who made the point about Regulation 12 and details being taken from drivers who agreed to the test. We would not do that. We would take the details only of drivers who refused to switch off their vehicles and to whom we issued a fixed penalty notice. We would take only the details necessary for enforcement.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, if that is so then Regulation 14 should refer to Regulation 12(2) and not 12(1).
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord has not caught us out, and I doubt it, but I shall take that point away and look at it.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I agree with the Minister and with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that the problem of vehicles travelling without an MOT is a serious one. However, during our debates on the Transport Act 2000, I tabled an amendment suggesting that we should have an MOT disc alongside the tax disc. Unfortunately, that amendment did not find favour with your Lordships or even with the noble Baroness.
Has the Minister reconsidered having an MOT disc on the windscreen to make it easier to detect vehicles travelling without an MOT?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, drivers cannot obtain a tax disc unless they have an MOT. That is the answer to that.
Earl Attlee: Yes, my Lords, but they can obtain a tax disc if they have only a couple of weeks remaining on an MOT certificate. They can then run for 50 weeks without an MOT.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall consider the matter and write to the noble Earl. I believe that I have answered all the questions that were asked.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Social Security (Electronic Communications) (Child Benefit) Order 2002
7.59 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order will put in place a legal framework that will give child benefit customers the choice of transacting business with the Department for Work and Pensions through a secure Internet-based channel.
The order is using the affirmative procedure as required by Section 9(4) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000 in an order to which Section 9(3) does not apply. It uses the powers contained in Section 8(4)(g) of the 2000 Act and in March 2000 the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, gave an undertaking that,
- "the affirmative procedure would be adopted for new issues on important subjects".—[Official Report, 14/3/00; col. CWH 23.]
Security has been one of two main considerations in the development of the e-service. Preserving the privacy of customers' personal information and ensuring that benefit is paid only to those who are entitled to receive it will be achieved through adoption of thoroughly tested systems using recognised industry, government and departmental security standards. I am confident that the proposed electronic service will be no less secure than the current service.
The second main consideration has been that of facility of use. This service will not just be an alternative channel to sit alongside paper and telephone-based services, although these will remain available. The service will be available at all times, often suiting better the disrupted daily clock of the new mother or busy family. It will use modern technology to give greater help to customers when completing forms, often at times when no other help would be
available. When necessary, additional data appropriate to customers' individual circumstances will be gathered without the need to await receipt of extra paper forms.Once the order comes into force on 28th October—both Houses of Parliament so willing—the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions may approve the detailed method of electronic claim and authorise people to use it. However, before doing so my right honourable friend will obviously want to be satisfied that the new system is robust, secure and reliable, and that it has been thoroughly and successfully tested. If there is any doubt on these matters then he will, as I am sure that the House would expect, take a cautious approach towards introducing the electronic service until he is satisfied.
Responsibility for the administration of child benefit will transfer to the Inland Revenue in April 2003 and development of the new channel has taken place in close consultation with Inland Revenue colleagues.
The preamble to the order provides the statutory assurance that the availability of any records created for the use of electronic communications and storage for the purposes provided for by this order will be as satisfactory as in other cases. My department manages data about customers in electronic form in accordance with the Data Protection Act and appropriate security standards. Records created as a result of this new channel will be subject to the same rigorous standards and equally available.
Articles 3 and 4 provide the legal framework for customers to claim child benefit, provide information and report changes of circumstances electronically.
Schedule 9C sets out conditions to be met to complete a valid transaction; for example, that the identity of customers must be authenticated in an approved manner. These protect both the customer and my department from misuse of the service, and allow for proof in legal proceedings, that the identity of the sender, the fact of, and time of, delivery and the content of the electronic communication will be presumed to be that recorded on an official computer system.
I am satisfied that these provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the order shows touching faith in the reliability of the department's computers which past experience may not wholly justify. The order is limited to claims involving child benefit and guardian's allowance. Are other benefits dealt with in other orders?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, my Lords, we are introducing the measure through the order. There is
little fraud in regard to this benefit; it is a universal benefit. If this introductory method works, it may or may not be extended to other benefits in future.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I can see no reason to object to the order. It brings child benefit into the age of e-mail. I am glad that it is permissive. The Minister will be familiar with my concern for the rights of illiterates. I shall continue to press a similar concern for the rights of e-illiterates. Only today I discovered that an important brief containing an amendment that I should have moved today is floating somewhere in the e-ether and has not come anywhere near me. As soon as the Minister or her successors forget about the permissive quality, I might start to make some objections. I make none now.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, so would I as I belong to the same generation as the noble Earl. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord and the noble Earl.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Social Security Amendment (Intercalating Students) Regulations 2002
8.5 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, like the previous measure, these regulations are benign and I hope will be welcomed. As I say, this change is entirely beneficial. These regulations are being introduced as part of our ongoing review of student provision within the income-related benefits and to meet a commitment we made when we introduced the Social Security Amendment (Student) Regulations in June 2000.
At the moment part-time students are eligible to claim social security benefits just like anyone else. But students undertaking a course of full-time study are not able to receive the income-related benefits—income support, jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit. As your Lordships know, this is because support for students comes from the student support system, which is designed for their needs, and not the social security system, which is not.
We made an important change, however, in June 2000. On that occasion we introduced regulations which, among other things, entitled certain full-time students, who had interrupted their course—usually due to illness—with the permission of their educational establishment, to claim jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit as appropriate. The students concerned were those who had had to interrupt their course because they were ill or because they had caring responsibilities, but had recovered from that illness or their caring responsibilities had ceased, and were not able to return to their course immediately.
However, we limited the period during which these students could claim the relevant benefit until the shorter of either their return to the course or the start of the next academic year. This was to ensure that students returned to their studies as soon as practicable. When we introduced these regulations we agreed to keep them under review, and have done so.
The National Union of Students, among others, has drawn to our attention the fact that, by restricting these students from claiming beyond the start of the next academic year, hardship may be caused for some who are prevented by their educational institution from returning until later in that year—perhaps because they are not permitted to return until the anniversary of the point at which they interrupted their studies.
I give an example that I am sure will be familiar to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Someone may have completed two terms of a three-term preliminary course. He or she then becomes ill. Even when they recover, it is not necessarily appropriate to rejoin the non-preliminary course one term or two terms after it has started. It makes sense for them to rejoin the university at the end of the preliminary course and start the non-preliminary course as a beginner for the full term. At the moment that would not be possible under the regulations. However, as a result of the benign changes that we propose, it would. That is why I hope that your Lordships will welcome them.
We are therefore proposing that, where students are not permitted by the educational institution to return to their course until after the start of the next academic year—it might be two terms after that start—they will be able to claim the relevant income-related benefit until such time as they are permitted to return to their course. However, in order to ensure that they return as soon as possible, the period during which they may claim is limited to one year. I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which it would need to go beyond one year.
As I say, we work closely with colleagues throughout government and elsewhere to ensure that we provide that support in the appropriate way. We believe that the regulations will help those who are recovering from illness and those who have been carers to claim JSA, HB and CTB and that they will not find themselves caught between our regulations and the requirements of the institution. I hope that your Lordships will welcome the concession.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page