| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Russell: My Lords, there are a number of items in the regulations that I welcome. I welcome the fact that refugees and those given exceptional leave to remain are exempt from the habitual residence regulations. I also welcome several items which my noble friend Lady Barker asked for during the passage of the Bill. In the process, I thank my noble friend for burning the midnight oil preparing a brief for me on the subject.
I welcome the disregard for royalties and income from public lending rights and the 13 weeks' extension for hospital downrating. I mention one technical problem about that aspect. Re-admission within 28 days is counted as a continuous stay in hospital. That raises the question, what if the re-admission is because of an inappropriate discharge? That, I know, is more a matter for the Department of Health than for the noble Baroness. I hope that they might possibly consult each other about the matter.
Among the various allowances dealt with there are various ones reserved for the care of children. There is no mention of adoption allowances. That may need attention after the Adoption and Children Bill has finished its passage. The allowance for aids and adaptations is welcome. But it is not clear whether it extends beyond those registered disabled to those who are victims of stroke or heart disease and are not registered disabled.
I declare an interest. My mother-in-law, although not on benefits, is aged 92 and suffering from angina. She has had to have a stairlift installed, which was quite remarkably expensive. People could really be in need of help for such an item. Perhaps the department might at some future date look at that matter.
My only other question of concern—and this has been a question throughout the Bill—is the complexity of the pension credit system. The DSS says that it will attempt to do the calculation for everyone, which is generous and warm-hearted of it. But it prevents people from being in a position to work out their own entitlement. If we are being told that we should make provision for our own retirement, and do so responsibly, it is a little easier if one knows what one is entitled to. That point might be worth some thought.
8.50 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful for the brevity with which your Lordships have responded. It is pleasing that we have all resisted the temptation to make speeches suitable for Second Reading, Third Reading or any other Reading. I shall try to deal with the specific points that have been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked about the Social Security Advisory Committee. It can indeed comment; its advice was sought; and we have had the benefit of that advice. The noble Lord will know that the assumption concerning the sixth-month rule—although the Social Security Advisory Committee is not officially required to be consulted within six months of a Bill's passage—is that Parliament has clearly expressed its view when discussing the Bill. The job of the Social Security Advisory Committee is normally to advise the Secretary of State after that six- month period, when Parliament's intention may be more remote from what has since happened. But in this case, as I said, the Social Security Advisory Committee engaged in policy discussions on the matter, so that point is met.
On the question about overseas provisions, our views may be irreconcilable. The noble Lord's description of the situation was correct: medical treatment paid for by the NHS falls under the regulation. For anyone else, it is a matter of volition or choice to decide to seek medical treatment abroad and to pay for it. We have sought legal advice, and I understand there to be no legal difficulties with the provision. I suspect that whether the noble Lord
considers that approach to be desirable depends on his views about private medical treatment, which we may not share.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, that seems very unfair. Given the income provisions of the tax credit, there will be few cases. People who have contributed towards the National Health Service and who are now relieving the NHS and the United Kingdom of that responsibility will be penalised. Someone treated on the NHS, to which everyone has contributed, will gain relief, whereas someone being treated privately will not. That is unfair.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I understand that that is what the noble Lord believes, but that is no different in principle from the fact that people do not receive tax relief on contributions to medical insurance policies, for example, or anything of that sort. People make that choice.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, it is going further than that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords, but my point is that if people pay for private medicine they make that choice. Whether or not they relieve the NHS of part of its responsibility has not been—certainly under this administration—a consideration affecting tax and fiscal policies. I know that the noble Lord disagrees with me on that, but that is entirely consistent with our tax treatment of the costs of medical treatment incurred on a private basis.
Finally, the noble Lord asked me about the definition of income shown on capital. He knows as well as I that if someone had capital of £12,000, the effective rate attributed to his capital would be 5.2 per cent average. That is because, when we consulted with Age Concern and other organisations, they preferred us to set a band of capital—£6,000—that was exempt. As a result, 85 per cent of all pensioners, who have savings of less than £6,000—will have no notional rate of return attributed to their capital. The notional rate kicks in above £6,000.
It is entirely reasonable that we should decide that the average should be, as it were, loaded on those with higher capital to benefit those with more modest capital. That was the advice offered to us by Age Concern, and that is exactly the policy that the Government have followed. Again, I know that we disagree on that, but that is what it is.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, when discussions took place, did Age Concern know what rate would be fixed?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I doubt that it knew what would be the specific rate. It would have known that, given the structure of pension credit, any abatement on the first £6,000 would have to be recovered by increasing the rate that applied above £6,000. That was always part of the discussions, and
that is what Age Concern signed up to, I understand. Of course, if I have misled the noble Lord in any respect, I shall write to him.I should add that that is effectively half the rate of the existing minimum guarantee—which in turn follows previous income support rates for capital treatment. So we have got rid of the capital ceiling. As a result, it is reasonable to have a fresh look at how we appraise the notional return on capital. As I said, pensioners did not want each individual item to be assessed; they wanted a notional rate, which is what we have provided.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about adoption allowances. It may be good news for him that nothing related to children is relevant to pension credit; it is disregarded for those purposes. Any income from adoption allowances would not cut into entitlement to pension credit. He asked what provision is made when readmission to hospital is deemed to be the result of inappropriate discharge. The reasons for admission or discharge are not relevant to social security legislation. If there is a perceived problem in that regard, it is a matter for the Department of Health. Whether discharge was inappropriate would not determine the outcome of pension credit.
The noble Earl also asked about housing costs and respite care. That is dealt with in Schedule II at paragraph 4(9), which allows housing costs of people who are temporarily in care homes to be met, subject to a limit of 52 weeks, which I think covers the examples that he gave. Finally, he asked for a definition of a disabled person at Schedule 2(12)(2)(k). It is simply taken over from definitions under income support. That is an incorporation; there is no change; existing policy will continue.
I hope that that has met the concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. If your Lordships will agree, given the lateness of the hour, I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
8.57 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 102:
- After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
The noble Baroness said: I take this amendment seriously, as I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, during the dinner break. I think that I spotted
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that if there were a repeat of the Yarl's Wood disaster in respect of either an accommodation centre or a removal centre, the provisions of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 would not apply in respect of any damage caused. The Committee will recall the appalling consequences of the fire at Yarl's Wood earlier this year. In the aftermath of that fire, the insurers who act for the company that runs Yarl's Wood made a claim against the Bedfordshire Police Authority for almost £100 million. They are suing to recover what they have paid out.
As I understand it, the provisions of that Act apply even when there has been no negligence or default on the part of the police. The Act provides that where a police authority declares under the terms of the Public Order Act 1986 that a riot has taken place, police authorities become liable to pay for any damages to buildings and their contents arising through riots.
My question is: what will happen if there is a fire at an accommodation or removal centre in future? Will insurers be unwilling to cover renewals of existing policies in respect of removal centres? Are the Government destined to become the insurer of last resort?
In a debate in another place, my honourable friend Peter Luff voiced his concerns about those matters. He has a particular interest in the proposal to build an accommodation centre in his constituency. He asked:
When the Police Reform Bill was debated in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, tried to solve the problem by repealing Section 38 of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 in toto. That would have had an unfortunate and unwelcome consequence, although I recognise that the noble Lord acted throughout from good intentions. The amendments were not pursued, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, then a Minister at the Home Office stated:
I am being helpful to the House and to the Government. We need wait no longer. My solution, which would stop the problem recurring, is simple and timely. We should stop the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 from applying in the case of accommodation and
Lord Greaves: We welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, has proposed the amendment. It highlights something that has, since the Yarl's Wood fire, become a problem. We regard it as a probing amendment, tabled to let us see what the Government will do about the problem. We look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
"DISAPPLICATION OF RIOT (DAMAGES) ACT 1886 (C. 38)
The provisions of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 (c. 38) shall not apply in respect of any damage caused to—
(a) an accommodation centre, or any property therein;
(b) a removal centre (as defined in section 147 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33)), or any property therein."
"Is it true that some police authorities have declined to police those centres, or to provide the protection necessary? Who will be liable if there is a fire, such as that at Yarl's Wood? Who will insure this centre in the event of a similar disturbance? Is it not time to re-examine the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, which I think puts the responsibility for damage on the police".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/5/02; col. 493-4.]
"The Government are pursuing an urgent review of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. When we have pursued our urgent review, we shall report back to Parliament. However, I cannot guarantee that that will be in time for Report stage".—[Official Report, 12/3/02; col. 805.]
The review was not completed in time for our Report stage, and today, as the Report stage of that Bill begins in another place, we are still waiting for the results of that urgent review.
9 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page