§ Lords Amendment: No. 158, in page 26, line 9, leave out "may" and insert "shall".
§ Mr. John SilkinI beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to discuss Lords Amendment No. 159 and the following amendments in lieu thereof.
§ Mr. SilkinAs the clause stood originally, the Secretary of State had discretion whether or not to make regulations setting up financial hardship tribunals. The Secretary of State could also decide when they should be set up. The effect of the amendments is to make it mandatory that the regulations be made before the second appointed day. The Government amendments achieve the same effect, but for the sake of clarity and for drafting reasons they do so by amending Clause 7, which contains the main substantive provisions concerning the second appointed day. We do not think that there will be many if any cases of hardship arising from the change to CUV.
§ Mr. Graham PageThe right hon. Gentleman's speech was spoiled by his latter remarks. The financial hardship tribunals are important. During earlier stages we pressed for the tribunals to be mandatory. I think that the amendments that the right hon. Gentleman has brought before us make them, in effect, mandatory. Therefore, we need not bother about the disagreement with Amendment No. 158. The right hon. Gentleman's substitution for Amendment No. 159 is sufficient. We are grateful to him for putting forward the amendments.
§ Mr. John SilkinI thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I hope that he does not take the latter part of my speech as being anything other than a hope—
§ Mr. Graham PageA pious hope.
§ Mr. SilkinWhether it be a pious, secular or profane hope, I hope it will not be taken as anything other than a hope that the tribunals will never be needed. In any event, we both agree that there should be hardship tribunals.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.
§ Amendments made to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment last disagreed to:
§ In page 9, line 25, after 'when' insert '(a)'.
§
In line 26, at end insert:
'and
(b) a draft of regulations under section 27 of this Act establishing one or more financial hardship tribunals, or conferring on one or more existing bodies or groups of bodies the functions of financial hardship tribunals, has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'—[Mr. John Silkin.]
§
Lords Amendment: No. 160, in page 27, line 23, at end insert—
(bb) make such provision as may be expedient for dealing with the cases of deceased persons who, if they had survived, would or might have been entitled to additional payments under this section.
§ Mr. John SilkinI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment has the effect of providing that the Secretary of State may make Regulations to enable financial hardship tribunals to deal with the case of deceased persons who, if they had survived, would or might have been entitled to additional payments under the section. The Opposition moved amendments in Committee and on Report seeking to ensure that the right to make a claim, or the benefit of a claim which is accepted by a tribunal, can pass to the personal representative of any person entitled to make a claim. My hon. Friend undertook that, as it has been ascertained that this could not be achieved by process of general law, the intention of the amendment would be "placed in 1476 the Act". The amendment accordingly provides that the Regulations make such provisions as are expedient.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.