RESTRICTIONS ON ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFIT IN CERTAIN CASES OF ERROR

HC Deb 13 May 1998 vol 312 cc409-11

Lords amendment: No. 31, in page 17, line 28, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below,")

Mr. Keith Bradley

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 32 to 37, 52 to 58, 138 to 141, 143 and 145.

Mr. Bradley

Clause 27 contains provisions to deal with restrictions on entitlement to arrears of benefit following a decision by a commissioner or court which reinterprets the law in a particular area. The clause replaces and clarifies sections 68 and 69 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.

Lords amendments Nos. 37 and 58 clarify the fact that restrictions on payment of arrears will apply regardless of whether a claim or application is made before or after the date of the relevant determination. The other amendments in the group will ensure that the provisions of clauses 27 and 44, and paragraph 47 of schedule 6, comply with European Community law and with the European convention on human rights.

As originally drafted, the provisions would have required that only the person involved in the lead case—the case that leads to a reinterpretation of the law by a commissioner or a court—would have any increase in their benefit entitlement paid without any restriction. All others who are affected by the new interpretation of the law would have had any increase paid from a common date set—the date of the determination in the lead case.

Mr. Burns

In the light of debates on the Bill in another place, why is the Minister so confident that the provisions will comply with the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights? On what evidence has he based that conclusion?

Mr. Bradley

I am confident—because of the thorough-going nature of the debates in the other place, and the expertise that has been applied to the matter both there and within my own Department—that the assurances that I have given will be complied with. If the hon. Gentleman has doubts on the validity of that statement, I should be very grateful if he will say how he thinks it is defective. If I am not able now to deal with his specific point on how it is defective, I shall certainly write to him about it.

Mr. Burns

On that specific narrow point, will the Minister confirm whether he has had specific meetings with officials to discuss the issue?

Mr. Bradley

I should certainly not be commending the amendments to the House if I were not satisfied, through my officials, that the information that I am providing is correct. I say again that, if the hon. Gentleman believes that there is any defect in my statement, I should be very happy to hear what it is. In the light of that information, we will reconsider the matter, and I shall write to him with a detailed response. However, he has not yet given me any details of a problem. If he wishes to record in Hansard the problem that he perceives in the statement, perhaps we will be able to deal with it.

Mr. Burns

I should like to clarify one point. In no way was I suggesting that the Minister might be less than straightforward. I should hate for him—perhaps inadvertently, in his comments—to put that on the record. I have no doubt about the Minister's integrity. However, in debates in the other place, there was a great difference of opinion and confusion about the extent and accuracy of the provisions' compliance—when it comes to the crunch—with requirements. I was simply wondering whether the Minister has more information on that matter.

Mr. Bradley

No. I merely repeat the point that—as the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is only too aware—all legal matters are always open to interpretation. I believe that the amendments will ensure compliance with European law. I am not suggesting that I am an expert in the field; I rely on advice on those matters. If the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) or any other Opposition Member thinks that there is a specific defect that I am not dealing with, I should be grateful to be told what it is. I shall deal with the point in writing, and try to provide further assurance. Conversely, if the information shows that we should reconsider the matter, that will be done.

In no sense am I trying to mislead the House. I am merely trying to state what we believe to be the case. The matter has been considered both in the House and in another place, and I am moving and speaking to the amendments on that basis.

The amendments will ensure that restrictions on arrears will not apply to other cases that are being appealed or to claims or applications that are held up by the Secretary of State while awaiting the outcome of lead cases. I say again that I believe that the provisions are in compliance with the requirements of European Community law and the European convention on human rights—although I should be happy for the matter to be debated further if there are views to the contrary.

With those assurances, I commend the amendments to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 32 to 37 agreed to.