AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 83 (Hansard, 22 July 1991)

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall be mercifully brief. It will be quite obvious to Members of the House who have heard all the previous debates and have voted after having heard them that this is an amendment which is simple to explain. It seeks to ensure that a benefit penalty cannot be repeated merely because a parent with care moves from one benefit to another. Examples of that are moving from income support to family credit or disability working allowance, or, after a break in the benefit claimed, moving back on to the same benefit. I beg to move.

§ Earl Russell
My Lords, not even God judges twice in the same cause. On these Benches we are happy to support the amendment.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, some specification may be required about judging twice in the same cause. In broad terms I entirely sympathise with the aims of the amendment. I do not think it right that when someone has had a benefit reduced for 18 months we should look to reimpose a reduction if there has been no material change of circumstances. That would in effect negative the maximum period about which we have spoken.
However, the amendment goes further in its effect. It would mean that it would never be possible to issue a second direction in any circumstance. But there may be many situations in which it would be appropriate to 570 give more than one reduced benefit direction to a caring parent. For example, if a caring parent leaves benefit six months after a reduced benefit direction has been given and then reclaims benefit, or claims a different benefit and still refuses to co-operate, there is a strong case for arguing that it would be right to give a further reduced benefit direction to cover the unexpired portion of the previous reduction. In the example that I have given, that is one year. The amendment would not allow that. It would enable the spirit of the amendment to be in effect abused.
Moreover, in circumstances involving, say, a new question of liability, it would not necessarily be right to be restricted in that way. I can assure noble Lords that it is not our intention that a parent with care should have a benefit reduced for more than 18 months. But, as I have explained, there may be special circumstances when that may be better achieved by the issue of further directions.
It is a matter of detail. I can undertake to the noble Lord that that will be dealt with in the regulations. I am sure that we shall be able to produce regulations which carry out the spirit of the amendment without the technical difficulties to which I have referred. I hope that, in the light of that undertaking, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, the debates in the Chamber today started on an angry note, that the business that we have been conducting should not be taken at such short notice. It is perhaps part of the spirit of this House that debates are ending on a courteous note from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that he intends in regulations to carry out the spirit of the amendment. In those circumstances it would be wrong of me to divide the House. I am grateful to him even if he has not gone as far as I should have liked.