social Security: Consolidation Bill (Hansard, 28 March 2001)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)
My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord that Part VI of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 as subsequently amended is not an easy read. The department has been advised that consolidation is not yet necessary. We shall, of course, keep the matter under review.

§ Lord Brightman
My Lords, is it not astonishing to find that Part VI of the 1992 Act has been amended by no fewer than 15 Acts of Parliament over the past nine years, that Part VI has grown during that period from 12 to 26 sections, and that all the original sections have been, repealed or rewritten? Are there not existing plans for consolidation in those circumstances?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I accept that the Social Security Fraud Bill, which is currently going through the other place, is complicated, but there would be a real problem if each time a programme Bill or a policy Bill, if I may use that phrase, was enacted, it was followed by a consolidation Bill. For example, in 1995 about 54 pieces of legislation were enacted, of which about six were consolidating Bills and three were financial Bills. The remaining 41 pieces of legislation amended about 500 Acts. It is therefore very difficult to maintain a rolling programme of consolidation, especially in the field of social security, where virtually every piece of legislation adds to and builds on preceding administrative Acts.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, is it not a miracle of understatement for the Minister to say that this mess of an Act is not very easy reading? Is it not legislation for which perhaps a successive government should apologise and hasten to put right? What on earth is the point of the database for statute law if it cannot quickly clear up this mess?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, for most legislation—certainly for social security legislation—there are normally three audiences. The first audience is lawyers, who will have access to commercial productions, including Halsbury's statutes and Butterworths. The noble Lord was right to suggest that the development by the Lord Chancellor's Department of the statute law database should make that information available to parliamentarians. The second audience for DSS legislation includes DSS advisers and staff and CABs. They have access to the continuously updated blue books, of which there are 265 currently a dozen on social security legislation that are available to the public in libraries. They specify the current situation.
The third audience comprises people who are affected by the legislation. They will not normally want to read the law; they will want to respond to leaflets, the code of guidance, and so on. For instance, a piece of legislation may state: The claimant must satisfy the Secretary of State of any change of circumstances which he might reasonably be expected to know might reasonably affect the right to benefit, or to its receipt, as soon as reasonably practicable after its occurrence". A leaflet to a claimant might say, If you start work, tell us straight away".

§ Earl Russell
My Lords, in light of the Minister's kindness in making a consolidated text available to those of us who followed the Bill in question, may I take it that she understands the case for doing what the noble and learned Lord asked her to do? Will she tell the House who would have the power to take the decision to do what the noble and learned Lord suggested, and what consultation process would have to be gone through in order to take it?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, as I understand it, consolidation Bills are normally carried out every 10 or 20 years. There were social security consolidation Bills in 1965, 1975 and 1992. The decision obviously involves negotiation but, basically, the department seeks advice from parliamentary counsel, who reflects and advises. I understand that the parliamentary counsel then reports to the Law Commission, which is under the scrutiny and supervision of, and ultimately accountable to, the Lord Chancellor. It is fair to say that the pivotal figure in terms of advice is the parliamentary counsel.

§ Lord Higgins
My Lords, is not the basic problem the increasing complexity of the Government's social security legislation? Compared with that, our exchanges on the previous Question were simple. Is it not the case that one should not have a rigid time-scale, or say that a consolidation has not been carried out for 10 years? The point is to establish how much legislation has taken place in the meantime and how much has been done by reference to earlier legislation. I hope that the Minister takes the point that was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, very seriously and accepts that Part VI of the 1992 Act should be reconsidered.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I accept—I have not tried to suggest otherwise to the House—that tracking Bills through is a complex procedure, especially with regard to the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which was a consolidating Act. Every subsequent social security Act has built on it. I entirely accept that there is a difficulty but the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, which was that one could peel off Part VI and consolidate it separately, would mean that one 266 would split the 1992 Act into two Acts. Each of those Acts would require its own subsequent amendments and need complicated reads across, and each would have a history of subsequent amendments ahead of it. That is not the right solution. We hope that the development of the statute law database will address most of the problems that noble Lords have raised this afternoon.

§ Lord Swinfen
My Lords, did the Government consider introducing a Keeling schedule into the Bill? That could well have solved the problem.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I understand that that was what we did.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, there is a way to avoid getting into this mess. Each time a substantial amendment is made to part of another Act, the whole of that Act should be reprinted in the form in which it will subsequently be interpreted.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, perhaps I misled the noble Lord. I certainly took some trouble on Second Reading—gracefully acknowledged by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—to ensure that Members of your Lordships' House who were taking part in the debate had a copy of that section, as amended, so that they could "clear read" it, so to speak. In that sense, I hope that I addressed the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. We did that in terms of transparency of reading as regards that section of the Bill at Second Reading. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. was not a participant in the earlier stages of the Bill.

Lord Renton
My Lords, will the noble Baroness revise her opinion that consolidation is unnecessary? Consolidation reduces the costs of the administration of justice; it reduces the time taken in considering the legislation in the courts and is, therefore, in the interests of the people of this country.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, as I understand it, the consolidation of a Bill involves a major piece of parliamentary drafting. Therefore, it becomes an alternative to a programmed Bill. That is the advice given to me. That was a dilemma wrestled with by previous administrations, who only occasionally introduced consolidating legislation. If we were to proceed with a consolidation Bill, it would be at the expense of programme development. It would mean that all other Bills affected would need consolidation. The social security Bill that has just passed through this House amends some four other pieces of legislation. Is it the noble Lord's suggestion that they, too, should be amended? They in turn affect previous Bills. The problem is easy to identify; the 267 solution is extremely complex, given the knock-on effect. I suggest that the development of the electronic database is a more appropriate way forward.

§ Lord Swinfen
My Lords, did the Government consider introducing a Keeling schedule into the Bill? If not, why not?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, as I said in answer to a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, we did indeed make available such a schedule to the Members of your Lordships' House who were taking part in the debate.