HL Deb 10 June 2003 vol 649 cc130-5

3.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise as I have pulled off the sticker where it said "speech" in my file, just as I was clipping the file to find where I am starting. We need a better quality of sticker in the department. We have obviously been economising with government money.

I am satisfied that the draft regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. They form a small, but nonetheless essential, part of the legislative framework for pension credit.

Regulation 2 amends the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999 to provide, in relation to pension credit, that there shall be no right of appeal against decisions made pursuant to Regulations 4D, 4E and 26B of the Claims and Payments Regulations. Regulation 4D specifies that a claim for pension credit need not be made in writing but if it is, the claim must be made on an authorised form or in such other written form as the Secretary of State accepts as sufficient in any particular case; and, is not valid unless a written statement of the claimant's circumstances, provided by the Secretary of State, is approved by the claimant.

Regulation 4E provides that a person may make a claim for pension credit at any time within the period of four months before the reaching the age of 60.

Regulation 26B prescribes the time and manner of payments of state pension credit.

The requirements as to what constitutes a valid claim for pension credit purposes are less prescriptive than those which currently apply to income support under Regulation 4 of the Claims and Payments Regulations. Most notably, Regulation 4D does not include a requirement that supporting information and evidence must be included with the claim before it can be considered to be valid. The absence of a right of appeal against decisions regarding the validity of claims for pension credit is in line with the position regarding appeals against decisions concerning the validity of claims for other for benefits across the benefit system.

I emphasise that the decisions in question do not concern the amount of money to which a person is entitled—that remains subject to appeal, or the valid date. A claimant's income or capital and the amount that they receive and from when remain open to appeal. However, if a person failed to send in the form, or to leave substantial areas of questions unanswered, they would not have a valid claim, and that would not be an appealable decision.

Regulation 3 amends the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001 to preclude a second right of appeal where a local authority uses the Pension Service's calculation or estimate of income for housing or council tax Benefit purposes. That would not, of course, affect the original right of appeal against the original pension credit decision. The rationale is that it would be simply unfair to allow people who claim housing benefit or council tax benefit a second right of appeal against the original pension credit decision regarding their income. As your Lordships will know, the decision for pension credit purposes for income is passported, so to speak, over to the housing authorities. That is why we do not need two parallel paths of appeal.

The regulations are essentially technical, and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness on this occasion, as on many others, for a clear exposition—despite being initially lost for words—of the issues involved in the regulations. More generally, as far as concerns work and pensions matters, it is extraordinary that the Minister for Pensions, who was whisked away into a Labour Party job, has, months afterwards, still not been replaced. One can assume only that the Prime Minister can think of no one in the House of Commons who might reasonably fulfil that task. That being so, there is a strong case, given the noble Baroness's enormous expertise in these matters and the helpful attitude that she always adopts, for moving the job to this House.

I have one or two questions for the noble Baroness. The first is about consultation on the regulations. We are told that consultation has taken place with organisations appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of the authorities concerned, but we are not given a clear indication of how widespread it has been. Similarly, we are told that there has been consultation with regard to the Council on Tribunals. The explanatory memorandum explains why that was necessary, but we are not told which issues were referred or what conclusions were reached as a result of the consultation with the Council on Tribunals. Is the council now satisfied that the regulations are appropriate?

We are told that the Government have agreed with the Social Security Advisory Committee that the proposals need not be referred to the committee for further consultation. Every time that the issue of the Social Security Advisory Committee comes up, it seems to be the case that it or the Government—or both—have decided that it need not consider the matter. I have great difficulty in remembering any occasion since I have been in this post on which it has been consulted on anything. The committee seems to have an uncertain role in such matters. Perhaps I misjudge the situation.

Other than that, I have only one or two points to make, and I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could explain them to us. We are told that Regulation 2 does not contain a right of appeal because that is the case for regulations in other parts of the social security framework. That does not explain, in the first place, why there is no such appropriate arrangement.

With regard to Regulation 3, we are told that there is no right of appeal at the stage at which housing benefits and other benefits are considered because the decision on the amount of income and the amount of capital that is applicable in the case has already been made by the Secretary of State at the stage at which the claim was made for council tax benefit. To what extent would it be clear to the claimant that, if he wished to dispute the income or capital assessment, he must do so at the stage at which the claim is initially made and will not be able to do at the stage at which the local authority is concerned with the housing benefit situation? There seems to be a case for not necessarily saying that someone could not come back at the latter stage, when the housing benefit was being considered. The individual concerned may not fully understand the procedures, which are not as simple for claimants as one might wish.

Other than that, I think that the noble Baroness made things clear, and I have nothing to add. On balance, the amendments are, as she says, technical and sensible.

Baroness Barker

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in his assessment of the position in the Cabinet and in his comments about the noble Baroness. I add my weight to her campaign for a better quality of stationery in the future.

I shall concentrate on many of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, but shall deal with them slightly differently. My questions are coloured by the fact that, as part of my work—I declare an interest as an employee of Age Concern—I see information and advice officers struggling to get to grips with the forthcoming introduction of the pension credit. Therefore, I was particularly interested in what the noble Baroness said about the lack of a right of appeal with regard to what is widely acknowledged to be a complex form.

I recall that we deliberated at some length on the original legislation, and the noble Baroness said that she was confident that a great deal of the uptake would be electronic. I had some concerns about that at the time, and I spoke accordingly. In view of what has been said of late about the department's computers, I was right then. I am even more concerned about it now. Can the noble Baroness shed some light on the extent to which computerisation and training of claimants for computerisation has been taken forward?

The noble Baroness was right about Regulation 3 and the fact that there should be no right to appeal twice. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I would like to know what will be done to ensure that users know at the point at which a pension credit decision is made that there will almost certainly be implications for housing benefit and council tax benefit and what they will be able to dispute.

As usual, I was interested in the issue of consultation. According to the Library notes, there was no consultation on Regulation 2. In view of some of the issues that I mentioned, I would like to know what consultation there has been with prospective users on the matters. Finally, can the noble Baroness, in her pitch for a new job, go slightly further than the dry matter of regulations and say something about the training programme for the administration of the pension credit forms? It seems to be causing widespread concern among practitioners.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I am glad that the regulations have been welcomed today. As the comments made have been finely honed, I shall respond to them directly.

It would be fair to say that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, basically raised two questions: one about the consultation exercise and one about the provision of information to claimants for housing benefit under Regulation 3. On the question of consultation, I can say that the Council on Tribunals was content with our regulations and had no comment. The noble Lord also raised a general point about how often the Social Security Advisory Committee was consulted. It is required to be involved if regulations are coming into the public domain at least six months after the legislative procedure has completed. Partly as a result of pressure from the noble Lord, I have been able, on behalf of my department, to bring regulations before the House while legislation was going through. That has obviated some of what the committee has clone in the past, and it could be said that previous administrations may have been more dilatory about bringing forward regulations for scrutiny.

There was a substantive point about the Social Security Advisory Committee. It shared the noble Lord's concern that claimants might not appreciate that the Pension Service's assessment of income and capital could have an effect on their entitlement to HB and CTB. That concern was rightly emphasised today by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He is right to say that it is important that pensioners know that that is where the decision has been taken that, for example, having capital of £16,500 might rule them out for HB purposes. The department has undertaken to include warning of that and full information about it in the pension credit notification as soon as is practicable. Obviously, I will do my best to keep an eye on it and make sure that the information is clear and unambiguous, so that people realise that it is a passported statement of information for the next set of regulations.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made various points, but the substantive point, I think, related to our degree of confidence about the introduction of the pension credit system in October. She was worried about the word "electronic". I believe that "electronic" includes telephone. We are expecting people to apply originally by telephone. We do not expect there to be—I hope that I am not wrong—any particular issues that we have not foreseen as regards the introduction of pension credit. First, we are not using a new computer; we are using a tried and tested existing computer. Secondly, we are having a graduated take-on approach. Thirdly, the pension credit is a simple system; it is not a more complex system. Given all of that, we believe that we have anticipated where there may be the inevitable problems associated with the development and extension of an important service to many people.

As regards the telephone service, we are expecting that up until October people will apply by telephone. They will still then receive a written confirmation of that exchange which they then sign. So there is written confirmation. We found from research that elderly people, in particular if they do not have family members to support them, prefer discussion over the phone. It is the best way of ensuring that one has the relevant information on the form. In the past, MIG forms which have been filled out on paper have had to go to and fro because the elderly person has not understood the import of a specific question. The system is designed to be helpful. We have no reason to think that it is not. However, if the organisation with which the noble Baroness is, rightly, proudly associated perceives concerns, I am sure they will be brought to our attention.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Higgins

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. Is it proposed that the individual will be told by telephone the calculation of their income and capital which will then go on the form? It will be difficult for many people to understand that.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I understand that the information will be discussed with the elderly person on the telephone. That will come through to the department which will then send it out. It may be able to give immediate guidance on whether someone obviously is or is not eligible. But the claim will come when the person has received a written statement of the agreed circumstances. That will constitute the claim. However, the first step is by telephone.

From October, pensioners need not go through that telephone stage if they do not wish to do so. Anyone currently on MIG will go through automatically. The steps for the savings credit will be strange because they are new. People will have had an opportunity for discussion on whether or not they may be eligible and to understand concepts such as income, capital and so on. I have no reason to think that it is not the most supportive way to reduce the hassle factor and extend the reach of what I think will be an important benefit.

The noble Baroness pressed me about staff training. Again, if she has any worries, I ask her to let me know. I have had no suggestion—but it is early days—that staff training is inadequate or incomplete. Nor have I any worries at present about the adequacy or otherwise of the computer system or the forms. We are working closely with Age Concern, Help the Aged, CAB and other organisations. We have a fairly long lead-in period between now and October. If problems begin to emerge, I trust that we will have in place the proper responses to overcome those difficulties. I hope that your Lordships will accept the regulations.

On Question, Motion agreed to.