Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2003 (Hansard, 26 March 2003)

The noble Baroness said
My Lords, I beg to move that the Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2003 he approved.
I should have loved to extend the previous debate and suggested that, with hindsight, we all have 20:20 vision. I know from my experience of women who were required to contribute to pension schemes and may have objected at the time but were retrospectively jolly glad; but the reverse can be true. But I shall stick to my own regulations tonight, not trespass on my noble friend's territory, and ask your Lordships to approve the regulations.
The regulations transfer responsibility for decision making in child benefit and guardian's allowances to the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue, as provided for under Section 50 of the Tax Credit Act 2002. That Act transferred responsibility for the administration, of both child benefit and guardian's allowance to the board—that is, the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue.
In June 2001, the Prime Minister announced the transfer of responsibility for child benefit and guardian's allowance in Great Britain. That was followed a couple of months later by confirmation 909 from the Northern Ireland Assembly. The transfer there will occur on 1st April. So the policy intent of the regulations has already been well discussed and aired in your Lordships' House.
Child benefit and guardian's allowance will remain social security benefits and the rules that govern entitlement to them and how they should be administered will remain those set out in existing social security Acts. The four sets of regulations on child benefit and guardian's allowance laid on 3rd March, of which this set forms part, bring together in a consolidated set of regulations all the provisions in secondary legislation that govern those two benefits across the UK as a whole. That is the reason for their length. The new regulations are necessary as a result of the transfer of responsibility to the Inland Revenue.
In other words, there is no policy change; the regulations consolidate a whole set of regulations scattered across a whole set of social security legislation, further complicated by the fact that the current legislation applies both to Great Britain and to Northern Ireland, and we are bringing them together into one.
The new sets of regulations ensure that those claiming, or advising claimants on these benefits, as well as the Revenue itself, will need only to refer to a single set of up to date provisions that clearly set out the extent of the Revenue's powers in relation to those benefits.
The particular set of regulations before your Lordships today replace those provisions in the current Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations, and the Northern Ireland equivalent, relating to child benefit and guardian's allowance. They create a consolidated set of regulations governing all decisions made by the board in relation to child benefit and guardian's allowance in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including when decisions can be changed, information can be requested, payment can be suspended or entitlement terminated and finally when and how claimants can appeal those decisions. I repeat that there is no policy change. It is consolidation—something that usually your Lordships anxiously ask us to pursue.
I am sure that your Lordships would like me to make it clear that appeals against decisions on these benefits will continue to be heard by the same appeals tribunals as now. They will be governed by the Social Security Act 1998, as now, and there is no intention of changing that.
These regulations merely replace the existing regulations in Great Britain and Northern Ireland—a consequence of the transfer of responsibility. They do not change the nature of any of the rights, nor the responsibilities or powers provided for in the existing regulations. That was not the intention of the transfer.
In practice, therefore, claimants will see no difference as a result of the new regulations. They will have the same rights and responsibilities under these new regulations as they do now. They will be able to appeal against decisions in the same way and to the 910 same appeal bodies as now. In Great Britain, that means an appeal tribunal or the Appeals Service and in Northern Ireland its equivalent. But those who rely on understanding the precise powers that apply to decisions of the Inland Revenue in such cases, such as local advice groups, legal advisers and the Revenue's own decision-makers, will be able to rely on a single, clear set of provisions, because we are consolidating them.
In line with the principles of the Tax Law Rewrite, we have tried to ensure that these new regulations are written in simple, plain English to make them as easy as possible to follow, given the complex situations that they need to cover. We also felt that taking the opportunity to consolidate the regulations was preferable to relying on ad hoc amendments to the existing regulations to ensure maximum clarity and accessibility.
As I have said, these regulations make no substantive changes to claimants' rights and responsibilities. But I hope that your Lordships will agree that that is a useful clarification. They are necessary because of the development of new tax credits and the implications for children.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that these regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the regulations to your Lordships, noting that they are essentially a bundle of technical changes transferring policy responsibility from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Board of Inland Revenue. The appeals and decision-making process remains unaltered, policy remains unaltered, and consolidation should increase clarity. With that, I hope that these regulations will be warmly welcomed.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

§ Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her canter through the draft Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowances (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2003. I am happy to accept these regulations which transfer the administration of the payment of child benefit and the guardian's allowance from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Inland Revenue. For benefits to reach those who need them most, it is essential that the system is as simple and as user-friendly as she described. I understand from the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation that these regulations go quite a way to achieving that.
I note that those individuals who are currently responsible for the administration of child benefit and guardian's allowance will still be responsible after the transfer, in the same location and in the same job. The only change is that they will be part of the Inland Revenue. There should therefore be no additional training costs or significant costs resulting from the 911 transfer of responsibilities, but I should like to seek reassurance from the Minister on that. That apart, I am pleased to support these draft regulations.

§ Baroness Barker
My Lords, I, too, support the regulations. I agree that they are a model of clarity. Clearly if it is the same person writing these regulations as in 1977, she is now a pensioner and not a married woman. I welcome the simplification of the administration. We hope that it will set a precedent that the Government may wish to follow by transferring many more of the Child Support Agency processes to the Inland Revenue, something we have advocated for a long time.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I am grateful for the rapid welcome that has been given to the regulations. I understand why the responses were both welcoming and rapid.
912 The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, asked me about training costs. My understanding is that they will continue as now. We are merely consolidating, given the Inland Revenue's responsibility for child tax credits and the way in which child benefit lies as a building block alongside that. It makes sense for the customer to have one body handling these functions.
I welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said about clarity. As to her point about the Child Support Agency, at this stage I shall merely say that she is misguided. No doubt we shall enjoy debating the issue on a future occasion—and I emphasise the word "enjoy".