division_name: Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill - Preservation of rights in respect of additional pensions
motion: <p>Lords Amendments considered. 
  
   <p> 
   Lords amendment:  No. 1, in page 2, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 39
  <p>
   I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
   
  
  <p> 
     Mr. Deputy Speaker  (Mr. Michael J. Martin):   
   With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 14, 64 to 66, 68 to 72, 78, 79 and 84.
  <p>Lords amendment agreed to. 
  <p>Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 14 agreed to. 
  
   <p> 
   Lords amendment:  No. 15, in page 23, line 40, leave out ("10") and insert ("10(1)")
   
  
  <p>
   I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
   
  
  <p> 
      Mr. Deputy Speaker:   
   With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 62, 63, 67 and 77.
   
  
  <p>Lords amendment agreed to. 
  <p>Lords amendment:  No. 16, before clause 36, to insert the following new clause-- Report on cost of pension uprating in line with general earnings level --
   
  
  <p>
   I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  <p> 
  
   
  
    
  
   24 Jul 2000 : Column 797  
  
  <p>the Minister's total indifference to the strengthening of the basic pension arises from the fact that not only she, but also the Government, abandoned the principle of state insurance altogether.
  <p>the Government have accepted the amendment and are happy to do so . . . we are just splicing together two sets of reports.--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 19 July 2000; Vol. 615, c. 1097-1102.]
  <p>and in order to enable Parliament to determine the introduction of such annual increases.
  <p>Lords amendment agreed to. 
  <p> 
   Lords amendment:  No. 17, in page 34, line 22, at end insert--
   
  ("(4B) The regulations shall be based on the presumption that claimants have received incorrect or incomplete information unless the Secretary of State provides proof that the information the claimant received was correct and complete.")
   
  
  <p>
   I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  <p> 
  
   
  
    
  
   24 Jul 2000 : Column 803  
  
  <p>in view of the extensive consideration in 1999 given to the issue of misleading information, we are concerned that from November 1999 to 10 January 2000 contradictory lines were taken in official correspondence and other sources of information about the legal position after 5 April 2000.
  <p>redress on a global, rather than an individual, basis.
  <p>would not have acted differently had he or she not been misinformed rested on the department.
  <p>There is a very real issue of proof . . . No record is kept of telephone calls, any more than a record is normally kept of conversations at the desk. Paper records are kept for about six months. But if someone asserted that he had received that <p>misleading advice, I suspect it may well be the case that the Government would have to prove that he had not, rather than the contrary, because there would be no evidence to counterbalance it.--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 6 July 1999; Vol. 603, c. 847.]
  <p>I suggested to the Department that the onus of proof was therefore reversed. It was for the Department to prove someone would not have acted differently if they had not been misinformed . . . The presumption had to be that anyone who could reasonably claim to have been misled and in consequence to have acted, or failed to act, to their detriment had a  prima facie  claim for redress.
  <p>will still have to prove that they suffered loss as a result.
  <p>
  Therefore, there are two issues: were the people given incorrect or incomplete information, and did that cause loss? People will still have to prove loss, but the presumption will be that they were given duff information, unless the Government can prove otherwise.
  <p>When the time comes for people to make their claims, we envisage asking them a few questions about how and roughly when they saw a leaflet.--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 27 June 2000; Vol. 614, c. 771-72, 777.]
  <p>it will still be up to individuals to make a claim; to provide details of how they were misinformed; to show they relied on this information . . . and to show that they may suffer financially.
  <p>The majority of those misled are pensioners, many may not feel up to the task of convincing the DSS that their claim is valid.
  <p>Continuing the uncertainty is a constant source of distress and erosion in our lives. Can I please make my application soon, remove this worry and enjoy the time left to us?
  <p>I suggested . . . that the onus of proof was therefore reversed?
   
  
  <p>that anyone who could reasonably claim to have been misled . . . had a  prima facie  claim for redress.
  <p>Question put,  That the House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:--
  <p>The House divided:  Ayes 287, Noes 26.
  