PUBLICATION OF HANDBOOK (Hansard, 1 December 1970)

§ Mrs. Shirley Williams (Hitchin)
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I am not sure whether debate on this Clause will take very long, since I have a feeling that the Government may be in a conceding sort of mood. Perhaps I may indicate the purpose of the Clause and then ask the Under-Secretary of State a few questions.
The purpose of the Clause is to do for the new Family Income Supplement Scheme what was done previously by the Labour Government in respect of the Supplementary Benefits Scheme. We want to ensure that the regulations by which the scheme will be bound are made as explicit as possible. We want to be clear about any discretion that rests with the Secretary of State in this case and the Supplementary Benefits Commission in the other case. We want to be clear about the definitions, and to have simple explanations of what those definitions mean. We want the disregards simply expressed where they exist—and I am glad that they do—giving applicants rights of appeal, the right to be represented and so forth.
We put particular emphasis on the new Clause for two reasons. First, even though the Bill has now been somewhat 1152 improved by Amendments and by answers to questions by the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend, it is by no means simple. The hon. Gentleman believes that it will be simple to administer, but it will not be simple to understand, which is a different matter. The hon. Gentleman has recognised throughout our debates on the Bill that the question of take-up is crucial to his argument and that of his right hon. Friend. It is therefore in pursuit of both a high take-up and, just as important, the rights of applicants—who, in many cases, will have few resources of their own—that we urge the Parliamentary Secretary to look favourably upon the Clause.
The point about the handbook is that, rather like the supplementary benefit handbook, it must give guidance to organisations which might be willing to represent applicants. As for the applicant, we would not regard it as adequate for example, if the hon. Gentleman were to say, as he did in answer to a written Question, that he would produce a simple guide in plain English. We appreciate the need for a simple guide in plain English which explains as clearly as possible what the Bill comprehends and who it is to assist. But a more detailed handbook, of the kind we have had from the Supplementary Benefits Commission, will give guidance to those who are willing to represent applicants in some cases, and applicants themselves in others. I urge the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend to give this careful consideration, because the Bill will be more successful from their point of view if they can show that it is operating generously with as little difference as possible between one family and another, and that it is a Bill which gives the greatest possible rights to the applicant.
We on this side are still extremely worried about the balance of proof between the applicant and the Secretary of State. We are still concerned about what we regard to be a balance which much too heavily favours the Secretary of State against the applicant. If the applicant is to move relatively naked against the power of the State it is all the more important that those who are willing to assist him should have the fullest possible information about the way the scheme works.
1153 The second part of the Clause refers to further editions of the handbook. The Secretary of State has now indicated that there will be certain disregards immediately. He has also said that at a future date he may be willing to consider other disregards. This would imply that any additions to that handbook might become out of date relatively rapidly. We suggest that the handbook be brought up to date if there is any substantial change in the Act.
Finally, the Government appreciate that throughout their dealings with the Opposition on the Bill, they have in effect expected us to show a degree of trust which perhaps does not invariably exist between Government and Opposition. The Government have done this by pledging themselves, in long answers to questions, during statements, in debates, in letters, and so forth. But the Government must recognise that the Opposition regard their job as guaranteeing these pledges. That is what the Report stage is all about. This is an attempt by the Opposition to ask the Government to guarantee to stake their good word by writing these pledges into the Bill. The Clause is the first of those taking up the Government on their pledges and insisting that they ought to be changed into law so that they can be properly supervised by Parliament.
I commend the Clause in that spirit, recognising at least in part that the hon. Gentleman has already conceded the point in answer to an earlier question from one of his hon. Friends.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean)
I much appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) has moved the New Clause. We fully concede that the Bill has been improved in Committee, and we are grateful to the Opposition for the valuable contributions they have made.
I am sure there is no disagreement between the two sides of the House as to the spirit behind the new Clause. We have emphasised constantly that we wish to provide the fullest possible information through all the appropriate channels, because that is the way to ensure the maximum take-up, which is essential for the success of the scheme. We desire not only the maximum take-up of family 1154 income supplement but also that this should be regarded as a passport to other benefits to which so many of the F.I.S. families will be eligible but may not now be receiving fully.
There is no disagreement as to the need, the intention or the desirability of providing the maximum information possible. That goes also for those people on whom we shall be relying considerably, including hon. Members, to see that we establish contact with those who will be eligible for the benefit. They include local authority workers, voluntary workers, and a series of people who will clearly need simple information in the most appropriate form so that they can advise people who may well be eligible.
The same applies to the point mentioned by the hon. Lady about the applicant being naked against the power of the State. That is certainly not our intention. We have stressed all the way through our debates on the Bill that we wish to keep it as simple as possible and have the minimum number of questions asked and answered, so that we will not create barriers between the power of the State and the individuals who will benefit. Thus far we are in entire agreement. But it would not be appropriate at this juncture to tie the Government down in the way proposed by the Clause. There are one or two difficulties in the method which the Clause suggests for carrying out the aim which we share. The Clause states that there should be a statutory requirement to publish a handbook within three months of Royal Assent. I submit that it is not possible at this stage to enter into a commitment in this precise form and so short a time after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Experience of the scheme will be required. Anything that could be properly described as a handbook can be produced shortly after all the regulations under the Bill have been produced, some of them on affirmative Resolutions requiring debates in the House. All these regulations will need to be explained to those concerned. I hope that the House will accept that tying down the-Government to this precise form, and to this very short time from Royal Assent, is asking the impossible.
We are considering carefully the most appropriate form. It may well be that in the early stages of the major take-up campaign which will be launched next 1155 year, we shall need a different media of communication from that required once the scheme is launched. To begin with, we propose to use all the appropriate means of communication available to obtain the maximum take-up, including newspaper advertising, contacts with local authority workers and voluntary bodies, and the like. It could be that the methods which have been used by the Department whereby simple leaflets dealing with the scheme in general and with various aspects of it will be the most appropriate form in the early stages.
7.0 p.m.
I am not ruling out the hon. Lady's suggestion. When we have experience of the scheme, when regulations have been formed and we have the scheme in operation, it may be that the most convenient form will be to put the guidance in a handbook similar to the Supplementary Benefit handbook. But, before the scheme is even launched and the regulations are made, it would be a mistake to tie us down to the precise form in which this information should be made available.
I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady will feel that there is no difference between the two sides about the intention of giving the maximum information. However, at this stage we do not wish to be tied down to a procedure which would be far too tight in terms of the timetable and may not turn out to be the best way of achieving the aim shared by both sides of the House.

§ Mrs. Shirley Williams
Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him two questions? If we accept that the three-month period is too short, will the hon. Gentleman agree that at the earliest convenient date when enough information about the working of the scheme is available a handbook similar to the supplementary benefit handbook will be produced? Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman also agree that in the early months of the working of the scheme, which will be the most crucial since they will establish case law where there is none at the moment, he will agree to make available to organisations such as trade unions and bodies like the Child Poverty Action Group the fullest details about the way in which the scheme is being operated? Without that, such organisations are only 1156 half effective, as the hon. Gentleman must know.

§ Mr. Dean
I take the hon. Lady's two points, and I readily assure her that we will do that.

§ Mrs. Williams
In both cases?

§ Mr. Dean
Yes, in both cases. But I am not anxious to be tied down to the precise way in which it should be done. We may learn from experience ways which are more suitable than those that the hon. Lady suggests. But I gladly give her assurances on the two questions that she has asked.