SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS BILL

HL Deb 18 February 1975 vol 357 cc168-215

3.5 p.m.

Lords WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill provides for increases in pensions and other benefits under the National Insurance and industrial injuries schemes. These benefits were last increased in the week beginning 22nd July 1974, and it is proposed that they should be further increased from the week beginning 7th April of this year. The Bill also provides for the first increase in family allowances since 1968 and for the first increase in supplementary benefit disregards since 1966. I am sure the whole House will give a warm welcome not only to the increases and improvements provided by the Bill but also to the two entirely new disablement benefits which are introduced by it.

The increase in National Insurance benefits are provided under Clause 1 and Schedule 1. The standard rate of long-term benefits, namely retirement, invalidity and widows' pensions, will be increased by £1.60, from £10 to £11.60, for single persons, and by £2.50, from £16 to £18.50, for married couples. As your Lordships will know, the Government have undertaken to increase pensions and other long-term benefits in line with the movement in the general level of earnings, unless on a particular occasion it would be more advantageous to beneficiaries if regard were had to the movement in the general level of prices. On this occasion earnings are more advantageous. The standard rate of pension for single persons will be increased, after rounding, by 16 per cent.; for married couples the increase will be just over 15½ per cent. Since pensions are being increased by reference to the movement in gross earnings, the majority of pensioners will fare better than the working population who have deductions made for National Insurance contributions and income tax.

The Government are well aware that prices and earnings have not stood still since our proposals were announced in November, and I would remind your Lordships that a further uprating has been promised for later this year. In the present inflationary situation pensions and benefits will be uprated as frequently as is necessary. But already in our two uprarings since we took office just under a year ago pensions will have been increased in money terms—I acknowledge it is just money terms—by 50 per cent. Our first uprating in July 1974 was such that in January of this year the pension still, after six months, represented an improvement in real terms, after allowing for price increases, of 4 per cent. for single persons and over 3 per cent. for married couples on the levels introduced by the Administration of noble Lords opposite in October 1973.

Other benefits will be increased proportionately. Details of the increases are given in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill and in the Government Actuary's Report, which no doubt many of your Lordships have seen. To give just a couple of examples, a widowed mother with one dependent child will have her benefit increased by £2.35 per week, from £14.90 to £17.25; and an invalidity pensioner whose incapacity began before the age of 35 and who has a dependent wife and two children will have his benefit increased by £4.35 per week, from £27.85 to £32.20, including family allowances. There will be pro rata increases in benefits payable at the reduced rates. Your Lordships will welcome the fact that from April the increments to pensions, which are payable when retirement is deferred, will not only be increased but will also be uprated, for the first time, in line with the pension increases.

There will be corresponding increases in benefits under the industrial injuries scheme; for example, disablement pensions at the 100 per cent. rate will go up from £16.40 to £19. Short-term benefits—that is, unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, maternity allowance under the national insurance scheme and injury benefit under the industrial injuries scheme—which are linked for uprating purposes to the movement in prices will be increased by 14 per cent. This means that the increase will be £1.20 for a single person and £2 for a married couple. A man who is entitled to unemployment benefit, for example, with increases in respect of a dependent wife and three children, will have his flat rate benefit increased by £3.20. In consequence, his income will go up from £22 to £25.20, including family allowances. The Government intend to maintain the purchasing power of the flat-rate, short-term benefits, and an earnings-related supplement can be paid in addition to these flat-rate benefits.

If your Lordships will allow me to return to the Bill, Clause 2 and Schedule 2 deal with the increases in benefits under the industrial injuries scheme. As your Lordships know, war pensions will be similarly increased by means of Instruments under the Royal Prerogative. Your Lordships know also that war pensions have always been dealt with in this way. Before I turn to the other main provisions of the Bill, I should refer to supplementary benefit scale rates. These will be increased, by means of Regulations which are now before your Lordships' House under the Affirmative Resolution procedure, from the same time as the corresponding contributory benefits. The main scale rates are being increased by the same amounts as the corresponding contributory benefits, and in this way we can ensure that those social security beneficiaries who are in most need get the full benefit of the proposed increases.

Another step in this direction has been taken by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment who, having consulted his Advisory Committee, proposes to make corresponding increases in the needs allowances for rent and rate rebates and rent allowances to ensure that, as in last July's uprating, housing benefits will not normally be affected by the increases in social security benefits. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced proposals for new and improved tax allowances for elderly people over the age of 65.

The Government had to have regard, when our proposals were prepared, to the serious economic difficulties facing this country which make restraint on public expenditure essential. We were determined to protect, to the fullest possible extent, pensioners and other people who depend on social security benefits. We considered that a further relaxation in the earnings rule—which was substantially relaxed in July of last year by this Government— could not be justified on the grounds of priority. But I am sure that it will not have escaped the attention of noble Lords that the Government's view did not prevail in another place.

Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear‡

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, it is all very well for noble Lords to say, "Hear, hear! "Perhaps they would give the House an account of what they did when they were in power, when the financial position of this country was a lot better than it is now. If we are to have cries of "Hear, hear!", let them be backed by sound facts. It is all right, my Lords: I am not cross

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, the noble Lord is getting cross‡

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

No, my Lords, I never get cross‡ I just want to maintain a balance. As I was saying, the Bill which is before your Lordships' House contains subsection (3) of Clause 1 which was added in another place, the purport of which was to increase from April 1975, from £13 to £20, the level of earnings at which retirement pensions are affected. Your Lordships know what happened in the other place. The change would also apply to the wives of invalidity and retirement pensioners who reside with them. The Bill provides for the level of £20 to be raised to £35 after one year, and for the £35 to go up to £50 after another year. We have to face the cost of this; I do not think anyone on either side of the House has not had doubts in recent months about this matter. We must take into account the times in which we are living and the financial implications. The cost to the National Insurance Fund of this change for pensioners who have earnings would be £60 million in the current financial year of 1975–76, if the £20 became operative then, £110 million in 1976–77 and £145 million in 1977–78. I believe that that is in excess of £300 million.

Lord ABERDARE

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord and ask him whether those figures arc net of tax? In other words, are they gross figures?

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, as I understand it, this would be the cost to the National Insurance Fund. This is what the National Insurance Fund would have to bear in additional cost.

Lord ABERDARE

My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord once again, this is not the net cost to the Exchequer. The Exchequer will recover income tax on these sums.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

Yes, my Lords, that is perfectly true. But if the noble Lord, as I am sure he has done, works out the amount involved, it is not very significant when one considers what the actual cost will eventually be. I said just now that the purport of the provision is to increase the level of earnings from April 1975. I used the word "purport" quite deliberately, because the Government are advised—I want to say this with some degree of emphasis and, if I may say so, rather slowly—that there may be some question as to whether the new sub-section technically achieves all that its sponsors intended when this was passed in another place. The Government are still considering this point. At this stage I am unable to go beyond that, because I understand that the technicalities are legal ones and that advice is being taken.

I move on now to Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill which replace the existing requirements for future upratings. The link between long-term benefits and earnings which we first provided statutorily last year is retained, but in a simplex form which I am sure will commend itself to your Lordships.

My Lords, I turn now to Clauses 5, 6 and 7, which provide the framework for a non-contributory invalidity pension and an invalid care allowance. These new benefits are the first fruits of the report to Parliament last September on Social Security Provision for Chronically Sick and Disabled People by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. This is a matter which was debated on more than one occasion in your Lordships' House.

That Report resulted from a review in depth of the position of sick and disabled people in relation to the existing fabric of benefits, and it identifies three priority areas. First, there were found to be some 220,000 men and single women who had been totally incapable of work for a long time but who were receiving only means-tested supplementary benefit, or in some cases less than that. Secondly, there were housewives—40,000 or so married women who wore so disabled as to be not only incapable of work but also unable to perform normal household duties. Thirdly, there were those mainly single women who had sacrificed jobs, careers and, in some cases, marriage to wait—if I may use the expression kindly—hand and foot on a severely disabled parent or parents. These devoted daughters were also obliged to resort to supplementary benefit. What, therefore, the Government have set out to do in Clauses 5 to 7 is to provide modest but radically new non-means-tested benefits for well over a quarter of a million people who, though deprived of the chance to earn or to do their housework, are without rights under the contributory arrangements.

Perhaps I should stress, my Lords, that the noncontributory invalidity pension is not a benefit for disablement as such. If non-contributory invalidity pension were a benefit for, perhaps, "loss of faculty "or" restriction of activities ", it would make no sense at all to introduce it for those who have no contribution record, while denying it to those who had one. Clause 6 makes clear that the non-contributory invalidity pension is a benefit for incapacity for work or, in the case of the house- wife, incapacity for work and incapacity to perform normal household duties. The non-contributory invalidity pension is set at the non-contributory level of £6.90 in April, 1975, terms. We are hoping to make the first payments this year, except for housewives. The Amendment agreed to in Standing Committee in another place merely anticipated the Government's own legislation on housewives' non-contributory invalidity pension by a month or two. But it is still the case that the benefit cannot be brought in for some time, and perhaps your Lordships will permit me to explain why.

Inability to perform normal household duties is an entirely new concept. It is less of a purely medical question than incapacity for work; so the procedure for claiming may well require non-medical as well as medical evidence. A fair and workable scheme must be evolved. Thus we are faced with two major hurdles: devising appropriate arrangements and fitting them into the operational programme. The Government share with disabled people and their organisations a desire to improve the lot of the disabled housewife as soon as possible. But the facts must be faced frankly and squarely. There is a formidable array of tasks facing the Department of Health and Social Security over the next two years, some of them imposed by this Bill. I would be less than frank with your Lordships if I were to suggest that housewives non-contributory invalidity pension was likely to come in before 1977, though the Government will aim for the earliest practicable date.

Before I turn to Clause 7 and invalid care allowance perhaps I could helpfully refer to a point which properly belongs to Clause 11 and Schedule 3 to the Bill which deal with sums to be disregarded in calculating supplementary benefit. There can be no question of disregarding non-contributory invalidity pensions, in whole or in part. To do so would make nonsense of the long-standing principle that State benefits having the same purpose—personal maintenance benefits in this case—should not overlap or be duplicated; and of our policy of reducing reliance on means-tested benefits.

The invalid care allowance, for which Clause 7 provides, is on many counts a leap into the dark. We do not know how it will work out in practice and we might as well be frank about it. In another place it was explained that we do not even have any means of estimating what the initial uptake will be. So the wise and responsible approach is to tread warily. There are ample powers in Clause 7 to extend the invalid care allowance net once it has been cast. The single daughter, for whom the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants have compaigned so vigorously, will be in from the beginning; so will other relatives such as sons, nieces, et cetera, and the invalid care allowance, also at £6.90 a week in April, 1975, terms, will be put into payment in the course of the financial year 1976–77.

My Lords, some recent criticism of our proposals has emphasised that people who are disabled are ordinary members of the community, but has overlooked the implications of this in terms of this uprating. All I would say is, first, that the increases in benefits will put £110 million a. year into the pockets of those receiving benefit specifically for chronic sickness or disablement; in addition, 2½ million retirement pensioners who have some measure of disablement will benefit from the higher pensions the Bill brings. This £110 million is additional to the £26 million net which a £6.90 noncontributory invalidity pension and invalid care allowance would cost in a full year. Secondly, legislation will be introduced before very long to provide for the new mobility allowance which we announced last September; and our new long-term pensions proposals include earnings-related invalidity pensions. Non-contributory invalidity pension and invalid care allowance are, therefore, but a step —though I believe your Lordships will concede it to be a substantial one—on the road to better benefits for sick and disabled people.

Clause 8 of the Bill provides for various minor amendments to social security legislation with similar provisions for Northern Ireland, where appropriate. I do not think that I need to deal in detail with the contents of that clause. Next I turn to Clause 9, which provides for the first increase in family allowances since they were previously increased, by a Labour Government, in 1968. On this occasion, while the increases will be subject to normal taxation, there will be no "claw-back". The increases will take effect from the week beginning 7th April 1975, and we are proposing that family allowances should be paid at a uniform rate of £1.50 a week for each child after the first. Thus the rate for the second child will be increased by 60p a week and for each subsequent child by 50p a week. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has promised that a Statement will be made in another place about the details of our further proposals for extending a cash payment to the first child through our child benefit scheme. This is a Statement which I hope will be made in the not too distant future.

Clause 10 of the Bill provides a purely technical change. So finally, in trying to confine my remarks to the main provisions, I turn to Clause 11 which, with Schedule 3, provides for substantial improvements in supplementary benefit disregards. Under these proposals all savings up to £1,200 will be completely disregarded in calculating supplementary benefit and the disregards of income will be simplified. The amount of earnings to be disregarded will be doubled. As you know, my Lords, certain part-time workers are allowed £2 not to be taken into account. The figure will in future be one of £4, and there are several other categories where the disregard will be doubled. This improvement, which was one of the recommendations of the Finer Committee on One-Parent Families, will be, we feel—and we hope your Lordships will feel so top—of particular help to this type of family. In addition, the earnings of dependent children who are under 16 or are still at school will be completely disregarded. These changes in the supplementary benefit scheme will be implemented as soon as it is operationally possible after the main uprating of benefit rates has been completed.

The increases and improvements will benefit about 11½ million people apart from the 4½ million families whose family allowances are to be increased. The increases and improvements contained in the Bill, apart from the changes in the earnings rule to which I have already referred, will cost over £1,070 million in a full year. To this can be added over £90 million for the increases in rates under the supplementary benefit and war pensions schemes, so that the total cost of what I have been describing will exceed £1,160 million. On top of that will be the cost of the changes in the earnings rule.

My Lords, I have spoken at some length and perhaps I ought to apologise to your Lordships for having done so, but I will now conclude my remarks. The Government are committed to protecting and improving the lot of the elderly and others who are no longer part of the working population. This Bill demonstrates how we are continuing to discharge that commitment and how, despite the present serious economic difficulties, we are resolved to carry on along the road to—I know it is a much-hackneyed phrase but I want to use it—social justice. I commend the Bill to your Lordships and I hope your Lordships will welcome it and will give it—and I want to emphasise this—a speedy passage. Thank you for your attention, my Lords.

Lord REIGATE

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him about one small point. I did not want to interrupt him earlier in such a closely reasoned speech. He referred to the increments for deferring pensions, but I am not quite clear where that comes in this Bill.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, it will not come into this particular Bill. I imagine it will come in the Bill for better pensions, which I hope will be available fairly soon.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

My Lords, before my noble friend deservedly relaxes after his explicit and clear speech, for which we all thank him, I should like to ask him a question on industrial injuries. Has the noble Lord a note of the amount by which that benefit will be increased? In my day in the Ministry one of the largest funds was the industrial injuries fund, and I should like to ask whether he now has figures about that, and whether that industrial injuries fund has been raided by any other Departmental Minister?

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I have an enormous amount of information here, including the tables showing the increases. If the noble Lord will allow me a moment or two to look at them I can probably give him the information in the next few minutes.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

It will do later, my Lords.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2^a. —(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

3.37 p.m.

Lord ABERDARE

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for having explained this Bill in detail to us and for having "kept his cool", despite the fact that at one moment he appeared to be rather cross with us! On the whole, we welcome the Bill. Obviously, increases in benefit for those in need are always welcome, although at the same time when costs of this magnitude are involved I think we must remember that this cost falls on those who subscribe to the National Insurance fund or on the taxpayer.

The Bill is much improved as a result of two major Amendments made in another place against the advice of the Government. These were, first, the phased relaxation of the earnings rule, by three annual stages, as the noble Lord explained to us; and secondly, the extension of the new non-contributory invalidity pension for disabled people to cover disabled housewives who cannot perform their normal household duties.

So far as the earnings rule is concerned it has never been popular; indeed it has been extremely unpopular on all sides of this House, and in that connection I always think of my noble friend Lord Reigate, who is to speak later in this debate. He has been a dire opponent of the earnings rule for many years, and I am sure now he is enjoying his triumph. My memory, too, goes back to the days when we were discussing our Social Security Bill of 1973 and when in solid array noble Lords opposite were trooping into the Lobby against the Government, asking for the complete abolition of the earnings rule, not merely its relaxation. On that occasion I made no attempt whatever to defend the rule on its merits, only as a matter of priorities.

Now the Labour Party in government are reaping the whirlwind. Now the situation has changed, and they find themselves in the position of defending the maintenance of the rule on grounds of cost. However, as the noble Lord has explained to us, they failed to carry all their own supporters with them and the result is that we have the relaxation of the rule, which I am sure will be welcomed on all sides of this House. The noble Lord kindly spelled out the fact that there was some doubt about the wording of this clause and that there were legal technicalities which had to be gone into. I would ask him whether he would undertake to inform the House, before the Bill leaves us, as to what these technicalities are and to what extent they have been overcome?

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

I am much obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Of course I shall give that undertaking. The only thing I ask him to do is not to press me today, because I could not give a satisfactory and intelligent reply as the matter is still being considered; but, of course, the House must know this.

Lord ABERDARE

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, because he made out that there was a difficulty. It would be wrong to pass the Bill not knowing what the difficulty was and whether it was possible to tackle it. So far as provision for the disabled housewives is concerned, in their original Clause 6 the Government proposed a new non-contributory invalidity pension limited to people incapable of work and excluding married women living with their husbands or maintained by them. There was no provision for the disabled married woman who was incapable of performing normal household duties. If passed in that form, the Bill would have led to a number of most peculiar anomalies. A disabled husband with a working wife would receive the new benefit, while a disabled wife with a working husband would not; yet clearly the extra amount of cars and household work would be exactly the same. Another anomaly would be that a disabled single woman living in the same house as her brother would receive the benefit, but a married woman with a husband doing the same amount of work for her brother would not. A third anomaly would be that a single disabled woman would have the benefit immediately taken away on marriage, and this would have been an unexpected financial detriment adding very much to the difficulties of a young handicapped wife.

I mention those anomalies merely because although the situation has been put right by this Amendment to the Bill it will nevertheless persist in the intervening period until the extra allowance is expected to cover the disabled housewife. I would plead with the noble Lord that, despite the difficulties—and I do appreciate that within the Department, in the administration of this new benefit, there will be difficulties—he should try to bring in this benefit as soon as possible to avoid those anomalies. He spoke of 1977, which was the date mentioned in another place. I think this is much too far ahead and I hope that the noble Lord and his right honourable friends will do their utmost to introduce this benefit much earlier than 1977.

I should like to welcome the new invalid care allowance which will bring help to some of those who care regularly for a severely disabled person. I would ask the noble Lord whether he can explain it in more detail. I think he did it in rather a limited way when he was talking about restriction on the benefit to close relations. This will be covered by the regulations under Clause 7(1)(c) which reads: … the severely disabled person is either such relative of his as may be prescribed or a person of any such other description as may be prescribed. My Lords, as the noble Lord said, this will cover the case—with which we are most concerned—of the devoted daughter looking after a disabled parent or parents and may well cover other fairly close relationships; but there will certainly be other equally deserving cases where the person caring for the disabled person is a friend or a neighbour and will not be entitled to this new allowance. I wonder whether it is right to discriminate in this way on grounds of relationship rather than on grounds of need? It will lead to many border-line cases and many anomalies. There will be border-line cases as it is in deciding on the qualification for the benefit, and I should not have thought it desirable to introduce another element of doubt over the question of the relationship between the caring and the cared for.

The noble Lord said it was impossible to forecast the number of claims. I thought that there was a figure of 11,500 people involved in possible claims for invalid care allowance. With that relatively small number, I think it would have been better to avoid difficult border-line decisions and to rest on the degree of disablement and the need for regular care, rather than the relationship between the two persons.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. We were just discussing this and I wonder whether the noble Lord said that the disabled housewives would not benefit until 1977?

Lord ABERDARE

I was trying to urge the noble Lord to amend this and bring it in a little earlier. In his speech he said it would not be possible for those persons to benefit until 1977, which corresponds to what was said in another place.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

I thank the noble Lord. I apologise.

Lord ABERDARE

My Lords, in Clause 9 there is an increase in family allowance, but it still excludes the eldest child. I think it is a tragedy for our Social Services that the Government have set their face against the tax credit scheme. This was a highly ingenious plan which would have brought real benefit to many people and—something I should have thought would have particularly appealed to the noble Lords opposite—it would have greatly reduced means tests for benefits. It would have helped the family by giving credit for the eldest child, and it would have particularly helped the one-parent family, which was the subject of the Finer Report. I believe this is a great opportunity missed by the Government who, with this Bill, have done no more than uprate family allowances for the second child and subsequent children. There is no doubt in my mind that a tax credit scheme would have brought far greater benefit to those in need than any amount of food subsidies. I believe the Government have their priorities wrong here and it is very sad that the tax credit scheme has been dropped.

Lastly may I ask the noble Lord one question on the financial side related to the Actuary's report. This was based on an assumption of 650,000 unemployed. Unfortunately, that figure has already been exceeded and may well rise further. I should like to know whether the financial details worked out by the Actuary will be badly affected. I understand that for every 100,000 unemployed the National Insurance Fund loses a net £70 million as between the decrease in contributions and the increase in payments; and in that case the Fund could be very badly affected by the present level of unemployment and especially if unemployment rises further. Can the noble Lord assure me that the Fund is, in fact, in a solvent state and that it will not be necessary to raise contributions? In general, my Lords, we welcome the improvements to the Bill. We believe it is a better Bill since it left another place, and I would press the noble Lord only to see whether he can speed up some of the provisions that depend on the financial provisions in the Bill.

3.50 p.m.

Lord BANKS

My Lords, it is with considerable trepidation that I rise to address your Lordships' House for the first time, but I am fortified by the hope that the House will extend to me the indulgence which I understand is customary on these occasions. If I were seeking a phrase to express my reaction to this Bill, I think I would choose the Gilbertian exclamation, "modified rapture ". In this Bill there are many pluses, but these are balanced by a number of minuses. For example, we must all welcome the increase in benefits, the highest in actual terms ever made. Yet we have been reminded this afternoon that all these increases do is to restore the value of benefits severely eroded by inflation.

Even now, there is good reason to question whether a 16 per cent. increase for long-term benefits provided by the Bill will cover the rise in costs from July 1974 to April 1975. Alter all, coal went up 20 per cent. in November, and we heard yesterday that it is shortly to go up yet another 10 to 12 per cent. Electricity is to go up this spring by 25 to 30 per cent. It is vitally important at least to maintain the real value of benefits. We have been told there will be a further uprating in the autumn. This is to be welcomed, but the danger is that the upratings will never catch up with the increases in the cost of living.

My Lords, if we are to eliminate poverty, we cannot be content merely to maintain the value of benefits. We must increase the value of benefits. I ask your Lordships to take, for example, the case of the retirement pension. The essential point about the retirement pension in this country is that it is inadequate. One-third of retirement pensioners are on supplementary benefit; one-third are probably just above that level. The first step in a retirement pension policy must be to secure a substantial increase in the real value of the retirement pension at the earliest possible date. I am aware of the considerable problems of cost, but should we not be prepared to shoulder the burden in this generation, rather than content ourselves with plans for ensuring that a future generation shoulders a burden which we decline?

I am glad that the Bill comes before us containing Clause 1(3), the subsection which raises the earnings rule limit over three years to £50. I would prefer, had it been possible, to eliminate the earnings rule altogether, because it has always seemed to me wrong that someone with a large investment income can enjoy the whole of his pension, whereas someone with no other resources is penalised for earning a comparatively few pounds. It is important to establish as soon as possible the principle that the retirement pension is paid as of right, subject, of course, to tax, but regardless of all other sources of income. Eventually, in the future, I hope it will be possible for any man or woman to draw their pension at any time between the ages of 60 and 70, whatever they may be earning at that time, the amount of the pension being adjusted to the point in the ten-year term at which the individual begins to draw the pension.

The only qualification I would make for drawing the pension is a suitable period of residence in this country. If this could be done, one would have one individual person's pension, which every individual with the qualification of being over the retirement age would be able to draw, whether married or not. The present married couple's pension would disappear. If this were provided within the scope of the tax credit scheme, then a housing credit could take care of the difference in costs facing those who live alone and those who live in the same household as others. The present anomaly, perpetuated in the Bill, whereby a married couple receive less than two single persons living in the same household, would be removed.

My Lords, I welcome the introduction of the noncontributory invalidity pension and the invalid care allowance. These are considerable pluses, but there are minuses as well, because it will be a little while, as we have heard, before they are actually available. There will be a longer delay in the case of the non-contributory invalidity pension for housewives. I support the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that the Government should introduce this at the earliest possible moment. It is disappointing, perhaps, that the invalidity pension is fixed at only 60 per cent. of the retirement pension level for a single person; that is to say, £6.90 a week. The increase in family allowances is long overdue and much to be welcomed. The leveling-up of the benefit for the second child to that of the third and subsequent children is a common sense improvement, but by the time the Bill is implemented seven years will have passed since the last increase. This is another minus.

According to a Government statement the retail price index, which underestimates the price increase for poor families, increased by 55.7 per cent. during the period between the last family allowance increase and May 1974. That is the increase to May 1974, but of course we all know how prices have risen since then. In spite of the substantial increases, it looks as though family allowances, raised 66 per cent. for the second child and 50 per cent. for the third and subsequent children, may not have been restored to the real value which they acquired at the time the last increase was made. There is a welcome commitment in the Bill to review National Insurance benefits annually in the light of increases in earnings and prices, but unfortunately this commitment does not extend to family allowances.

Finally, I regret that it was not found possible to provide a family allowance for the first child. This would help all families with children, but in particular would help 7 million mothers in this country and half the nation's children, who are excluded from the existing family allowance system. In this connection, it is relevant to bear in mind that one-third of poor families have only one child. I realise that the Government are pledged to introduce this reform, and hope it will not be long delayed. When it comes, I hope it will be coupled with a further increase in the family allowance generally, the abolition of income tax on children's allowances and the extension of the claw-back principle. A family endowment scheme of this kind would make a start on the road towards a full tax credit system. I have given some indications of the pluses and minuses in this Bill, as I see them Once again, I welcome the pluses, while expressing those reservations about the minuses.

3.58 p.m.

Lord CRAWSHAW

My Lords, the honour falls to me this afternoon to speak on behalf of the whole House in congratulating most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Banks, on his maiden speech. His was a most composed performance, and he showed himself to be a complete master of this very complicated field of pensions. I gather that the noble Lord in the past has been chairman of the Liberal Party. Therefore, I am sure he is going to be a great asset both to his Party and to the whole House. As I am, so to speak, the "sandwich" speaker in today's debate, I should like to say how much we look forward to hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.

My Lords, I am aware that I address your Lordships fairly frequently on this sort of subject—I hope not too often. My interest was aroused because of my previous interest in the Social Security Act of 1973. It seems to me that so much of what is in this Bill follows very closely upon that Act. I realise that today's debate takes place against a background of high inflation and calls from many quarters for curbs on Government spending, which many people believe to be the, or at any rate a, cause of this inflation. We have heard this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that the measures in this Bill, quite apart from the earnings rule, will in fact cost the Exchequer over £1,100 million. This is not really the time for a general economic debate, but I should like to pick up one or two points the noble Lord, Lord Banks, made on this subject, because a Bill such as this is highly vulnerable in an inflationary situation, and the provisions and benefits which it sets out to make, and which we hope will accrue to many people, could all too quickly be seriously eroded unless our currency is protected. No doubt these considerations and their relationship to the proposals in this Bill are uppermost in the minds of, among other people, the former Secretary of State for Social Services in the last Conservative Government.

Another problem in passing legislation such as this is the need to keep it as simple as possible, so that, first, an enormous and expensive bureaucracy does not need to be set up to administer it, and, secondly, people can readily understand what is being done and help to ensure that the benefits reach those in the greatest need. We have so often seen—I know this perfectly well from my own experience—the difficulties in the rent allowance scheme, for instance, where the proposals are very good but the question of the benefits reaching those that need them most is always very difficult. As I say, this Bill is essentially a corollary to the 1973 Act. To my mind, there is hardly any political content in it; it is not a matter of its being Left or Right Wing. I believe it to be simply an old-fashioned act of chivalry, and it deals with matters which should be the concern of every Briton worth the name.

I hope I should not be accused of fawning if I were to say that I have sometimes been overwhelmed by the chivalry and support which your Lordships have given to propositions which in the past I and others have made along the lines of the provisions of this Bill. I hesitate to take issue with such an eminent authority as Edmund Burke, but I feel he was inaccurate on several counts, including his forecast of the fortunes of the EEC, when he said in a famous passage: The age of chivalry is gone; that of sophists, economists and calculators has succeeded, and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever ". Turning to the details of the Bill, I am glad that at least three points that we debated fairly fully here in 1973 have been included. I welcome, along with other noble Lords, the abolition of the earnings rule for retirement pensioners, and also, incidentally, for the wives of invalidity pensioners; I do not think that has been mentioned up to now. I also welcome the concept of the non-contributory invalidity pension in Clause 6. It has always seemed to me that the worst off people in this field, or in any other field for that matter, are those who have not been in a position to contribute to the National Insurance fund; that is, those who are very severely stricken before even starting work; and, of course —and this has been mentioned several times this afternoon—the disabled house-wives. I am glad that they receive recognition in this Bill. In passing, I should like to add my congratulations to those Back-Bench Members of the other place who have so successfully championed their cause. It shows what can be done by our Parliamentary democracy.

I understand—I think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, confirmed this this afternoon—that the Secretary of State has had trouble in defining disabled housewives. It is not really my field to preach to the Secretary of State exactly what a housewife is, especially in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Castle, but we did in fact discuss this in the debate here on the 12th June 1973. It was the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, who explained that normally a housewife's job is cooking, housework and shopping. House-wives who can do two out of three of these chores are usually defined as active. Those who can do only one or none are defined as non-active. I hope that is a basis of definition which will appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell.

New ground has been broken by the concept of a non-contributory invalidity pensioner; though obviously at this stage, and I accept this, anomalies will exist. For example, he will receive £6.90 under the Bill, or 60 per cent. of that paid to a contributory pensioner, who will receive £11.60; whereas his child—that is, the child of the non-contributory invalidity pensioner—will receive £5.65, in fact the same as the child of the contributory invalidity pensioner.

Like other noble Lords, I welcome the new concept of the invalid care allowance. I remember this being argued very forcefully in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in 1973. I accept the problem of the anomaly here, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Aberdare, on the question of relationship, and I expect we shall deal with that at the Committee stage.

When this Bill was being debated in the other place, I originally pricked up my ears when I heard that the earnings rule for retirement pensioners was to be abolished. I am concerned that there is nothing proposed in this Bill to encourage the invalidity pensioner, or indeed the non-contributory invalidity pensioner, to return to part-time and from there to fulltime work. Although the earnings rule for the retirement pensioner and the wife of the invalidity pensioner is to be abolished, the invalidity pensioner himself is still only to be allowed to earn £4.50 before he loses his entitlement to his entire pension. In our debate at the Committee stage of the 1973 Act, in which no fewer than 12 noble Lords took part, I quoted the case of a professional man, aged 45, with three children, who had multiple sclerosis and was no longer able to go out to work. He was then entitled to an invalidity pension of £19 a week, which by now will be about £25. He wanted to do part-time work in his own home, but he dare not risk it because of the rule which lays down that as soon as he earns more than £4.50 a week he loses his entire pension.

As a result of this rule, about one-third of invalidity pensioners fall back on supplementary benefits instead of doing something to earn their keep, and the supplementary benefits are a considerable charge on the Exchequer. I appreciate that this is really a Committee stage point, but I wanted to warn the Government that I shall be pursuing this matter. I received considerable support on the last occasion, and only withdrew my Amendment because of the general review that was about to take place. But I am much encouraged to go into this question further on this occasion because of the abolition of the earnings rule for the retirement pensioner and the wife of the invalidity pensioner, and the opinion expressed in the previous debate by my noble friend Lord Aberdare, when he contended that the invalidity pensioner in fact had a stronger case than the retirement pensioner. I rather tend to agree with the view expressed by my noble friend. This apart, I support the trends and the new concepts in this Bill, and I look forward to further improvements at the Committee stage.

4.11 p.m.

Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON

My Lords, I rise to ask the indulgence of the House which is customarily extended to all those that have the opportunity of addressing it for the first time. I only hope that I am able to emulate the noble Lord, Lord Banks, in the magnificent effort he made in the course of his admirable speech. With the permission of the House, I should like to consider the Bill within the setting of the whole social security provisions currently in force in this country. Indeed, in so doing I shall be following the example of my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell who touched on a number of matters that are, strictly speaking, outside the ambit of the formal provisions of the Bill itself.

Immediately following the last war, over thirty years ago now, Parliament enacted a whole series of social security provisions which, at that time, were calculated to remove the whole spectre of insecurity from the mass of the people of our country. A number of Bills were passed, and the basic assumptions on which all those enactments were based were, first, that there should be a first-class National Health Service; secondly, that there should be adequate provision for housing; thirdly, that there would be conditions of full employment; and, fourthly, that there would be some progress towards the ensuring of a fairer share to all the people of our country in the results of the productive effort of the nation. It seems to me that today affords one occasion when we may look back to see how far we have progressed towards those ideals put forward so forcibly at that time.

I should first like to draw your Lord-ships' attention to the position as it seemed to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in 1972. My right honourable friend is not one who is addicted to extremes. He is a man of great moderation who measures his words carefully, and this is what he wrote in 1972: The total of all those whose income is below, at, or a little above supplementary benefit scale level is about 10.6 million; 2 million below, 46 million on benefit, and 4 million just above. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that this was not the state of affairs which one would have envisaged a quarter of a century earlier, and that despite the efforts of successive Governments to bring in social reforms, and despite the introduction of that quite revolutionary measure, the Redundancy Payments Act 1963.

Coming to consider the existing Bill, one has to remember that since 1972 there has been the passing of the Social Security Act 1973, more recently the Social Security (Amendment) Act, and now we have the current Bill. I would respectfully suggest to your Lordships that we have to consider how far all these measures—the three that I have named, and indeed others—have gone to alter, or substantially to ameliorate, the conditions that were so aptly described by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in 1972. I should say that undoubtedly some amelioration must have taken place, and I certainly do not want in any way to imply that Her Majesty's Government, or my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Health and Social Security, have done anything other than their best, but my conjecture is, in the absence of any alternative information, that although some impact must have been made, despite inflation, on the figures quoted by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in 1972, there still remains a very solid core of people existing at, on, or slightly above subsistence level.

These people, however many millions they may be—they may be something less than the 10.6 million quoted by my right honourable friend, and say they are perhaps now, owing to the efforts of Her Majesty's Government, reduced to 7 million—are people. They are people who, in the majority of instances, are living in bad housing; they are people, in quite a large number of instances, who are living without hope; they are people who, in quite a number of instances—particularly the people who are very old—are living without that degree of personal serenity which one would hope for everyone towards the end of their natural life; they are people, the people to whom I am referring, without hope and without purpose. They are people for whom the mere provision of money does not bring happiness. They are the people for whom, like so many others, money merely makes unhappiness more comfortable.

It is not, of course, the entire fault of successive Governments that; this state of affairs has come about. We know quite well—though we have no up-to-date figures—that quite a large number of people entitled to draw benefit for a variety of reasons do not in fact draw it. One of the reasons is the degree of illiteracy among the population. None of your Lordships present the other day during the débate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, can be under any illusion as to the extent of illiteracy in our, presumably, civilised country. The fact of the matter is that quite a large number of people in the country cannot read, let alone understand, the regulations that are put forward from time to time.

Moreover, the regulations themselves are far from simple. They are couched by tradition, in the terms of people who understand the world of insurance better than they understand the close domesticity of family life. They are couched in terms which are replete with cut-off points, earnings rules, disregards, cohabitation rules and so on. Further there are a large number of people who are extremely suspicious over the years of any contact at all with authority. For reasons of their own, these people do not like the intrusion of officials in their own private affairs. Then there are those who are too proud to take the amounts that the State provides and to which they are entitled. And for a very good reason too. There is a current viewpoint to which considerable, and, in my view, undesirable, publicity is given; that is, that all people who apply for benefits of this kind are scroungers and shirkers—and nobody with a degree of pride likes to be regarded on that basis. I think the time has arrived (although this is not the occasion to enlarge upon it) when some serious consideration ought to be given to taking the whole of the social security provisions outside the insurance world and think anew. My Lords, my time is up and I cannot possibly give any hint as to what kind of proposals I would put forward. But I thank your Lordships for your indulgence and I am grateful for your attention.

4.22 p.m.

Lord REIGATE

My Lords, this is the first time in my membership of your Lordships' House that I have had the privilege of congratulating a speaker on a maiden speech. The very civilised custom of your Lordships' House of arranging a list of speakers at least enabled me to rush to the reference books to ascertain the record of the noble Lord who has just spoken. I learned that he was a Member of Parliament from 1945 to 1950 when I joined that august assembly, so he must now belong to that very select minority who have made more than one maiden speech within these four walls. I listened with great interest to the speech which touched on rather more general issues than I think have been broached so far in this debate. It was all the better for that. I congratulate the noble Lord very much on what he said.

I should like also to offer my congratulations to the other noble Lord, Lord Banks, on his maiden speech. He seemed to me to display—apart from any other qualities—a most admirable view on the subject of the earnings rule. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in the course of his remarks referred to the complexity of these matters. I intended to open my remarks by also referring to this problem. I must declare an interest in that in the course of recent months I have had to study something called "NI 15" on the subject of retirement pensions. I refreshed my memory of it yesterday and I can say only that, with all the advantages of a university education, clearly written though the document is, it is extremely difficult to follow. The noble Lord's remarks are very apposite because I do not see how, without a great deal of counsel and advice, average citizens of less education can always ascertain that they are getting the rights to which they are entitled. I believe he touched on a very real problem.

Apart from that point, on this Bill I should like to confine myself to one or two matters. First, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for having interrupted him at the end of his very well reasoned and admirable speech. I had gathered the impression from his speech that the increments which are given for deferred pensions were to be increased in the Bill. But I think I am right in saying that that is not so.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I not only misinformed the noble Lord but I misinformed the House. I shall deal with the matter at some length at the end of the day, provided he wishes me to do so.

Lord REIGATE

My Lords, I am quite happy about it because I intended to refer to the matter anyway.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, as I understand the position, it stems from the Social Security Act 1973 and it will not be in the "Better Pensions" Bill as I thought.

Lord REIGATE

I am left a little baffled, but no doubt the noble Lord will be able to clear any doubts that I raise when he comes to reply. I was about to commend the fact that the Government's White Paper announced proposals for increasing; the increments, which would mean that the man who defers his retirement will be able to earn an extra one-third to the basic pension. I think that this is very good and a long overdue change. I must give full credit to Her Majesty's Government if they have done it. as I hope they have. But, first, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he will confirm that it will ex-tend to those pensioners who have earned increments and are now drawing them, because it will mean a great deal of difference to those earning the extra £1.78 per week if that is doubled by the addition of another £1.78, which would be the effect of the new proposals. All the same when one looks at the increment matter generally it is still not a very viable proposition from the point of view of the man who is deferring his pension. I would not care to go so far as to say it was a swindle, but any insurance company which attempted to get away with the amounts which are paid, which are not based on any actuarial calculations, would find itself in considerable trouble with the Government Department concerned. The situation has been the same since 1946, and I once found in a reply to a Parliamentary Question that there never has been any actuarial basis for the increment which is offered.

Whatever other reasons a man may have for deferring his retirement, the increment is surely one of the least attractive. To take one example; the self-employed person, a man aged 65 pays approximately £600 a year (I am rounding up the figures to make it easier) for five years, as a result of which he receives for himself and for his widow an increment to his retirement pension of £95 per annum only. He has forgone a pension of about £500 a year and yet his expectation of life at the age of 70 is, to put it mildly, substantially less than it was at the age of 65; so of course is that of his widow. So there are no grounds for advising a man to defer his retirement because it is worth his while. I have chosen the self-employed person in this example, but even with an employed person you get other variations. With the employed person, even if you leave out the employer's contribution, it is still a bad bargain. One rather curious feature about it is that this must be almost the only case in which women, for once, are treated more favourably. Even then it is a bad deal. But women, after all, pay less in contributions, they retire younger and they live longer, so they get a better deal than the men. But for both sexes it is a bad deal.

It will come as no surprise that the other matter to which I should like to refer is the earnings rule. I am appalled to find that in four and a half years as a Member of your Lordships' House this is the fifth time I have bored your Lordships with my views on this matter, and I have not tried to count the number of times I have addressed another place on this subject. I welcome with a resounding cheer the amendments made in another place. While I think this is a great victory, it is not a defeat for the Labour Government. It is certainly not a win for the Opposition; both Front Benches have been equally bad in their time. It is a victory for Parliament over the pundits. Let us also remember that it is not abolition but, effectively, an annulment. If it comes to an inter-Parliamentary battle, I think that the dishonour is distributed equally uneasily between the sides. The only point, if this does not suit the Labour Government, is that there may be some rough justice in the fact that, after all, it was they who invented the earnings rule in 1946.

My Lords, I regret that the time limit of 1980 for total abolition was not acceptable in another place. I think that it might be worth considering putting down an Amendment perhaps giving 1985 as the date by which the rule would finally be removed from the Statute Book. The fact is that the earnings rule has always been unpopular and has always been misunderstood. Its effects have never had the investigation that they should have received, but, faced with continuing opposition over nearly 30 years, no Goveminent has evolved or sought to evolve a plan for its gradual abolition. Both Parties have talked of "ultimate abolition" or of "phasing out"—mellifluous and meaningless words—but now it has been done for us. Every Government since 1950 has relaxed the earnings limit, not unaided by a Private Member in another place in 1956, but each rise has only more or less kept pace with the rise in earnings, so that the effect has been nullified.

When I hear the arguments against further reaxation—such as "We can't afford it "or" We have other priorities"—I am reminded that somebody once said that Socialism was the language of priorities. That has always seemed to me to be rather a glimpse of the obvious, because every political creed is the language of priorities; that is what politics are about. In this case, the priority has at last been chosen for us by public pressure and by the firm ruling of the House of Commons.

My Lords, we are sometimes told—or we have been told in the past—that if we relax or abolish the earnings rule we shall not be able to do this or that. The example which was most frequently cited in the recent debate in another place was that it would not enable us to increase the death benefit. This is true and always has been true. It was no less true when the earnings rule was raised from £9.50 to £13.50. Each relaxation must be at the expense of other benefits which could be brought in, but that does not make it any less right to give it priority on this occasion. I am tempted to say, if that is the argument, that indiscriminate food subsidies are just as much at the expense of an increase in the death benefit.

We are also told about the cost— and I was not quite clear about the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. The last figure that I read for the cost of total abolition was £175 million a year after clawback—that rather awful phrase used to describe the activi- ties of the Inland Revenue. I must also say that I mistrust all these figures. When I first interested myself in this question 20 years ago, the figure was £100 million. Two years ago, my noble friend Lord Aberdare said that it was £125 million and now it is £175 million. With great respect, I do not believe any of the figures, because I do not think that anyone can possibly calculate them.

It is impossible to calculate the full effect on tax, on the increments or on the changing pattern of whole or part-time employment. Anyway, what is £175 million? It has to be seen against a background of the Government Actuary's Report, which tells us that the income of the National Insurance industrial injuries fund in the current financial year will be just under £7,000 million. That means an increase of 0.5 per cent. on the contributions and, even for the selfemployed—who are probably the worst hit by the earnings rule and the lower paid of whom would stand to benefit most by abolition—it might mean an increase in the weekly stamp from about £2.41 to £2.43. I think that that would be thought by many of them to be a very worthwhile increase.

My Lords, this is certainly a great day for all those of us who for years have disliked the earnings rule and have sought to abolish it. If the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, were in her place, I am sure that she, like me, would wish, with the assistance of the right reverend Prelate, to sing a solemn Te Deum, followed by the Nunc Dimittis, because at last the earnings rule has gone.

Lord CAMOYS

My Lords, permit me to add—

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I am sorry but, if the House will allow me to say so, I have seen the noble Lord make two attempts to get up. I do not know whether he wants to ask a question or to speak.

Lord CAMOYS

My Lords, I have a very brief question. Why is the first child always discriminated against?

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, if the noble Lord wants to put a question, I think he should have put it to me before I sat down, or he could perhaps put it in the gap following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, though I understand that another noble Lord is to speak after him.

Lord CAMOYS

My Lords, my apologies to the Minister and to my fellow Peers.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, no apology at all is required.

4.38 p.m.

Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY

My Lords, permit me to add my congratulations to those already given to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington on their maiden speeches. Both speakers showed a comprehension of the detail and of the wide-ranging social significance of the Bill which is before the House today. My noble friend Lord Bruce was already in the House of Commons when I arrived there in 1949, and your Lordships will remember that we were then occupying your Lordships' Chamber for the purpose of meetings of the House of Commons. I made my maiden speech from about where the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is now sitting.

When I arrived I looked around my friends for someone on whom to model my Parliamentary style and behaviour. My noble friend Lord Bruce was one person to whom I gave very close consideration: his voice was clear and his style and invective were very much to my taste, but I thought that I could never match him in lashing the Tories as he could do in another place. We may see a glimpse of that style in the course of his contributions in your Lordships' House in the future. I hope so, because I feel that a little vitality, invigoration, conviction and enthusiasm will do this House no harm. I hope that we shall hear from my noble friend many times in the future.

This is an important and a welcome Bill, but it is not a Bill for congratulation on plans fulfilled and hopes accomplished. When we look back on the past seventeen years only, we see the whole path of social reform strewn with the wreckage of attempts to bring about this great reform of social security that so many of us have dreamed of and have worked for, but have not yet seen. In 1957—seventeen years ago—the Labour Party produced its comprehensive National Superannuation Scheme. In 1960, a Conservative Government, in introducing the graduated pension scheme, declared that the flat rate principle was no longer enough, that it could not satisfy the retirement needs of those in the higher wages and salary groups and some supplementation of the flat rate scheme was clearly called for. So we had the graduated scheme, called the Boyd-Carpenter Scheme, of 1960 which many of my friends said was a swindle. I never used that word myself, because I never thought it was; but, nevertheless, it was a swindle that was going to be swept away at the earliest possible moment. Then, in 1970—ten years afterwards—a Labour Government introduced the National Superannuation Scheme, then in the hands of our late friend, Richard Crossman. That scheme passed through all its stages in the House of Commons —except Report and Third Reading— and then fell at the time of the General Election in 1970. That was to be the earnings related scheme, the new concept of social security to replace the outworn Beveridge idea of flat rate benefits for flat rate contributions.

A Conservative Government then introduced their social security scheme of 1973. We were back with the flat rate concept, with the supplementation of approved occupational schemes. A change of Government came about in 1974 and that scheme was scrapped, and we are now awaiting the Labour Government's new version of social security reform. Meanwhile, we have this Bill to go through the processes of uprating the flat rate benefits. It is no occasion for congratulations upon the accomplishment of some great reform. I wish to refer, my Lords, to one or two important matters upon which I have criticisms to make. I believe Parliament develops the critical faculty, and I think that this is the place for that to be done. Fulsome praise for all that Governments do is bad for them; they become complacent and lazy, and full of virtue, and therefore I think that a little criticism, even of one's friends, does not go amiss. I had plenty of it myself and I do not see why others should not bear it, too.

With regard to family allowances, my noble friend, Lord Wells-Pestell, said that the improvement would be made in family allowances right across the board, without any clawback. This means that only the normal incidence of taxation will be brought to bear on noncontributory family allowances, no matter what the income of the parents. I was a very strong advocate of the clawback system in 1965 and 1966. I believed that the separation of child relief for tax purposes and non-contributory family allowances for social benefit purposes was not the most satisfactory combination to provide family endowment, and I wanted to bring them together, so that as income rose there could be a diminishing benefit from the increase in the family allowances to a point at which the benefit was extinguished altogether. That was the principle of the clawback scheme.

My noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker, who assumed the mantle of responsibility for the social services after I relinquished it, did, in fact, see the clawback scheme through. It caused a great deal of trouble because of the inept way in which it was introduced, and the timing of it was bad—shockingly bad. The Inland Revenue was inundated with hundreds of thousands of requests for an explanation of why there had been a reduction in the tax reliefs before anybody had the increase in the family allowances. That was what went wrong in 1966. It was clumsy, and good ideas can be spoiled by clumsy application. But the principle, I thought, was a good one. But a concept—again which the Labour Party had, and to which I subscribed wholeheartedly in the years gone by—of a minimum income guarantee came later, in more sophisticated form, in the tax credit scheme. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in questioning why the tax credit scheme appears to have been put aside entirely.

I think that in the use of vast resources at a time of national stringency, one has to look carefully at whether one is doing the best with what is being spent, even in the field of social benefits. I have never regarded it as shameful to be searching all the time for an acceptable means test. I know that the phrase "means test" is unpopular and is regarded by some people as an index to humiliations. But income tax is a means test. A tax to pay is not a humiliation; it is accepted; it is part of our official system. Some people are even proud to be in the tax brackets and to be paying so much tax, or, indeed, to be paying tax at all. But a means test to receive—because of its association with the horrors of the Poor Law of the last century or two—is viewed with disfavour. If one uses the same means test to dispense social benefit, on the one hand, and to demand payment, on the other, then that means test does not provide any basis for discontent.

The tax credit scheme would have given a benefit to the first child. I heard my noble friend say that there is to be a Statement made before long about how the Government propose to deal with family allowances for the first child. I hope, however, that the tax credit scheme will not be thrown completely aside, because I believe that it contains the basis for a use of a combination of tax and social benefits which would be a more economic use of resources and provide ample benefits for those who need them without much of the disfavour of the conventional means test. I sat on the Select Committee on the tax credit scheme. I differed in some respects from my honourable friends who sat with me. As an old taxes man, I believe that there is more in income tax than meets the eye, and it can be used for beneficent purposes as well as to scourge the rich.

I turn now to the earnings rule, to which the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, also referred. I shall not shed any tears over the departure of the earnings rule. Nevertheless, I have always defended it and I have never gone into a Lobby against it. I know of no social security scheme in the world in which there is not an earnings rule as a condition of the retirement pension. So it is not just one of the quirks of the British system. It has been regarded as quite fundamental to the acceptance and application of the retirement principle. After all, why have we accepted the retirement principle? It is to provide adequate income to replace the earnings lost during retirement. Therefore, to ask that there should be a limitation on earnings in retirement is not inconsistent with the fulfilment of one's purpose of providing an adequate income in retirement.

Lord REIGATE

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has made a fair point; but would he not agree with me that the trouble has always been that it has been a retirement pension for five years and then it becomes an old-age pension?

Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY

My Lords, I do not defend the cutting off of the earnings rule at the age of 70. I have had the benefit of it myself, and I think it is quite undeserved. It is ridiculous that I should be deemed to have retired, even though I am 76. As long as one can go on earning, one does not need a retirement pension—at least, not a full retirement pension. But right from the beginning, it was accepted that there comes a point at which it might be unkind to pursue an aged gentleman who still has the capacity to earn something of his living and ask him, "Have you retired? Is what you are doing consistent with retirement? "They said, "Let him go. He does not have very long to go. Let him go on; and what he can earn, he can keep." But I submit to the noble Lord, let us not throw out the whole earnings rule because of that difficulty five years after the age of retirement.

I notice that there is no lamentation in the Bill. The Government have expressed no regrets in the Schedule at the departure of the earnings rule; so, presumably, they are going to accept it. It is not mentioned even in the rubric; there is nothing on the tombstone. Out it goes. I think the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, said that he is sorry it has been phased out; that it ought to be thrown out. It is being phased out, and what an angry outburst from the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it happened! Let it go. I will say no more about it.

My Lords, I come finally to the position of women. I have always said that social security is mostly about women. If you look at the figures you will find— whether it is a retirement pension, a war pension or an industrial pension—that women are the major beneficiaries of our social benefits: millions of them, war widows, civil widows, industrial widows. When I first accepted responsibility for doing something to guide the development of the social services in 1964, the first thing I said was, "Women! We must get women in our scheme of reform on a more radical basis than we have had before!" And where are we now? We have two important new benefits in Clauses 6 and 7, both of which will mostly benefit women. They are welcome. But as for the rest, I must make a plea for a more radical approach to the position of women in social security. Among women there are single women, married women, married mothers, unmarried mothers, separated wives, deserted wives, divorced wives and widows. Each condition requires some attention in our social security scheme. Widowhood is a respectable condition; separation is not; divorce is not; an unmarried mother is not. There is a moral judgment; implied in the way in which we treat those women in our social security scheme.

A married woman's social security rests chiefly upon her having a faithful husband or upon the alms of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. That is almost true. There should be a fall-back benefit in our social security scheme for women who suffer the growing hazards of marriage. What always amazes me is the way in which women voluntarily join with men in the institution of marriage, with so little economic security. They would never do it in any other aspect of life. Their emotions put them at risk. And at risk they are! It is often said that this is a man's world. The regrettable and astonishing thing is how many women are prepared to leave it to men to reform it. Women have had votes for many years; but they have not used them as women should have done—to get this kind of reform brought about in our social security system. Why is it that when women enter into public life they appear to be bashful about behaving as women? Why do they want to behave as men and to espouse the causes of men? Why should they be diffident about stating clearly, loudly and consistently the grievances of women? We should soon get them changed if that were to happen.

Baroness PHILLIPS

My Lords, some of us have spoken up as women for the cause of women. Perhaps the noble Lord has not read previous speeches that have been delivered in this House.

Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY

My Lords, my remarks have had exactly the purpose I intended them to have. I will accept the rebuke of my noble friend and will anticipate the rebuke of my noble friend Lady Gaitskell.

Baroness GAITSKELL

My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me to say so, I think it is a gross libel to say that we have not taken up the benefits for women. It really is not true.

Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY

My Lords, I am glad to have introduced a little controversy into the debates in your Lordships' House. I take all that. I stand rebuked. I was not throwing any caps about and expecting anybody to try them on. But there is a serious note here. I do not want to exaggerate it; but my noble friends who have just intervened know very well that they share my own regret that the women's movement is not stronger in the direction that some of us wish to see. That is my message to your Lordships' House on this scheme. I sincerely hope that when the major reform proposals come before this House later, we shall see something more about women than we have seen in this Bill. If we do not, then I shall crave the indulgence of the House to make a very similar speech again.

4.59 p.m.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I can only say that I regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, was not present to hear some of his comments. Certainly very great vigour was added to a debate which has been vigorous throughout. I should like to open my remarks by adding to those which preceded me my congratulations to our two maiden speakers this afternoon. Rarely has this House listened to two such distinguished, fluent, informative and interesting speeches. Both noble Lords have considerable experience in this particular field. I find myself in a rather different category because I wish to speak to a special part of this Bill.

I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this is, I believe, the first Social Security Benefits Bill or Social Security Bill we have had in your Lordships' House for many years about which one voice is now, alas! stilled—the voice of the late Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, who, over a period of about sixty years championed the cause of the ex-Serviceman, and, I should hasten to say, the ex-Servicewoman of all three Services.

I would put down in these stormy seas of inflation a marker-buoy with a flag of the Royal British Legion clearly attached to it. There is a particular case for mentioning our retired ex-Service personnel. I was glad to note in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that war pensioners were referred to. I would draw attention to one phrase he mentioned in regard to a 50 per cent. increase in pensions in the last 12 months: they have yielded in real terms a mere 3 per cent. for a married couple and 4 per cent. for a single person. I think in referring to those figures I quote the noble Lord correctly. This prodigious increase has yielded such a very small real benefit.

The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in his interesting speech pointed out the efforts over the past many years to achieve something. Of course, every previous Social Security Bill has added greatly but it has been eroded in the passage of time. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that surely there is a case for introducing something we were speaking about yesterday in the course of dealing with the Children Bill: a system of indexing. There is a case for indexing pensions and for indexing everything else in regard to our economic affairs, rather than having an annual review. As has been so rightly said in, I believe, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, we never catch up; we never manage to fill in those extra months because in the course of time a gain is so rapidly eroded.

My noble friend Lord Aberdare has told the House that broadly we welcome the Bill from out side, but we would address to your Lordships some criticisms. The speech of my noble friend Lord Reigate made a special point in that regard. We certainly intend to assist the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in a speedy passage of the Bill, which I think was referred to in the noble Lord's closing sentence. This may have some sinister connotations. Perhaps I might pick out one. I hope that the noble Lord will seek the assistance of the Government Chief Whip in preventing what is happening in respect of other legislation, especially the Children Bill, of having a mere seven days between Committee and Report. This is a particular difficulty for many of your Lordships, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, knows more about it than anyone else since, according to my count, he has been carrying on for the Government almost single-handed from the Front Bench opposite for certainly the last 10 hours of our deliberations.

I would return to a point in the Bill which is important and which we will deal with at a later stage, and it concerns phraseology. It is the question of what is a severely disabled person and identification of the phrase "incapable of work ". We feel it is a bad definition in the Bill. In the course of our debates we shall seek to discover what is the Government's reading of this phrase, and possibly to quantify it in some way. This may be impossible, but the phrase "incapable of work" appears to be a blanket phrase and difficult of interpretation.

I would draw one or two further matters to your Lordships' attention, but I do not wish to make a long speech since we have had many considerable speeches and there will be other business before your Lordships this afternoon. Nevertheless, it would be churlish not to welcome all those clauses of the Bill dealing with the chronically sick pension. Of course it is a little confusing to have a Social Security Benefits Bill and a Social Security Pensions Bill. Nevertheless, this new system of differentiating between the two has been quite straight-forward. But we have in front of us in Clauses 5, 6 and 7 this quite new approach which we have all from this side of the House said how much we welcome. I will join with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in not over-congratulating the Government. His comment was apposite in that regard. However, the whole tone of the debate in your Lordships' House this afternoon has been almost universal in welcoming this Bill as a whole.

I return to the problem of the Royal British Legion. The particular problem which Servicemen and Servicewomen find themselves in is related to the special status which they have in the country as a whole. The nature of military service, in the beginning, naturally is unique. The Serviceman is subject to military law. Not only does this impose considerable limits upon his freedom, but some of his civil rights are taken away, notably because of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. It would probably not be for the benefit of your Lordships' House if I were to dilate to a considerable extent on this subject. We shall be bringing before your Lordships a number of Amendments at Committee stage, and I would much welcome the opportunity before then of direct discussion, if it is possible, with Lord Wells-Pestell, who has been particularly courteous in this regard. With these few remarks, my Lords, I will close my speech and thank your Lordships for listening to my intervention.

5.8 p.m.

Lord COLERAINE

My Lords, I should be most grateful to your Lord-ships if you would allow me for a very few minutes to make an unexpected and unintended intervention into a field in which I am not expert and with which I am not greatly familiar. I do so only to make one point which I believe is important and which I think no one has made this afternoon. Before I do so, I would congratulate most warmly the two maiden speakers whom we have heard this afternoon. I envied as much as I admired the composure, clarity of thought and exposition displayed by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. So far as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is concerned, I was spared the embarrassment of my noble friend Lord Reigate of having to rush to get a reference book, because I remember well when he came into another place, a young man fresh, I think, from the Army. He seems to me, except in one respect, to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghlon of Sowerby, referred, not to have changed at all. The respect in which he does seem to have changed is that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, appears to be rather milder than the honourable Member for one of the divisions of Portsmouth (I think it was) whom I remember in another place. However, I would congratulate him on his thoughtful and interesting speech. In the case of a maiden speech, it is usual to say that we hope that the speaker will be heard again. In both cases I have indulged that hope. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I think that I can go further than hope and indulge a certainty.

The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is not only the most generous-minded and most kindly of men; if he will allow me to say so, he is also the most fair-minded of men. I want to take him up on one sentence towards the end of his speech. Although I cannot quote it textually and made no note of it at the time, I hope he will agree that I am not misrepresenting what he said. What I understood him to say was that in spite of our difficult economic position, the Government were able to produce this Bill which added to the national expenditure at the rate of £1,100 million annually. My quarrel with the noble Lord is over one phrase. It is not "in spite of" our economic difficulties that the Government have introduced this Bill; it is "because of" our economic difficulties that they have had to introduce it. What I myself am very much afraid of is that in the long run, and perhaps in the short run, it will increase our economic difficulties simply by the massive increase in public expenditure which it proposes.

I am old enough not to have experienced but to remember very vividly the inflation in Germany not only after the last war but after the first war. I doubt whether there is any Member of your Lordships' House who can put his hand on his heart and declare categorically that we are not beginning to slip dangerously quickly towards that degree of inflation which Germany has experienced twice in my lifetime—and, as I say, in my vivid recollection. An old-fashioned phrase that people used to use in the face of discipline was, "He is being cruel in order to be kind." I have an uneasy feeling that in this Bill we are, perhaps, being kind in order to be cruel.

5.13 p.m.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, so far as I am able I will try to deal with the questions which noble Lords have raised. At the end I hope to have covered them all, but if I have not done so perhaps noble Lords will draw my attention to the fact so that I may deal with their questions in some other way.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who raised the question of tax credits. I believe that it was the Party opposite who admitted that it would take something like five years to introduce these after the passing of the legislation. I take that to mean that in itself, apart from the question of expertise, it is quite a difficult thing to do. My recollection is that this was the view of the Party opposite.

Lord ABERDARE

My Lords, I do not want to debate this matter with the noble Lord. However, there was a possibility of introducing part of the tax credit scheme, namely, the benefit for the first child.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, it is not that we are unsympathetic but that we are very mindful of the difficulties. That is why the present Government have plans for child benefits which will be payable in respect of every child in the family. As I tried to explain earlier on, an announcement will be made as soon as possible. In effect, these plans take the place of the child credit portion of the tax credit scheme. This is a matter upon which I hope to make a Statement at some later date, when my right honourable friend has done so.

If I remember rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, also referred to the earnings rule, although it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, who did so. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, based his speech upon the earnings rule, but I think that other noble Lords also referred to it. If an allowance were made for tax at current tax rates, I am informed that the cost in 1975–76 would be reduced by £15 million to £45 million. I mentioned £60 million; £15 million of the £60 million would be tax. In 1976–77 the cost would be reduced by £25 million, namely from £110 million to £85 million. In 1977–78 the cost would be reduced by approximately £35 million to £110 million. This is the information which I have been given, and I have no reason to suspect that it is anything but accurate.

So I come back to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. He asked what increase in unemployment would affect the finances of the scheme. I seem to remember that in your Lordships' House not so very long ago I said something about this particular matter. The balances of the National Insurance Fund are reduced by about £105 million for every 100,000 who are unemployed above the figure of 650,000. Therefore we have 650,000 who are unemployed; for every 100,000 above that, the cost to the National Insurance Fund is £105 million. However, it will not affect the rates of the benefit proposed in the Bill, for the reason that unemployment is only one of several factors which affect the income and expenditure of the Fund. For example, rising earnings will increase the income. There are also substantial reserves. I am trusting entirely to memory now and I may be wrong; however, I seem to remember telling your Lordships' House some time ago that the reserve was in the region of £1,500 million which could be called upon, if necessary, before the time for the next review of the contribution rates arose.

The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, had a point on the invalid care allowance for non-relatives. As I understand the situation, the invalid care allowance has been designed primarily to meet the case of the single daughter. However, the Government do not intend to confine the allowance to the daughter-parent relationship. The intention is that the regulation should prescribe a wide range of relatives. Whether or not this meets the noble Lord's point, I do not know. At the outset, the invalid care allowance would not be available to other than these relatives. The emphasis is on the; words "at the outset". Under Clause 7 we shall have powers to extend the allowance to other groups, and it follows that long-standing friends are not necessarily excluded for all time. However, I think that we shall have to deal with this in stages. The first stage is the single daughter; then it can go on to include other relatives, and, as I say, it does not exclude or preclude other people.

As the noble Lord knows, the invalid care allowance is brand new; it is an untried benefit. As I have tried to say, frankly we do not know how it will work in practice. We do not even know what the initial uptake will be. I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said that he thought it would be in the region of 11,500 people, but the number of beneficiaries may be much higher—we do not know. I understand that there is no available information from which an estimate can be made. Though the invalid care allowance is, I think I used the phrase, "a leap in the dark" on so many counts, the Department of Health and Social Security—and nobody knows this better than the noble Lord himself—will have to find staff, office accommodation and make a hundred and one other plans to ensure a successful start to that allowance. The risk involved is being willingly accepted, but the Government are not willing to extend the risk by widening the scope of the invalid care allowance at the outset and adding a further unknown quantity to the initial unknown uptake. It would be much wiser if we gained experience as we went along, and then, if necessary, we can begin to extend it. I think I have dealt with all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare.

It is customary in your Lordships' House to start by saying something about the maiden speeches, but I propose to deal with them in order—but that is not to say in order of merit. It is much easier for my tidy mind if I do do it this way. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for his partial acceptance: (shall I say?) of the Bill. I think we have to be frank about this. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said that it is a Bill that does not call for much congratulation. Perhaps it does not, but if he had been introducing it he would probably have felt very differently about it. Let us face the fact that if we can in the present financial climate maintain benefits at the level of earnings. I think we have achieved something; if we are able to introduce into a Bill new forms of payment, I think we have achieved something. I do not think any of us on this side of the House, and it may go for everybody in the House, is content with the provisions but it is probably the best that we can do. I hope that the noble Lord will speak often in the future, for one reason if for no other. I felt more than once the slight prick of the point of a rapier, and I think this is very desirable. It indicates that behind it there is a good deal of feeling and knowledge, and there is no better place to have both than in your Lordships' House.

The noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, mentioned the earnings of the invalidity pensioners and regretted that the disqualification remained at £4.50 a week. Both the existing contributory invalidity pension and the new non-contributory invalidity pension are benefits for people who are incapable of work—by definition, therefore, unable to earn. This is the purpose of the whole scheme. This is how we see it and why we have introduced it in this Bill. Notwithstanding this, invalidity pensioners are often able to keep themselves occupied by a small amount of work, normally under medical supervision, without losing their pensions. They are allowed what are often called therapeutic earnings of £4.50 a week. The non-contributory invalidity pension is not a benefit for the partially incapacitated or disabled people with low earnings.

In paragraphs 46 to 51 of the Report of the Secretary of State, which dealt with the problems of disabled people in employment—which is by no means as simple as it appears—your Lordships will see the exposition of this complex problem. In paragraph 51 the Government promised to go further into the problem and this will certainly be done. Meanwhile, priority has been given to the non-contributory invalidity pension, because as paragraph 54 reads: The loss of ability to earn is stark, over-whelming and readily identifiable ". I would hope that that would satisfy the noble Lord.

It may be presumptuous on my part to congratulate my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. He brings to your Lordships' House a good deal of experience of Government not only in another place but in other spheres. He is quite right when he says that there remains a solid core of people existing at subsistence level. The only comfort for many of us who have fought for a good many years to try to raise people above that level is that in a very large measure we have succeeded. We realise that there are still unpleasant pockets which we hope to deal with from time to time. But, again, one can only bring forward legislation which is possible in a climate of financial ability and whether it is this year or next year or in the years to come, social justice and social progress can only be made in that climate. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, because this is the kind of House that warms to people who have something to say when it is backed with a great deal of experience. That is certainly the position of my noble friend.

There are a number of matters which I want to direct to the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, and I hope I shall get them all right. I should like to say something about the increments. I find this a little involved. The new and improved method of calculating increments which will come into effect in April was provided under the Social Security Act of 1973. Under this method a pensioner will earn one-eighth of 1 per cent. for every week for which he postpones his retirement. Thus the 6½ per cent. for each year referred to in Better Pensions—and this is where went wrong; I knew it is was in Better Pensions—is the rate which will apply from April this year, so it will not be a new proposal. Increments earned before April 1975 will from that date be uprated in line with the main pension, and on this occasion it will mean about 16 per cent. I hope I have succeeded in making that clear.

Coming to the earnings rule and the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, about total abolition, I do not think there is a great deal between us. So far as I and the Government see it, it is a question of timing and a question as to whether in the present financial climate (I apologise for using that phrase again) we can afford to do so. Let me put it like this: the cost figures of total abolition are made up, first, of the pension which people now earning above the limit and not retired would receive; secondly, the pension which people now having their previous pensions reduced or extinguished would receive; and, thirdly, the reduction in expenditure on sickness and unemployment benefit to people under Clause 1— that is the people now earning above the limit and not retired. Fourthly, the loss of contributions that would have been paid by those people in Clause 1; namely, the ones who are earning. Fifthly, the amount of income tax that would be paid on the pensions.

There is no clear evidence that people would do more work and earn more pro-vided the earnings rule were abolished. I think this is just a matter of opinion. No calculation can be made of the income tax that might be paid on extra earnings, because we just do not know. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Reigate—I see that he agrees. It is, of course, quite likely that some people would reduce their earnings if the rule were abolished, as they could maintain their income by a combination, perhaps, of pension and low earnings. I think that the noble Lord will not mind my saying this, because I have known him a long time and he has a sense of humour. If the noble Lord who spoke in 1973 at the Report stage of the Social Security Bill were to look up Hansard for 4th July 1973, volume 344, col. 279, he would see this recorded against his name: My record on this matter is fairly consistent. I think that when I die 'earnings rule' will be written on my heart. It will take its place there with a number of other graffiti, but I am sure it will be the largest. I am not suggesting that that should be on his tombstone‡

Lord REIGATE

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. I thought he was about to quote some words I once used in your Lordships' House which might almost be paralleled by the noble Lord, Lord Hougliton of Sowerby. I said that I could put up a very good defence of the earnings rule.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I have heard the noble Lord say that, too. Perhaps I can leave the noble Lord alone now! I really do not know what to say to my noble friend Lord Houghton. I was a bit dispirited when he said that this. Bill was not a matter for congratulation and that it was no great reform, but he would be the first to recognise that we never made a claim—

Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY

My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for giving way. I said that it was not a matter for congratulation for plans fulfilled and hopes achieved, which is in a much broader context than the provisions of this Bill.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, of course the noble Lord is perfectly right, but to a large extent the position we are in at the present moment is not of our own making and I think we have to try to meet the needs of those less fortunately placed in the community. One aspect of this country is that—whether we are on the Right, on the Left or in the centre—there is an acceptance, varying in degree, that we have a responsibility for those less fortunately placed. What I think we are doing in this Bill is giving them the best possible standard of living in the circumstances.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys—and when I say "I", naturally, I mean we, the Government. We are grateful that noble Lords on the other side of the House will assist in a speedy passage of the Bill. There is much legislation going through both Houses at the present moment. I know exactly how the noble Lord feels about the Children Bill and he can imagine also how I feel on this matter. I am sorry to put it like this, but we have to move things through speedily if we want to put them on the Statute Book at the right time. The only point I would make to him—and I know he will not take this amiss—is that if there are going to be Amendments (and he said there would be), I hope they can be tabled as quickly as possible so that we may look at them carefully.

When I moved the Second Reading of the Children Bill on Tuesday, 21st January, I think I am right in saying that on the following Friday morning there were 18 printed Amendments in the Printed Paper Office. When I arrived here on Monday there were 102, and it is really frightfully difficult to do justice to them when the Committee stage is being started the very next day. This is not a criticism; it is merely a cry from the heart to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, to ask if there are to be Amendments, for them to be tabled as quickly as possible.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, obviously I cannot reply for my noble friends. Any noble Lord is entitled to table an Amendment when he or she wishes, but it is a very difficult thing in a revising Chamber to combine speed with accuracy. We can and must have accuracy, but speed is not always to be desired.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

Finally, my Lords, I come to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. There is nothing between us at all; what he says is absolutely true. It is because of the difficulties we are in that a Bill of this nature comes before your Lordships' House; but I was trying to say that we are doing it despite those difficulties. I wonder how much social legislation is on our Statute Book today of a type comparable with other countries which have had, perhaps, fewer difficulties than we have had. When I look back to 1945—and remember that we emerged from the war with every bit of investment gone because we had been required to sell it or to use it to prosecute the war—despite the difficulties we were in, we were able to introduce great social reforms like the National Health Service. Whatever the position of that Service today, I think it is already recorded in history as a great social reform.

What I am trying to say is that there is a sense of awareness and a sense of need in the people who guide our destinies —if I may so refer to the two Houses of Parliament—that certain things must be done regardless of our financial climate. There is nothing at all between the noble Lord and myself on this; it was merely a question of how it should be phrased and I accept his phrase as he gave it. I am grateful to noble Lords who have participated in this debate and for the comments they have made. I hope to be able to read what has been said so that we can pick up anything that ought to be picked up.

On Question, Bill read 2^a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.