HL Deb 17 July 1980 vol 411 cc2012-24

6.15 p.m.

Lord ELTON rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 2nd July be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order has been made under the Northern Ireland Act 1974, and I will have to spend rather more time on it than I have on the two preceding orders. The Act of 1974 empowers Her Majesty to make laws for Northern Ireland by Order in Council. By reason of urgency, the order has been made without a draft having been approved by a resolution of your Lordships' House; but if it is to continue to have effect, it must now receive Parliamentary approval. Its essential purpose is to maintain parity with Great Britain in the cash social services.

The order contains provisions corresponding to those recently enacted for the rest of the United Kingdom in the Social Security Act 1980 which, as your Lordships will recall, has among its objectives re-structuring of the supplementary benefits scheme, conferring of powers to extend equal treatment for men and women in social security, and the making of a wide range of miscellaneous amendments affecting the social security system.

That Act has two other main objectives which require a special word of explanation in the context of Northern Ireland. First, it changes the provisions relating to the up-rating of basic retirement pensions and other long-term benefits by linking them to prices rather than earnings. Secondly, it replaces the Supplementary Benefits Commissions for Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the National Insurance Advisory Committee with a Social Security Advisory Committee. Let me say something about both these objectives.

Noble Lords will wish to know why amendments relating to the review and up-rating of benefits provided for by Section 1 of the Act do not appear in the order. The omission of these provisions does not mean that Northern Ireland will be out of step with the rest of the United Kingdom. The explanation lies in the principle of parity with Great Britain in the cash social services to which I have already referred. This operates to ensure a virtually uniform system of social security throughout the United Kingdom, and provision already exists in the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 for the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland simply to make an up-rating order corresponding to any similar order made for Great Britain. It follows that the effect of the amendments in Section 1 of the Act will be reflected in future up-ratings of benefit in Northern Ireland without any change in present Northern Ireland law.

The new Social Security Advisory Committee will have a United Kingdom remit and so for the first time an advisory committee will have direct responsibility and functions in relation to the social security system in Northern Ireland, to the same extent as the rest of the United Kingdom. The committee will be in a position to advise the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services on matters relating to supplementary benefits, family income supplement, child benefit—and national insurance benefits, other than those for industrial injuries and diseases. Additionally, the department will be required to seek the views of the committee on proposals for regulations on any of the matters for which the committee has an advisory responsibility. I am sure that the fact that one member of the committee will be appointed from Northern Ireland will be welcomed.

The committee will assume the advisory responsibilities of the Northern Ireland Supplementary Benefits Commission, and since provision is made in the order for its executive functions to be taken over, the commission, like its Great Britain counter-part, is to be abolished. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the chairmen and members of the commission, past and present, and to the excellent work they have done during an extremely difficult period in Northern Ireland.

I now turn to the substance of the order and to its main objective, which is to reform the supplementary benefits scheme. These reforms are provided for in Article 7 and Schedule 2 and, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, the changes are not intended to increase net expenditure. The pressures on the supplementary benefits scheme in Great Britain are just as real in Northern Ireland and the Government's proposals for reform in the recent White Paper just as urgently needed.

The keynote is simplification. The new legal and administrative framework will ensure that the emphasis of the scheme is shifted from discretionary payments to payments under clear rules of entitlement. That is an important departure. This framework will set out a claimant's entitlement and obligations in full in the form of regulations, and these regulations will be explained in every day language in a new version of the supplementary benefits handbook to be published by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland. Other changes include provision for individual benefit claims not to be determined by the Supplementary Benefits Commission but in future by "benefits officers", whose decisions will be subject to a right of appeal to a supplementary benefits appeal tribunal, and from that tribunal, on points of law only, to a social security commissioner. The main benefit changes consist of the alignment of long-term supplementary benefit scale rates with corresponding national insurance rates, the reduction of the present two years qualifying period for the long-term scale rate to one year, and the reduction of the present five scale rates for children to three.

These improvements reflect the most important trend, which is the direction of resources to families with children. The reduction in the long-term scale rate qualifying period from two years to one year will benefit some 8,000 claimants in Northern Ireland, 20 per cent. of whom are single parents. The reduction of the present five scale rates for children to three will benefit some 20,000 families in Northern Ireland, with 28,000 children in the existing age bands under five, and 11 to 12. These families will qualify for up to an extra £3.20 weekly for each child within these age bands. The alignment of long-term scale rates will not take place until the general up-rating of benefits in November, and will mean that for some people the up-rating will be marginally less than it would otherwise have been.

I now turn to another main objective which is to take powers for Northern Ireland to meet the EEC Directive on equal treatment for men and women in social security. Schedule 1 to the order provides for the removal of discrimination in two stages. As a first stage from November 1983, a married woman will be able to claim an increase in short-term benefits for her husband and any dependent children if the husband's earnings are less than the increase of benefit being claimed for him.

The second stage under which married women will be able to claim for children irrespective of the husband's earnings will be implemented from November 1984. Article 8 of the order makes provision for the inclusion of family income supplement in these equal treatment measures. From 1983 it will be possible for the family which has to depend on the wife's earnings from full-time work—because, for example, the husband is a chronic invalid—to have her earnings supplemented.

The order also makes a number of minor, technical and tidying-up changes in social security law. For example, amendments to the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975, will result in maternity grant becoming a non-contributory benefit, subject only to satisfaction of conditions as to residence and presence in Northern Ireland. In order to reduce frivolous or vexatious appeals to a social security commissioner from decisions of a local tribunal, no appeal will in future lie to a commissioner from a unanimous decision of a local tribunal except with the leave of a tribunal chairman or a commissioner.

Finally, there are a number of small amendments which have no counterpart in the Social Security Act. These are mainly of a minor nature and I will only mention the two most important. Article 5(6) inserts a provision in Schedule I to the Child Benefit (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 to the effect that in paragraph 1 of the schedule to that order a reference to a child in the care of the Department of Health and Social Services includes a reference to a child in the care of a Health and Social Services Board. The background to this perhaps surprising technical amendment is that in the course of a recent child benefit decision, the Northern Ireland Commissioner commented that he would find it difficult to construe the existing paragraph 1(f) of Schedule 1 (which refers to a child in the care of the department) as if it applied to a child who had been committed to the care of a board. The proposed amendment puts beyond all doubt that, in the context of child benefit, reference to a child within the care of the department includes reference to a child within the care of a Health and Social Services Board which, in this, as in other respects, acts as an agent of the department under delegated authority.

The second of these amendments, contained in paragraph 16 to Schedule 1 to the order, deals with medical appeal tribunals established under the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975, to hear appeals arising under the industrial injuries scheme. This provides that certain medical appeal tribunals appointed or recognised by another Government department may, if necessary, be regarded as appeal tribunals for the purposes of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975. The background to this amendment is that there exists a right of appeal or reference to a medical appeal tribunal appointed by the Department of Health and Social Services against a decision of a medical board on any question of diagnosis in respect of pneumoconiosis, byssinosis or diffuse mesothelioma. But, as the incidence of these diseases in Northern Ireland is relatively slight, the medical appeal tribunals there do not include among their members specialists with the necessary expertise in those fields. This amendment will, therefore, mainly be used to enable the medical appeal tribunals established by the Department of Health and Social Security in Great Britain to decide questions in respect of those diseases on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Services.

Apart from the minor amendments, the order, in sum, enacts legislation for Northern Ireland corresponding with or complementary to that recently enacted for Great Britain. It maintains the principle of parity between the cash social services in Northern Ireland and those in Great Britain. I commend the order to your Lordships, and beg to move that the order be now approved.

Moved, That the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 laid before the House on 2nd July be approved.—(Lord Elton.)

Lord BLEASE

My Lords, the noble Lord has indeed given the House a very comprehensive and detailed explanation of this order. What he has stated underscores the numerous points made in a very helpful explanatory document issued some six weeks ago by the Department of Health and Social Service for Northern Ireland. The noble Lord's statement confirms a very important point made in the explanatory document; namely, that the order enacts the first stage of a major reform of the supplementary benefits scheme; and I would emphasise the words "major reform".

I want to say at the outset that I am opposed to the order, and for at least three reasons. First, I am convinced that the legislation will create greater hardships and difficulties for the disadvantaged, the sick and elderly people throughout the United Kingdom. The order embraces the Social Security Act which was bitterly opposed by my noble friends in this House and by my right honourable friends in another place as being a deliberate policy to undermine the principles that laid the foundations of our welfare state in 1948—principles which contribute much to promoting social justice and the happiness and wellbeing of the citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I think I could legitimately use this order to re-open the matters raised during the passage of that Social Security Act, especially as these matters affect the people of Northern Ireland. I do not propose to do that, but I think I must refer to at least a few relevant points. Naturally, along with many in Northern Ireland, I am opposed to the Government's decision that retirement pensions in future should be operated in line with prices rather than wages. I am also opposed to the up-rating date for pensions and other benefits that will mean that a married couple on pension will lose at least £12.30 this November.

I am also opposed to the continuing exclusion of the unemployed from the long-term rates. The justification for this discrimination has always been obscure in Northern Ireland, where unemployment is involuntary for so many people and where the rate of unemployment continues to rise. It seems indefen- sible to me that the long-term unemployed and their families should be permanently excluded from the higher benefits offered to other groups.

I am also opposed to the order because of the basic right of Northern Ireland people to have an opportunity for their difficulties and needs in social welfare matters to be effectively heard and considered by Parliament. On 19th March 1980 this point was raised in another place during the debate on the Social Security Bill. The Minister of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Rossi, stated at column 557: I urge the House to do nothing in this Bill to change what has been so far the recognised way of dealing with these matters, because such things can he readily misinterpreted across the water. The last thing I want to do is to create a situation in which an Act of this House, in all innocence, creates difficulties for us in Northern Ireland". Who he meant by "us" is open to question. That is the end of the quotation. Quite a number of persons who are much more knowledgeable than I am about parliamentary procedures and constitutional matters, did not then, and still do not, agree with the validity of the reply of Mr. Rossi.

In this House on 22nd April, I unsuccessfully moved an amendment to the Social Security Bill, now the Act, which, if it had been adopted, would have enabled wider discussion regarding the implications of this legislation for the people of Northern Ireland. In his reply opposing the amendment, the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, were similar to Mr. Rossi's. He stated at columns 691 and 692 of Hansard: … the Government have made clear their intention of bringing an end to this unsatisfactory state of affairs.…We propose therefore to deposit the reports and regulations in the Library of each House. I hope your Lordships will accept this as a solution which preserves the complex constitutional requirements of the Northern Ireland situation". Honestly, my Lords, neither of those two arguments convinced me in the least that there ought not to be an opportunity, even under the 1974 Act, to deal with this matter in a much more thorough and sympathetic way so far as the people of Northern Ireland are concerned. If there is a constitutional difficulty, I am not at all convinced that sufficient consideration and attention have been given to reasonable ways of overcoming any difficulties in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

My third reason for opposing this order is that it abolishes the Northern Ireland Supplementary Benefits Commission, and seriously precludes the people of Northern Ireland from having an effective voice concerning their social needs, as they arise from time to time. The proposal to replace the Northern Ireland Commission by a single Northern Ireland representative, under a United Kingdom Social Security Advisory Committee, is the cause of great concern. There is a benefit in having Northern Ireland representation at national level, particularly in view of the continuing policy of poverty benefits. Yet something more is required in recognition of Northern Ireland's special circumstances, including its special constitutional position.

As we have already heard, the recent constitutional talks indicate a willingness on the part of the Government to arrange for a form of devolved government, if agreement can he reached between the political parties. It therefore seems illogical, at this juncture, to abolish the Supplementary Benefits Commission and not to replace it with a separate Social Security Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland, which is concerned with the individual needs and problems arising in the Province.

Apart from this consideration, there are other reasons why Northern Ireland needs a separate body which is capable of considering the operation of statutory schemes. So many of our people are dependent on benefit, for Northern Ireland is the most poverty-ridden area in Western Europe; a larger number of people than elsewhere in any EEC country depend on state benefit; we have the highest unemployment rate; our household earnings are the lowest in the United Kingdom, despite our larger families; our housing record is poor and our cost of living high, and present forecasts indicate that our position will considerably worsen in the coming years.

I suggest to the Minister that a Northern Ireland Advisory Committee should be established, and that a representative of the national advisory committee should chair that committee. At this late hour, I do not want to go into the details of the setting up of a particular body, but it would have additional benefits to the people of Northern Ireland and to the Government. I should like to join with the noble Lord in his tribute to the various chairmen over the years, and particularly to the one presently occupying the position, as well as the various members who have given admirable service to the people of Northern Ireland on the Supplementary Benefits Commission.

So I wish to put forward a proposal, about which I have already spoken to the noble Lord, for the establishment of a Social Security Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland. This is no dangerous constitutional matter; indeed, I believe that many constitutional advantages would be gained if it were established. I shall wait to hear the noble Lord's reply in respect of the proposal that I have put forward, and the remarks that I have already made in connection with this order.

6.35 p.m.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, when the noble Lord speaks with such conviction, he carries great weight. However, a great deal of what he said relates to the philosophy upon which the order rests, which is the same as the philosophy upon which the Bill which he discussed earlier rests. As he rightly said, he adduced his arguments in that debate and, in so far as they were embodied in an amendment which the House rejected, the House would not wish me to take up again the cudgels which he has so recently laid down.

There were a number of items within what the noble Lord said which I should like to take up. The principal one, with which he concluded, was about a separate advisory committee. However, before I come to that, I should like to mention that the qualifying period for the long-term rate is being reduced from two years to one, but, regrettably, because of financial constraints, it is not yet possible to extend the long-term rate to unemployed claimants. We touched on this very genuine difficulty in the last debate but one.

I think I can best reply to the noble Lord's principal theme, about which he has been in touch with me, by saying that since the Government's proposals were announced several representations have been received in favour of maintaining a separate body for Northern Ireland. These have been based principally on the important role which has been played by the Supplementary Benefits Commission for Northern Ireland, and I should like to take this opportunity of again acknowledging the value of the commission's work.

After careful consideration, however, the Government remain of the view that this is not the best approach. The social security systems in Great Britain and Northern Ireland are, in all major respects, identical, which is a primary indication that the new committee should have a United Kingdom remit. The proposals recognise the special position of Northern Ireland by reserving a place on the committee for a Northern Ireland representative, and I think that Northern Ireland will derive considerable benefit from having such a voice at the centre.

Lord BLEASE

My Lords, is it not a fact that there is considerable public confusion about the No. 1 Act and the No. 2 Act, in so far as attempts were made to amend the No. 1 Act even before it was on the statute book? There is public confusion concerning the whole range of legislation which is very comprehensive, and there is a very radical change in many respects. Have there been any attempts to inform tribunals and tribunal chairmen of the implications of the Act which will be implemented in November? Have the Government attempted in any way to contact the 400 or so tribunal chairmen and representatives in Northern Ireland with information about the way in which this Act will be administered and implemented?

Lord ELTON

My Lords, the noble Lord has the advantage of me on this matter, but I hope that I shall be able to reply to that point when I have finished answering the point to which I was addressing myself, when he asked me to give way. In the debate in Committee in the other place, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State made it clear that the new committee will have considerable flexibility in the way it operates. It will be up to the chairman and members, when they are appointed, to decide what special arrangements, if any, are necessary to ensure that the special circumstances of Northern Ireland receive full recognition.

This is the point which the noble Lord is pursuing. It is one of which the new committee will be seized, and it will be up to them to find structures which will reflect his concern. I think it would be a good thing to see whether they are able to do it, before it is assumed that they cannot. The Northern Ireland representative will be free to seek assistance in the performance of his or her duties from official and unofficial sources, so that he or she can contribute fully to the committee's deliberations. It is not a question of a lone voice in the wilderness. This is going to be an informed and weighty opinion, backed up by both official and unofficial assistance. So I hope that the noble Lord will be a little less hesitant in his welcome—I cannot say that, because he has not welcomed it. However, I hope that he will be a little forbearing while he watches what happens. The Government see potential difficulty in having two separate bodies concerned with the same subject. The network of the payments is very closely similar across the water. This in itself guarantees, does it not?, parity of help, because the scales are all related to the conditions of the recipients. In so far as the conditions of the recipients are harder in the Province than they are in Great Britain, so that will be recognised in the cash help which they get. So again the machinery is not quite so soulless or inflexible as the noble Lord perhaps fears.

There is a danger that the Northern Ireland representative would be regarded as a delegate from a local group if we resorted to the pattern which the noble Lord has suggested, but if the constitutional position changes, or if experience of the new arrangements, which I urge the noble Lord to watch closely, suggest the need for a separate Northern Ireland body, the Government will re-examine the situation. So while I cannot encourage the noble Lord to expect us to change the policy at this late stage, I can say that in the light of experience it may be that it would be a good thing if he returned to the charge, as it were, when we have seen how it goes.

I had better deal with the last point to which I was going to address myself by sending to the noble Lord a message through the post, unless he wishes to bring me to a direct consideration of any further point.

Lord BLEASE

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am bitterly disappointed that there was not a much more ready response to the representations which have been made by various bodies. The weight of that evidence indicates that there is serious concern in Northern Ireland about whether one person sitting on an advisory body over here for one day a month can bring forward views and opinions. How is that person going to have those views translated to him over the water and back again?

Turning to the point about anyone from Northern Ireland feeling that he is obliged to be a delegate, I know many people in Northern Ireland who sit on advisory bodies, and in no way do they act simply in a delegate manner. So again I wish to press the Minister to give me something a little more precise concerning the setting up of an advisory body. Would not the Minister be prepared to take it back again and have a look at the position so far as Northern Ireland is concerned?

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's concern. He will appreciate the constraints which operate upon me, but in fact the Government have been a little more forthcoming than he suggests. Many Governments would say: "We have reviewed the policy. This is the right policy. We are convinced that it will work, and we are now going to work it". I have said that the Government are aware that either the constitutional position may change, which would be a dramatic change in the context of the ground which we have already covered this afternoon, or, if experience of the new arrangements suggests the need for a separate body, we will re-examine it. We shall try it. If it does not come up to expectations, then we shall look at it again. And the noble Lord is invited to give his views then.

The noble Lord is discontented because he is convinced that it will not work. I am not so convinced as he is. If you have the right person on a body of this sort, and if it is not a shy and retiring person in a large body but a forceful and well-informed person in a small body, that is much the most effective way of running anything. The smaller the committee the better it is. Of course, I speak without knowledge. It may be a very big committee. However, I am quite content that my honourable and right honourable friends who have gone into this matter in some detail are not suggesting that there should be a suppliant coming from the Province to the United Kingdom body, cap in hand, and saying, "Can't we have more?" We shall have a person of standing who will be listened to and who will be properly briefed and who will come to the committee and say, "These are the circumstances, and this is what we feel will meet the circumstances". Whether that committee is to sit in Belfast or elsewhere in the Province, or whether it is to sit in London or elsewhere in Great Britain does not make a tremendous amount of difference.

I cannot be fairer to the noble Lord than I have been. I have given an undertaking that this will be reviewed in the light of experience. Your Lordships are already aware that we have adopted a very swift procedure, so we are not going to be hanging around for a long time waiting for it to happen. I trust that we shall have the benefit of the noble Lord's advice when it has happened and when it is running. And let him not hesitate to suggest not merely any structural changes which he thinks ought to be adopted when we have seen it running for a time, but let him come and say whether there are any practical ways in which it can work better as soon as it has begun. I invite the noble Lord's assistance. I respect his concern. We are all aware of his specialist knowledge of this sort of thing. I am not brushing him aside. I am making him the most generous concession that I am able to make.

On Question, Motion agreed to.