Lords Sitting of 16 June 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Chancellor.

Lord Elystan-Morgan
Dafydd Elystan Elystan-Morgan, Esquire, having been created Baron Elystan-Morgan, of Aberteifi in the County of Dyfed, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Peart and the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.

Trade Disputes: Secondary Action
2.48 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether trade unions which instruct their members to take industrial action in cases where no dispute exists between those members and their employers are covered by the legal immunities given by current trade disputes legislation.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, individual trade union officials (but not trade unions themselves) who instruct their members to take industrial action where no dispute exists between those members and their employer may be legally liable, if the industrial action is not in contemplation of furtherance of a trade dispute or constitutes secondary action which is unlawful under the Employment Act.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that somewhat complex reply, may I ask whether he can clarify it by indicating whether, in a case where there is no dispute between a certain section of employees and their employers, trade union officials who call out those people can be regarded as taking part in a trade dispute?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, again the complexity of the reply is because, as my noble friend will appreciate, these are rather plural areas and one dispute is not necessarily like another. But broadly, as I said, the position is that the Employment Act would withdraw legal immunity in a case of the kind that my noble friend suggests.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister how often this happens? Does it happen a great deal? I have never heard about this at all. So can he give us some idea of how often this kind of action is taken?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, one of the reasons why it happens very little is the passage of the Employment Act.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the definition of a "trade dispute" includes disputes between one trade union and another, and that in those circumstances immunity arises? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Employment to consider whether there is any longer justification for immunity in such circumstances?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, as I think my noble friend will be aware, the Government have misgivings about the whole system of immunity which obtains for historical and other reasons in our system. To that end, we have issued a discussion document for consultation. The consultation period has now ended and we are considering what might result from it. But my noble friend will also be aware that the ability to withdraw one's labour is, of course, universal, endemic and, effectively, a right. It is therefore a difficult area in which to intervene with any confidence.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, are the Government aware that their upholding of the right to strike will be widely approved? Are the Government further aware that working people's solidarity is as commendable in this country as it is in Poland?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am glad to say that with the sad exception of the dispute between the Government and their own employees we are at present enjoying a greater calm over the industrial landscape in terms of disputes than we have for many years.

Disabled People: Access Week
2.52 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are their plans for Access Week of the International Year of Disabled People, beginning on 29th June.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are not themselves responsible for the planning and organisation of Access Week, but they have given their full support to the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People who are sponsoring this special week. The committee consider that improvements in access can best be brought about by local groups of disabled people themselves, and are therefore encouraging such groups to take the initiative in organising events to mark the week.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I share very much her view that it is up to local groups to encourage improvements in access to inaccessible buildings—such as, in my own town, the post office and the swimming baths, both of which are inaccessible to disabled people. May I

529
also ask the Minister whether she is aware of the wheelchair obstacle course exhibition which is at present touring the country? It is known as Grooms-mobile. It was opened by the Minister for the Disabled and the Lord Mayor of London to promote better understanding by able bodied people of the problems which disabled people face. This exhibition, as I say, is touring the country and copies of its itinerary are available in your Lordships' Library.
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords. I believe that my right honourable friend Mr. Rossi attended the opening of the Groomsmobile exhibition. It is something which the Government welcome. It will help to change public attitudes and encourage people to take a positive look at how the disabled can be helped to have access to public and other buildings.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether considerable help will also be given towards providing better access to pavements? The blind handicapped in our community suffer considerable disadvantage as a result of vehicles being parked on pavements and because of the practice in many urban areas of placing refuse cartons and plastic bags on pavements, which cause considerable concern to the blind handicapped.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government are giving support to the organisation which is sponsoring this particular week. I understand that the chairman of the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People will be writing to all local newspapers encouraging them to include during the week special features on access. That would, no doubt, include the type of access to which the noble Baroness has referred.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the Government's encouragement goes beyond exhortation? Would she not agree that a soundly pragmatic Government would rather be remembered in the future for deeds rather than for words?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords; that is why the Government are supporting the Private Member's Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, which is to have its Committee stage in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, would it be possible for the Government not to lose this opportunity of issuing a circular to local authorities urging them to study the availability of access for the disabled in any new building which is put up?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government have already given their approval to improvements to access. They will be included in the Private Member's Bill to which I have just referred. The Government have also given an undertaking that a circular will be issued which will make the kind of points which my noble friend wishes to have made.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she has seen today's Yorkshire Post which carries a picture of a man sitting at the bottom of the steps of Huddersfield town hall? May I also ask her whether she is aware that young prople from the technical college are helping to promote better access? Does not the Minister agree that it is very helpful if one can make use of the energies of young people in this way?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords; I support that entirely. There are many young people who do a great deal of voluntary work and who are only too happy to help the disabled in all these ways. I have not seen the newspaper to which the noble Baroness has drawn my attention, but I shall have a look at it.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government will give encouragement both to access and to facilities for the disabled in toilets? May I also ask whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to the practice in Sweden, which I visited last week, where indications are given on doors that such facilities are available?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords. This matter is also included in the Private Member's Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware of the orange badge scheme and of the symbol for the disabled which often appears not only on public lavatories but also on many other public buildings.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend about access to Government departments, especially those to which the disabled require to have access?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I cannot speak on this particular point for all Government departments, but those with which I am connected all have access for disabled people.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, would it not be better and save the time of the House if your Lordships were to give speedy consideration to the Bill which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, and get it through, since that would avoid a lot of questions?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, while the wheelchair symbol is internationally recognised, does not my noble friend agree that full account must also be taken of the problems of those who have great difficulty in walking or climbing steps, with or without sticks or crutches? Sometimes their problems are even greater than the problems of those who are confined to wheelchairs. Can attention, please, also be drawn to this problem during Access Week?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sure that this is the kind of matter to which the committee will draw attention in its publicity.

Enterprise Zones
2.59 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress is being made with the introduction of enterprise zones.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, good progress is being made. The Swansea Enterprise Zone came into operation on 11th June and Corby comes into effect on 22nd June. Most of the remaining nine zones should be designated over the next three months and the last ones by the end of the year.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer. First, may I congratulate the Government on their initiative and on the benefits which are being offered to those who decide to participate in this scheme in order to help our depressed areas? May I ask my noble friend whether it may be assumed that local authorities will play their part in the relaxation of planning controls and the non-rating of non-domestic properties in order that this scheme may get under way in the best position possible?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the first part of his supplementary question. It is a basic requisite of local authorities that they do exactly as my noble friend suggests, and indeed the relaxation of planning régimes is a fundamental part of this whole scheme.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how long it will be before a second round of sites is considered? How long is the first experiment to take before it is assessed and the disappointed applicants on the first occasion get a chance to have a second go?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I cannot state a time. It will depend entirely upon what takes place. We have always said that this is an experiment and I hope it will be felt to be an interesting, not to say an exciting one, but it is important to see exactly what transpires in practice before we can decide how soon and how much further, if at all, we go with this scheme.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware of the concern expressed in the warehousing industry and among Chambers of Commerce about the inclusion of warehouses in enterprise zones; and is he taking any steps to reassure these organisations?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is referring to public warehousing, and I have met delegations from two representative bodies. We understand their concern and we have undertaken to monitor and to watch very carefully exactly what transpires within the zones as regards public warehousing. Should this become a greater problem than we anticipate, we have powers to ameliorate it, but I hope that
532
the concept of the zones will be a stimulus which will help public warehousing for those who are just outside, as well as those who are within.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, if this is to be more than a cosmetic exercise, does the Minister agree that the resources for infrastructure, such as roads, sewerage and reclamation of derelict land, are badly needed for many enterprise zones, particularly those with highly derelict areas? Is he aware that in the Committee stage of the Local Government and Planning Bill the Minister in another place on the 20th May, at col. 1265, of Hansard said that he was anxious to consider providing resources for improvement to infrastructure in enterprise zones to see whether help was needed. As nothing has yet been done, and as even more savage cuts have taken place in public expenditure, can the Minister now tell us what are the Government's intentions?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I do not think that any of the authorities who have been successful in obtaining an enterprise zone would have accepted in any way the description given by the noble Baroness that the exercise is a cosmetic one. Certainly so far as the Government are concerned it is anything but that. It is exactly what we have always said it is: it is an imaginative attempt to do something where nothing was done previously for very many years, and the provision of infrastructure is something that we want to encourage. Basically the whole problem of these areas will be solved if the private sector is encouraged to come in and do things so that it will uplift the zone and the whole of the area.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether any enterprise zones are contemplated in the rural areas?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, at the moment there is no contemplation of any zone beyond those which have been so designated. The basic object of the exercise is to take derelict areas which need to be uplifted, to involve people coming in and making investments, and I should have thought that there would not be many rural areas which would look kindly on the kind of thing which we are hoping to attract. However, it is still an experiment and we shall have to wait and see what transpires.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sorry to come back, and perhaps I did not hear what the Minister said, but I do not think I received an answer to the specific question about grants for infrastructure, which is extremely important.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, specific grants are not available for these purposes except in the cases where there are urban development corporations, and that concerns two of the zones. Other than that, the whole of the infrastructure and everything else that goes into these zones will have to be provided by the private sector, unless the local authorities wish to take part in that aspect of it.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, although there is general acceptance of the principle of enterprise zones, will the Minister give an assurance that the development of the zones will be carefully monitored in order to ensure that there is no adverse effect on businesses just outside the area of the zone, and also that there will not be any abuse by businesses who leave premises outside the zone and come in?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, this is one of the aspects of the whole matter that concerns us. There can be no guarantees at all. I say again for the nth time that this is an experiment; it is an attempt to do something where before nothing was done. As the noble Lord suggests, we shall monitor very carefully what is happening and the hope is that what happens within the zone will also have a beneficial effect on those just outside the zone.
Lord Blease: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to explain the arrangements for the monitoring committee? How often will they report, to whom will they report and will the report be available to Parliament?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the local authority which is concerned and also we in central Government will be watching generally. We have not laid down a régime as such, but obviously we are keenly interested to see that the zones are a success. We shall do everything we can to encourage them and we shall be in very close touch the whole of the time. We feel that that should enable us to be assured of what is happening; and in the case of the warehousing, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, we shall be watching particularly closely.

Citizens' Band Radio
3.6 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government who have been appointed to, and what are the terms of reference of, the consultative committee established by virtue of Section 9 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 to consider the draft Performance Specification for CB Radio issued by the Home Office in April 1981.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we intend to introduce regulations under Section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 to control undue interference from permitted citizens' band equipment to other radio apparatus. Section 9 of the Act provides that the Secretary of State must consult an Advisory Committee on Radio Interference before making such regulations. The precise terms of reference of the committee will be settled after it has been appointed.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am most grateful for that reply from my noble friend.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, will the Minister say when this matter will be discussed by the House? So far as I am aware, all we have had is a Written Answer in another place. Can he indicate what regulations will be placed before the House for full discussion and decision before the citizens' band is in fact introduced?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the regulations are under Section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, to which I referred in my original reply. If the noble Lord was thinking of wider discussion through debate, that would be a matter for the usual channels.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I am sorry, but what I want to know is whether these regulations by statutory instrument will be placed before both Houses for approval, otherwise the whole thing is being rushed through without the House having a word to say.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I must admit to the noble Lord that I am not wholly sure of my answer to that question, but I am almost entirely certain—and I will certainly write to the noble Lord if I am wrong—that the regulations are not subject to the affirmative procedure.

Social Security Bill
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Up-rating orders]:
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13 after ("a") insert ("reasoned").
The noble Baroness said: This may seem a very simple amendment: it asks that the word "reasoned" be inserted at page 1, line 13 after "a", so that the sentence would read that the Secretary of State should,
"cause to be made, in each House of Parliament a reasoned statement".
To those who think that all Government statements are both reasoned and reasonable, this may seem a tautologous amendment, but we have tabled it because we think it is absolutely essential that when statements are made to the House they should in fact be reasoned, in the sense that the full background and understanding should be made clear. May I add, not only clear to your Lordships; our anxiety is for the millions of people outside this House whose lives and incomes will be directly affected by such statements made in Parliament. Therefore, I very much hope, because this

535
is so simple, so obvious, so unexceptionable, that it may be possible to make a good start to this Committee stage by accepting it. I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Disappointingly enough, I am afraid I cannot accept this amendment, reasonable as it looks on the face of it. The new subsection (3) to Section 125 already requires the Secretary of State to ensure that the essential information relevant to the uprating is given—the date, his estimate of the increase necessary to restore the value of benefits, and the actual increases which he proposes. The new statutory requirement to make a statement is thus fairly comprehensive. But in any case it has always been the practice for the uprating announcement to be full and "reasoned" and certainly no further statutory provision for this is needed. The Minister making it always has been and always will be anxious to explain what he is proposing and why; and what is true of the Secretary of State is also, of course, true of the Chancellor who, again by convention, gives broad details of social security changes in the Budget Statement immediately before the Secretary of State's statement. I hope in the light of that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jeger: I am not totally satisfied about the present Government's interpretation of the word "reasoned", but in view of what has been said I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I assure noble Lords that we shall watch like cats watching sparrows to see what sort of statements come out.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.12 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 14, after first ("date") insert ("being a date not later than 20th November in each of the years 1981, 1982 and 1983.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. The purpose of this amendment is again linguistic. It is to establish in the statute that a year consists of 52 weeks and not of 54 weeks, because we complain bitterly, and so do many pensioners and many of the poorest people in our country, at what seemed to be a bit of a trick of stretching the year to 54 weeks, which was done recently. It might be said that because of leap years there is a gradual crawling up of year on year and it is difficult to stick to precise dates of uprating. I have been looking at some of the dates that have been chosen, and I find that in 1975 the date was 17th November, in 1976 15th November, in 1977 back to 14th November, and in 1978 13th November; better still in 1979, 12th November; then of course last year's disaster of 24th November, which meant stretching out for another fortnight people's entitlement to increased benefits. This meant that pensioners were deprived, in the case of a single person of £7·70, and for a married couple £12.30.
I believe, and so do most of my noble friends, that this was purely a money saving exercise. This was borne out in Standing Committee in another place (Col. 322, Standing Committee on Social Security (No. 2) Bill, 24/4/80) when the Minister said:
536
"For the 1980 up-rating of all these items the cost of bringing the up-rating forward by one week or the saving in deferring it for one week would be £60 million.".
So it seems to me quite clearly a money saving exercise, money saved to the Government but depriving those who needed it most. I think that if any business engaged in such shady arrangements they would be in serious trouble. It seems the most extraordinary breach of faith and common understanding that a year should be made, to suit Government's financing, to consist of 54 weeks instead of 52 weeks. Therefore, we have put down again a simple amendment to suggest that a year shall be a year in the sense that everybody means it, and that nobody should have money taken away from them because certain Governments want to pretend that a year lasts 54 weeks. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: May I ask the noble Baroness what I hope she will not think is too simpliste a question? Why does her doctrine of the 52 week year extend only up to 1983? If her general proposition is a sound one, why stop there? Is she somewhat frightened of what may happen in 1984, as George Orwell was?
Baroness Jeger: The short answer to that is that I am confident there will be a very different Government in 1984.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: The current provisions relating to the date of the uprating require it to be not later than the end of the month in which the anniversary of the previous uprating falls. Last year it was the week beginning 24th November. This year's had to be before the end of November. Since different benefits are uprated on different days of the week this year's uprating could not be later than the week beginning 23rd November, the date announced by my right honourable friend on 11th March, and precisely 12 months after the last uprating. These current provisions were introduced as recently as last year in the Social Security Act 1980. The noble Baroness referred to the 54 week period. This was to prevent the up-rating date creeping forward, as it has been, with consequential additional expenditure implications.
This amendment would involve additional expenditure. For example, it would require the uprating to take place this year in the week beginning 16th November, which would involve additional expenditure of about £40 million. For this reason we must resist these amendments. The present provisions approved by Parliament last year are flexible and ensure that beneficiaries get their increases in good time before the winter sets in. I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment; otherwise I must recommend the Committee not to accept it.
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I intervene to say this: The noble Lord has made it clear that the Government are wholly opposed to the uprating date creeping forward. Are they equally opposed to it slipping backwards? The purpose of these amendments is to avoid slippage in the other direction.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: What we are trying to do is to maintain the position we have now, that the up-rating should be not later than the end of the month in which the anniversary of the previous uprating falls. This year, your Lordships will see, we are having precisely the same date as last year.
Lord Wells-Pestell: I should like to ask the Minister to take this matter back and to have a look at it again. It really is quite disgraceful; call it whatever you like, it is depriving people of a very substantial amount to which they are entitled. It has been the practice to uprate pensions each year and a year means precisely what it says. It does not mean 53 weeks; it does not mean 54 weeks; it means certainly 52 weeks. It is the people in the community who are least able to stand the loss of money who, in fact, are deprived of it. Last year, whatever way one looks at it—and I can understand that it can be argued a number of different ways—it was a disgraceful performance. It is something that ought to stop. It is not beyond the wit of the Government to think of some means whereby pensions can be paid around the 365th day—that is all that we are asking for. I would say that this is of sufficient importance to a section of the community to ask the Government to take it back and to come forward with something that is perhaps a little more reasonable than the practice that they followed last year and the practice that they want to follow in this particular Bill.
Baroness Young: The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, are always very persuasive on these subjects and they make us sound very mean and hard-hearted when we feel that we must resist them. We have of course been over this ground many times before, and we appreciate their concern and that of the Opposition about the two weeks which were lost in the 1980 uprating. The fact of the matter is—if both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will reflect on the uprating of pensions over the past six years since 1975—that neither political party has an unbroken record of doing in all circumstances the very best that they might have done. They have both, for a variety of reasons, come up against the very painful hut hard economic facts of life as regards cost.
I accept, as my noble friend has said quite rightly, that one of the reasons why we cannot accept this amendment is that in fact it would increase the cost. As it is, we have written into the Bill a flexible arrangement so that the upratings will take place by the end of November which gives a degree of flexibility before the winter sets in. On the other hand, it may vary a little. Of course we would all like to do more and I have no doubt that, as the economy improves, we shall do more. But it is for that fundamental reason that we are unable to accept the amendment and unable to put matters right in respect of the whole of the fortnight that was lost in the year before.
Lord Wells-Pestell: I trust that the noble Baroness will read tomorrow in Hansard what she has just said, because she has said by implication that, if it suits the Government to have another 54 weeks before they uprate in order to save money, they will do so. That is the implication of what she has just said, as I under-
538
stand it. I think that it really is deplorable. I am sorry that the noble Baroness is so unyielding about this matter. I do not deny that in the past Governments may not have done all that they could have done to help the aged, but it is a very different theme as regards the level of pensions to say, "All right, when it suits the Government in order to save money we may uprate it after 54 weeks rather than 52 weeks". I think that what the noble Baroness has just said really does not reflect credit on the Government.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, suggested that the noble Baroness on the Government Bench should read carefully in Hansard what she has said. I should like to reciprocate by suggesting that he joins me in asking that the noble Baroness on the Opposition Bench should do the same, because your Lordships will recall that when I invited an answer to the question as to why this amendment was framed only up till 1983 inclusive, the noble Baroness said, in a mood of happy optimism, that it was because she thought that there might be a Government of another colour in 1984. In other words, this is intended to be a restriction on only a Conservative Government while apparently a Labour Government are to be free to have a 54-week or a 60-week year. I hope also that when the noble Baroness reads Hansard that will give her a little bit of a kick.
Baroness Jeger: The noble Lord stated that this amendment would cost £40 million. That means that the Government admit to taking £40 million away from the people who need it most. I really am impatient, as I am sure are many of the pensioners and invalids in our country, at hearing reference to the poverty of the Government in not being able to meet these needs. We had a Budget that gave away £1,400 million to those who needed it least, and then we are told that we cannot afford £40 million to save doing the poorest people out of a couple of weeks' money which they deserve. I am sorry, but in view of what has been said I cannot beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I hope that there will be strong support on all sides of the Committee for what is a very fair and proper amendment.
3.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 105.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ampthill, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Amulree, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Ardwick, L.

Byers, L.

Aylestone, L.

Chitnis, L.

Bacon, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Crook, L.

Birk, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Blease, L.

Denington, B.

Blyton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Brockway, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

539

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Peart, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Phillips, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gardiner, L.

Plant, L.

Gifford, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Grey, E.

Rochester, L.

Hale, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hall, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Hampton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hayter, L.

Segal, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shinwell, L.

Hunt, L.

Smith, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Spens, L.

Ilchester, E.

Stamp, L.

Janner, L.

Stedman, B.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stone, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kennet, L.

Strauss, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Tordoff, L.

Lawrence, L.

Underhill, L.

Leatherland, L.

Vernon, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Listowel, E.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Melchett, L.

Whaddon, L.

Milford, L.

White, B.

Milverton, L.

Wigg, L.

Northfield, L.

Willis, L.

Oram, L.

Winstanley, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gage, V.

Alport, L.

Gainford, L.

Avon, E.

Geddes, L.

Bellwin, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Belstead, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gowrie, E.

Bessborough, E.

Gridley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Burton, L.

Caccia, L.

Halsbury, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hastings, L.

Cawley, L.

Henley, L.

Chelwood, L.

Hereford, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hillingdon, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hives, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Inglewood, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Cromartie, E.

Kissin, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Daventry, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Davidson, V.

Long, V.

de Clifford, L.

Luke, L.

De Freyne, L.

Lyell, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Derwent, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Dudley, B.

Mancroft, L.

Dundee, E.

Mansfield, E.

Dundonald, E.

Marley, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Morris, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Effingham, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Norfolk, D.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Exeter, Bp.

Nunburnholme, L.

Faithfull, B.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Porritt, L.

Ferrier, L.

Portland, D.

Fortescue, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Reigate, L.

540

Renton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Robbins, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Rochdale, V.

Swinton, E.

Rodney, L.

Terrington, L.

Sandford, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Tranmire, L.

Savile, L.

Ullswater, V.

Selkirk, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sharples, B.

Vivian, L.

Soames, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Stradbroke, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 3, after ("date") insert ("and to compensate for any failure to restore their value at the previous review").
The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Banks, who is in Strasbourg, I beg to move Amendment No. 3 standing in our joint names. In so doing, I think that it would be convenient if I spoke also to Amendment No. 5. This, of course, relates to the 1 per cent. claw-back applicable to pensions and other long-term benefits, including guaranteed minimum pensions, which was the main subject of our debate on Second Reading.
It will be remembered that the ground of the claw-back was that the uprating order of 14th August 1980, which set the rate of 16·5 per cent. for the increase due on 24th November last, turned out to be an overestimate of 1 per cent. of the general increase in prices. Therefore, the Government argued that it would be reasonable to recalculate the basis for the next increase due next November as if the increase for the year from November 1980 to November 1981 had been only 15·5 per cent. and not 16·5 per cent.
It was argued, I thought persuasively, on Second Reading that the expenses of old age pensioners and low income families are not fairly reflected in the general retail price index. In view of these factors, I quote my noble friend Lord Banks at column 1070 of Hansard of 1st June during the Second Reading debate:
"the Government might well have regarded the 1 per cent. over-estimate as a small and fortuitous modification of the cuts already made".
But apparently this could not be afforded, so provision for the claw-back was written into this Bill.
However, of course, the question immediately arose in a number of people's minds: what about the obverse side of the coin? What would be the position if the Government under-estimated the next time round? Probed on this point on Second Reading in another place the Secretary of State for Social Services, Mr. Jenkin, said:
"I was about to pose the question of what happens if next November it turns out that the increase to be announced at the time of the Budget falls short of the rate of inflation. The answer has already been given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the clearest possible terms: compensating pensioners fully for price increases over the lifetime of a Parliament means making good any such shortfall should it occur. The reference is in Official Report, 25th November 1980, Vol.. 994, c. 488.
The Government stand firmly by that pledge, which I repeat today."
When asked why it should not be put in the Bill, Mr. Jenkin replied:

541
"This is a matter which can no doubt be explored in Committee".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/81; col. 763.]
So it was, with no end result; though Mrs. Lynda Chalker, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, repeated in full on 26th March 1981 in Standing Committee G, at col. 290, the Prime Minister's assurance of 25th November 1980, which reads as follows:
"The full value of the pension in terms of what it will buy will be preserved. Last year, we added to the provision for pensions because the amount that had been provided was not sufficient. This year, we provided more than was warranted by the price increase. The undertaking is to compensate fully for price increases over the lifetime of a Parliament … That means either making up the shortfall or taking into account the over-provision next time"
At the bottom of the same column Mrs. Chalker said:
"I hope that I have made clear exactly where we stand on the matter of making good the shortfall. The power is already there. It will be used to make good the shortfall, because that is what the Prime Minister said".
The power is that contained in Section 125 of the Social Security Act 1975, which, I would remind your Lordships, has already been modified once by this Government when the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980 introduced into that clause a right to abate by 5 per cent. the uprating of certain benefits. That is the power on which we are asked to rely.
Reverting to our own Second Reading debate, a similar undertaking to those given in another place was given by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who, at col. 1082 of the Official Report of 1st June, 1981, said:
"I should like to reaffirm … that the shortfall"—
she seems to assume that there will be one—
"will be made good for pensioners, as for other long-term beneficiaries … It is the intention that the provision will cover only this year's 1 per cent. overpayment and will not extend any further than that. So there is no question of this arising under this Bill at another time".
However, there is an inconsistency here, because the claw-back is provided for under subsection (3) of Section 1; but subsections (1) and (2) on any reasonable reading deal with uprating in general. There is no doubt about that in my mind.
There is I submit a danger that an uncompensated shortfall could take place under this Bill, for the Secretary of State is only obliged to uprate by the percentage by which those sums—that is, the benefits—would in his opinion—I repeat "opinion"—have to be increased in order to restore their value as at that date. That date is the date of the uprating order. But this opinion may be wrong, because he is going to make a judgment, probably in August, about what the rate of inflation will have been from November to November. If he is wrong, there is nothing here that I can see to oblige him to remedy his error.
Our first amendment therefore seeks simply to add the words in line 3 on page 2,
"and to compensate for any failure to restore their value at the previous review".
This is, after all, no more than the Government have undertaken to do. But Governments come and go, Ministers change, and this section applies on any reasonable interpretation to uprating in general and not only to the current year. Amendment No. 5, to which I would also speak briefly, simply makes the
542
same provision for contracted-out guaranteed minimum pensions, which are also covered by Section 125 of the principal Act.
There is another reason why we have tabled these amendments, and this is one of rather greater urgency. The noble Baroness stated in column 1081 that subsection (3) of Section 1 of the present Bill enables the Government to base the November 1981 uprating on the recalculated rates, and she then spoke of increasing those recalculated rates by 10 per cent. But the last available figures for the retail price index and for the tax and price index show that the RPI rose by 12 per cent. between April 1980 and April 1981, and by 6·6 per cent. between November 1980 and April 1981. The TPI rose by 15·7 per cent. and 9·24 per cent. over the corresponding period, owing in the latter case to the failure to increase the tax threshold in the last Budget. If we stick to the RHI, which rose by 6·6 per cent. in the first six months of the period we are immediately interested in, we get a very possible projection of 13 per cent. over the whole period.
But what happens if the Secretary of State comes along, in perfectly good faith of course, with his uprating order in, say, August, proposing 10 per cent., to use the noble Baroness's figure, or perhaps 11 per cent. or 12 per cent. if he is more realistic, but the final outturn is 13 per cent.? Will he come forward with a further supplementary order later on, or will the pensioners and others simply have to abide by his under-estimate until such time as he, or the Government, can find time for another Bill?
I am sorry if I have wearied your Lordships by expanding on this at some length, but it is an important matter. There are nearly 10 million pensioners, to say nothing of other long-term beneficiaries, waiting to hear what the Government have to say. As I said at Second Reading, this seesaw method of mid-term calculations is thoroughly unsatisfactory and ought to be reviewed. But in the meantime I am convinced that we must at least secure a statutory undertaking that any shortfall that may arise—and they are only too likely to arise under this system—will be made good. That is the purpose of these amendments.
I shall of course listen to what the noble Baroness has to say with the greatest of care, but I should like to repeat the words of my noble ally Lord Banks at Second Reading:
"if future over-estimates are to be dealt with in the same way, then we require cast iron assurances that under-estimates will be made good".—[Official Report, 1/6/81; col. 1069.]
I think I have demonstrated that the undertaking given in this Bill is less than cast iron. I beg to move.
3.44 p.m.
Baroness Young: I appreciate from what the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has said that this is a matter which was debated at considerable length in another place, and was certainly referred to at quite great length at the Second Reading of this Bill. I hope that I can show him in the course of what I have to say that I can give an answer to the particular points that he has raised. I think it is better to stand on the principle that he has raised rather than look in detail at actually what his amendment says.
First of all, should like to repeat to the Committee

543
that we as a Government are fully committed to maintaining the level of pensions in line with inflation, and to improving them beyond that level when economic circumstances permit this. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place on 25th November 1980, and indeed as has been said on numerous occasions since then, we shall price protect pensions over the lifetime of this Parliament, and this means making good any shortfall.
The Prime Minister's remarks were concerned with pensions and, as has been made clear, other related long-term benefits, for example, the disablement benefits. As regards short-term benefits the Government's view is that if the situation arose the position could be properly considered only in the light of the amount of the shortfall and of the economic circumstances of the time. However, I should like to repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that there is already power in the legislation for shortfalls to be made good. This, as he quite rightly said, is in Section 125 of the 1975 Act. It is the Government's view that our pledge on long-term benefits, coupled with this power, make the amendments that he has tabled this afternoon unnecessary.
The noble Lord raised one or two specific points which I should like to try to answer. He said that it is difficult to make an accurate forecast on prices. Indeed it is very difficult, but if he looks over the last few years he will find that the forecasts on prices have been remarkably accurate. As it turned out, one of the difficulties about the forecast on prices last year was that the forecast did not suggest that the rate of inflation would fall quite as rapidly as it did, and hence the Bill is involved in this because the forecast was wrong. But, on the whole, the forecasts have been accurate.
He said, "Well, how can we trust the Government", if I paraphrase his remarks, "to make good a shortfall, if there should be a shortfall, because we have amended the 1975 Act and we could of course amend other legislation?" Well, as he will know, Parliament can of course amend any piece of legislation. It could amend this Bill further if the noble Lord's amendment was put into it. I do not think he would be saved from this particular difficulty just by that.
But what I can tell the noble Lord is that in the first uprating under our Government in 1979 we made good the shortfall of 1.9 per cent. from the 1978 uprating. So we did in fact make good the shortfall of that year—quite properly, because it was what we had promised that we would do, to keep pensions up with prices—and in this particular Bill we are still keeping pensions up with prices. And we have, as he quite rightly said, in the first clause of the Bill got this power to lower the uprating this year to be based on 15.5 per cent. as from last year instead of the 16.5 per cent.
If I may sum up my remarks, I hope he will accept that in this Bill we have once again reiterated the Government's pledge to keep pensions up with prices; something about which we all of us who are concerned in these matters, and indeed the entire Government, are very concerned to do. It is a pledge that has been reiterated not only by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister but by my right honourable friends the
544
Secretary of State for Social Services and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, We have the power to make good the shortfalls, and given those pledges, and the power to do so, we believe that the amendments that the noble Lord has put down are unnecessary. I hope that under those circumstances he will feel that it is right to withdraw them.
Lord Wells-Pestell: I appreciate what the noble Baroness says about there being power in the measure to make a shortfall good should one arise, but that is not obligatory, as I understand the situation; it depends entirely on whether the Government are so minded to do it, whereas the amendment would make it obligatory. Am I right in thinking that?
Baroness Young: I think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is correct in that what the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, is arguing for is a duty and not just a power, and I recognise the difference. I am saying that we have the power and we have given the promise, and we feel that is the right way to deal with the matter.
Lord Kilmarnock: I have listened with care to the remarks of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the question is whether, in the equasion, power plus pledge equals duty, and that is what I understood the noble Baroness to say was the position. However, before deciding what decision to take as regards the amendment, may I ask the noble Baroness to give the Committee a specific undertaking that any shortfall that may arise as a result of whatever uprating order is brought forward later this year—any shortfall that arises as a result of that in November 1981—will be made good?
Baroness Young: We have given a pledge that pensions will be kept up with prices. The noble Lord's anxiety is that from November 1980 to November 1981 the rates of inflation will prove to be higher than the forecast estimate of 10 per dent. I believe we should be going back on our pledges to keep, over the lifetime of the Parliament, pensions in line with prices if we did not look at the shortfall, because that is what it must mean. I hope the noble Lord will accept my integrity when I say that the pledge about keeping pensions in line with prices would mean just that.
Lord Pargiter: I think I heard the Minister use the phrase "over the lifetime of the Parliament". Does that mean the Government could go for three or four years without making good a shortfall?
Baroness Young: I should like to think that perhaps the lifetime of this Parliament might last that long. If the noble Lord considers it, he will see that it could not.
Lord Kilmarnock: I do not in the least want to impugn the integrity of the noble Baroness or even of the Government; my concern is simply that the first part of the Bill is a general provision which does not apply only to this year. Further, as I pointed out, Governments and Ministers change. However, in the light of the Minister's very thoughtful response, I shall read in Hansard very carefully what she said

545
on the subject and, while reserving to myself and my friends the right possibly to come forward with an amendment on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): Before I call Amendment No. 6, I should point out to the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 7, 8 or 9.
3.54 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: Nobody would be happier than my noble friend and I if this amendment were carried, so saving the Committee a great deal of time and trouble in not having to proceed to the various subsequent amendments which we shall have to deal with in the sad event of this being defeated. I would remind your Lordships that subsection (3), which we propose to delete, is described in the Explanatory Memorandum as providing
"for the up-rating of sums under those sections in 1981 to be adjusted to take account of the fact that they were up-rated in 1980 by 1% more than would have been the case if the estimate of the increase in the general level of prices had been accurate".
I do not want to repeat what was said, I thought effectively, by several noble Lords on Second Reading, but our case is very much on the lines that the estimate of the increase in the general level of prices was not inaccurate; if anything, it was less than would have been needed if pensioners were to have had their income kept in line with general prices.
I remind the Committee that we are dealing in this nasty subsection with a very wide range of benefits covering literally millions of people. When it is maintained that pensioners received too much, we know, even on the basis of the Government's price index, that the amount overpaid was 25p per week. In suggesting that we abandon this mean little provision, we are only asking that people who are deemed to have received 25p a week too much shall be left undisturbed and in sonic enjoyment of that, not feeling that they are to be punished because of that "excess of generosity".
Our case rests largely on the fact that we do not accept that pensioners' expenses are accountable in terms of the general retail price index. I appreciate that there are separate indices for pensioners, and I shall refer to them briefly because when we have disposed of this amendment we shall not be dealing with the subsequent more detailed amendments. For instance, last year gas went up 32 per cent.; electricity, 27 per cent.; and coal between 23 and 28 per cent.
I remind the Committee that the pensioner price index is based on three years of expenditure—it has a three-year expenditure profile—so that it is always lagging behind. Therefore, price increases which tend to level out over three years might in any one particular year present the pensioner with a great shock. While we are working on a three-year basis for the pensioner price index, the Government are asking us
546
to accept a one-year calculation in relation to the general price index, which is based on a much shorter period. In other words, an old person can get a sudden surge in expenses from one item—say, the price of paraffin suddenly going up—while that sudden surge may not appear for three years in an on-going situation, when it might take three years for the full effect to be felt in the figures.
That is why I say we are driving ourselves mad with statistics in that we are not comparing like with like. In some debates we are told about the retail price index, in the Explanatory Memorandum we are referred to general price levels and in other debates we are referred to the pensioner price index. I submit that all these statistics make no sense at all. The very fact that we have a separate index indicates that there is a general acceptance that the retail price index does not wholly apply to pensioners, although it appears that the Government are using it in relation to this subsection.
I have found the Family Expenditure Survey much more reliable. That makes it clear that a single pensioner spends 69·6 per cent. of his income on food, fuel and housing, compared with a single wage earner who expends 43·5 per cent. on those items. Thus, those items have particular relevance to the pensioner's budget. On the other hand, the pensioner price index does not include housing; so those who understand statistics and those who are misled enough to want to be guided by them are in further difficulty because the separate pensioner index leaves out housing altogether. I know that that is partly because of complications in rent and rate rebates, but I would point out that those do not apply only to pensioners. So those factors find their way into the retail price index, and in my unmathematical view the two are certainly not at all consistent.
The retail price index includes all kinds of goods that pensioners would never dream of buying. Pensioners are much less concerned with the increased cost of motor-cars than they are with the increased cost of paraffin, to quote that example again. We know that during the coming months they will still have to face rises in essential goods and services. That will be against a background of decreasing provision of local services, with fewer meal centres where they can get a cheap, subsidised meal and keep warm, while on the other hand home helps will become more expensive; and they will have to face all kinds of financial hardships. Then the Government come along and say that they have had 25p a week too much.
The best thing that we can do is to leave out subsection (3) altogether. I have spent time dealing in particular with pensioners, but as I stated at the beginning of my remarks, the subsection applies to all benefits under the national insurance scheme, and so there is felt not only hardship, but a sense of hardship. I cannot understand why so many noble Lords who are intelligent, kind, gentle people do not realise that what really matters is how people feel about it and that people at the bottom of the heap feel that this is a mean approach. I have not spoken to one old-age pensioner who thinks that he received too much in his pension in the last upgrading. If more of your Lordships did your own shopping, and met more of the people who are living on these miserable allowances—the fact that so many millions of them need to

547
have supplementary benefits in order to live proves that they are miserable—you would not come to the Chamber and go through the Division lobby maintaining that 25p per week was an accidental extravagance and that this hard-faced Government are going to see that it does not happen again.
I must anticipate one argument that I am tired of hearing and this, too, concerns the question of cost. How a country spends its money depends on the principles which underlie its approach to society. I know that many noble Lords must be tired of our pointing out the imbalance in the distribution of resources under the present Government. No one on this side of the Committee is arguing against the fact that the country is in economic difficulties. What we are saying is that given that the cake is not very big, it simply ought to be divided differently. That is the answer to those who say, "Well, when we have a little more money we shall be a little nicer to the poor old people". We are asking those who are least able to carry the load to put up with the difficulties.
There is another question to which I should like an answer. We are talking as if we are giving this money away, as if we have to collect it from somewhere, and give it away, as though we had been holding many flag days. I should like to point out to the Committee that we are talking about national insurance benefits, benefits for which people have paid all their lives. I understand that there is a surplus of over £600 million this year in the national insurance fund and that this is the eigthth successive year that there has been a surplus in the fund. So it is quite irrelevant to talk about the poverty of the Government. The Government are making the situation much worse for the national exchequer, since supplementary benefits are financed from taxation. Forcing increasing numbers of people on to supplementary benefits means that a higher demand is made on taxation.
What are we talking about is people's own money, and it is against that background that I very much hope that the Committee will delete subsection (3), which gives power for this mean adjustment which in effect tells people who are among the most impoverished in the country that they have been enjoying an extravagance of 25p a week too much. I beg to move.
4.5 p.m.
Baroness Young: I can quite understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, introduced her remarks in the way that she did, because if the amendment were to be carried, it would of course defeat the entire object of the Bill, and so it is absolutely essential to the Bill as well as to the debate that we are having. Therefore the noble Baroness will not be surprised when I say that I cannot accept the amendment. The intention of subsection (3) is to take account, at this year's uprating, of the effect on last year's uprating of the 1 per cent. overestimate of the 54-week increase in prices: 16½ per cent. instead of the actual 15½ per cent.
Subsection (3) provides that we recalculate the new benefit rates provided by the 1980 uprating order as if they had been based on an estimated price rise since the 1979 uprating of 15½ per cent., instead of 16½ per cent. Those recalculated rates then form the new
548
base line. They fall to be increased in November 1981 by 10 per cent.—the actual estimated increase in prices over the period between the 1980 and 1981 upratings. In other words, next November's increase will be based on what beneficiaries were intended to receive last November, rather than on what they actually received. That is how the new rates announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State were calculated.
The impression has been given that this proposal is being made in order to punish someone in some way. I should like to make it quite clear that the net result of the proposal will be an increased cost to the social security budget in this financial year of £2,700 million. So in fact people are to be quite considerably better off, in that over the 2-year period they will receive pensions that keep up with prices—
Baroness Jeger: I have already explained that I am very deficient when it comes to figures, but in the figure that the noble Baroness has just quoted relating to the total cost, is she taking into account the higher amount of money to be spent on unemployment due to the tragically increasing numbers of unemployed, rather than speaking in terms of individuals being better off?
Baroness Young: The point is that all individuals will have an increase in pensions of 10 per cent. The figure that I have quoted includes that increase and the facts of demography and unemployment. But there is at the same time an increase. We are not talking about a decrease. That is the point that I am trying to make—and a very important one it is, too.
The noble Baroness asked why we use the retail price index and not the pensioner index. The retail price index is the index that is, and always has been, used, and I understand that under it each item is given a weighting derived from the findings of the Family Expenditure Survey. So it gives an average picture of the expenditure patterns of nearly 90 per cent. of all households in the United Kingdom. It is in fact a very large and representative basket of goods and services which is costed each month to provide evidence of the movement in the price of the total basket. The different weightings are changed each January in the light of the Family Expenditure Survey findings, so that the expenditure pattern remains as up-to-date as possible.
It has been suggested that rather than use that index we should have used the pensioner index, but, as I understand it, had we used the pensioner index, it would have been seen that in 1977, 1978 and 1979 the pensioners' indices rose by less than the general index, excluding housing. It is true that over the 12 months from the fourth quarter of 1979 to the fourth quarter of 1980 the general index, excluding housing, rose by 13·3 per cent., compared with 14·7 per cent. for the pensioner index.
I make these points, not because I wish to make a debating point but because if you choose another index there could be a period of time in which you do rather better but there has been another period of time in which you would definitely have done rather worse. I would suggest to the noble Baroness that the reason why her Government did not use the pensioner index is

549
because, under the pensioner index, pensioners would in fact have been worse off in the sense of keeping up with prices than they would have been under the retail price index. The situation has now, for a short period of time, reversed itself, but I think a period of consistency is needed here. I think that is very important because otherwise it would suggest that you would move around until you found an index which you believed, rightly or wrongly, might give you the result you would like. So I think that if you go back over a period of time you will find that pensioners have done probably better, and certainly as well, under the retail price index as they would have done under the pensioner price index.
If I may then turn to the point made by the noble Baroness about insurance benefits, she asked why we could not ignore the shortfall because the insurance fund is showing a very large surplus. I understand that the surplus covers about 16 weeks of money that would have to be paid out from it, and indeed that proportion of time has been going down. As the noble Baroness will recognise, we on the Government side are being asked to give all sorts of pledges on shortfall. A provident Government attempt to keep something in balance against contingencies of precisely this kind, and against others that might arise, and we would be justifiably accused of being very bad managers if we simply spent right up to the hilt from the fund. I think that this would be a quite inappropriate way for a Government to proceed.
I think we should take it as read in your Lordships' House that we are all trying to do the best we can for pensioners. As indeed this is a central debate to this Bill, I think it is worth reminding ourselves, as I said in my remarks in the debate we had on the second amendment, that neither party has always and consistently done as well as no doubt that party would have liked when they were in government. I am just reminding myself that in November 1976, when the noble Baroness's party was in power and the IMF stood firmly behind them, and when they had considerable difficulties, they actually switched to the forecast method for reckoning inflation, and thereby saved £500 million. We can all understand why they had to do that; they had to do it because the country was in a difficult economic situation. We are having to do things now which we do not necessarily like because the country is in a difficult economic situation and the world is going through a recession.
I make these points only because I think we should say that, although we should like to have done more, as I am sure the noble Baroness would have liked to have done more in 1976, the facts of economic life are against us. That is why we have this Bill before us today, and that is why I cannot accept the amendment that has been moved.
4.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 123.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Kennet, L.

Amulree, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Leatherland, L.

Birk, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Bishopston, L.—[Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Blease, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blyton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Maelor, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Milford, L.

Brockway, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Pargiter, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Phillips, B.

Byers, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Chitnis, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.—[Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Rochester, L.

David, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Denington, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Segal, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Shinwell, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Stedman, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stone, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Tanlaw, L.

Gardiner, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gifford, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gosford, E.

Tordoff, L.

Grey, E.

Underhill, L.

Hale, L.

Vernon, L.

Hampton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Henderson, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Whaddon, L.

Janner, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Willis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winstanley, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Effingham, E.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Energlyn, L.

Alport, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Armstrong, L.

Exeter, M.

Auckland, L.

Faithfull, B.

Avon, E.

Ferrers, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ferrier, L.

Bellwin, L.

Foley, L.

Belstead, L.

Fortescue, E

Berkeley, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L

Bessborough, E.

Gainford, L

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Glenkinglas, L.

Burton, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Caccia, L.

Gowrie, E.

Cairns, E.

Gridley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Chelwood, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Clwyd, L.

Halsbury, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hastings, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hayter, L.

Craigavon, V.

Henley, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hereford, V.

Croft, L.

Hillingdon, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hives, L.

Daventry, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Davidson, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

de Clifford, L.

Ilchester, E.

De Freyne, L.

Inglewood, L.

Denham, L.—[Teller.]

Kemsley, V.

Derwent, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Dundee, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Dundonald, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Ebbisham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Eccles, V.

Lawrence, L.

551

Long, V.

Saint Oswald, L.

Loudoun, C.

Sandys, L.—[Teller.]

Luke, L.

Savile, L.

Lyell, L.

Selkirk, E.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Sharples, B.

Macleod of Borve, B

Soames, L.

Mancroft, L.

Somers, L.

Mansfield, E.

Spens, L.

Marley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Mills, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Milverton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Swinton, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Terrington, L.

Onslow, E.

Tranmire, L.

Perth, E.

Ullswater, V.

Portland, D.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Vickers, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Vivian, L.

Renton, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Robbins, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Rochdale, V.

Young, B.

Rodney, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.23 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 7, leave out ("15/") and insert ("17").
The noble Baroness said: I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if, in moving Amendment No. 7, I were to refer briefly to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. These amendments are consequential on the Division which has just taken place, which means that subsection (3) as a whole stays in the Bill, but by these amendments we are seeking to try to mitigate hardship in certain special cases. For instance, Amendment No. 8 refers to the case of invalidity benefit.
I feel sure that there will be a great deal of sympathy and understanding in the Committee for those who have to live on invalidity benefit, especially over the long term. Many of these people were very adversely affected by the earlier social security provision which virtually reduced their entitlement by 5 per cent., because benefit was reduced to 5 per cent. below what was the agreed rate of increase in prices. I understand and I will anticipate the noble Baroness making references to previous Governments; we have all had our difficulties, as she rightly said, in trying to meet the needs of those who have the greatest problems in coping with life. But these are people, many of them invalidity pensioners, who cannot qualify for the normal rate of supplementary benefit, some not for the long-term rate either, and some who are not even entitled to free prescriptions. There are all sorts of ways in which people get caught in this sort of trap.
I am told—and I take my figures from column 825 of the Hansard of another place for May 13th—that it would cost £15 million to release families from this sort of difficulty and to enable invalidity pensioners to enjoy a slightly better income. I feel that this is a very modest amendment. We are really asking for what is usually called the 5 per cent. abatement to be abandoned and for these people to qualify for a more generous payment. I think we are taking about between 90,000 and 100,000 people, but I am sure that
552
the noble Baroness has better ways of finding out statistics than I have, and therefore I hope very much that, in this case if not in any other, some sympathetic consideration will be given.
On Amendment No. 9, noble Lords and I myself have referred earlier to the case of retirement pensions. I am sure that if no stony heart has yet been moved, it still will not be moved. On Amendment No. 10, the reference is to Part IV of Schedule 4 to the Social Security Act 1975, which, if I may remind your Lordships, deals with rates of benefits, grants and increases for dependants. The other amendments are, I think, self-evident. We refer particularly to unemployment benefit as well as, once again, to invalidity benefit. There are subsequent amendments on some of these things which will be raised again so that I do not propose to detain the Committee for long, but I think that I must say a word about the unemployment situation, to which Amendment No. 12 refers. We ask that unemployment benefit should again be exempt from the reduction that was brought in on the 5 per cent. basis under previous decisions.
We are talking about a single man living at present on £20·65 a week, a couple on £33·40 and £1·25 for each child—and this at a time when earnings-related benefits are being reduced and when we know that they are going to be phased out. We know also—and there is a subsequent amendment and I touch on it briefly now—that in some cases of payment, people go on to a higher, longer-term rate after one year but that that does not happen in the case of the unemployed. That means that the full impact of unemployment and poverty are cumulative. We could approach this matter differently if we were in a situation where unemployment was going down. However, sadly it is not. That gives urgency to our debate.
We are talking about thousands of our fellow citizens and their children. I hope I may be forgiven for mentioning a local figure. In the borough of Camden, where I live—which is not usually looked on as one of the deprived parts of the country—I find from the employment exchange that at March 1981 we had 5,993 registered unemployed and 234 vacancies. Those are the figures that are the background to our consideration of an amendment like this. We are talking about thousands and thousands of people—and the number is increasing—who are having to face a lower standard of living, many of them after a long time out of work when poverty accumulates.
Among them are quite a number of disabled people who are anxious to get work and are very often those least able to get it in spite of efforts that the noble Baroness and her department have made with the full support from all sides of the Committee to encourage the employment of disabled people. It is a fact that we are now thinking about a situation where it seems inevitable that the number of unemployed, especially the older unemployed, will be increasing. We are not now talking about people changing their jobs and figures on the unemployment register for just a short while. There are many people in this country who are not going to get a job again. It is for the sake of many of the older unemployed that we are particularly anxious that the Committee should give consideration to this amendment.
I know that the Social Security Advisory Committee are at work. I hope we shall hear when we might have a report from them and what proposals are likely to be made. Again, we have come back to the matter of costs. I do not know how the Government have estimated the cost of this amendment, but we shall be told that it is a matter of financial stringency, and we shall have to say that there are people who can afford to be taxed more in order that others may get better benefits. There is again the question of social responsibility in sharing the assets of the nation.
I understand that at the beginning of January 1980 there were over 335,000 people who had been unemployed for over 52 weeks. The figure for January 1981 was over 430,000. This situation is becoming endemic in our society. We can no longer look on unemployment benefit as a payment just to tide people over a bad patch while they look for another job. We are having to face the problem of men and women and their families who are being asked to accept poverty and a lower standard of living which is totally unfair and which really ought to make the rest of us feel ashamed. This is where children are affected and where older people are affected. It is where all the good things of life are the first that have to go by the board. I hope that so far as the unemployed are concerned, as they have become the major problem of our time, the Government will give this amendment special consideration.
I have not spoken at length on the other amendments which have either been referred to before or are self-evident. In looking at our attempts to make some ameloriation in regard to subsection (3) I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to bear in mind our genuine concern for certain groups of people and that the Government will be able to share it. I beg to move.
4.35 p.m.
Baroness Young: The noble Baroness has moved Amendment No. 7 and spoken to about six other amendments. I hope that it will be convenient if I reply on Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and ask my noble friend Lord Cullen to reply on Amendment No. 12 which quite specifically deals with unemployment.
As the noble Baroness has quite rightly said, now that subsection (3) of Clause 1 remains in the Bill, this series of amendments are designed quite specifically to remedy what she regards as defects in the present proposals. They each deal with a different area of social security policy of one sort or another. Amendment No. 7 is one which has been brought to the attention of the Committee quite particularly by the organisation which greatly concerns itself with the elderly; namely, Age Concern. All of us would like to place on record our tribute to the work which this organisation does. I shall explain why the Government do not feel they can accept the proposals which come from it.
The intention of Clause 1(3) is to take account, at this year's uprating, of the effect on last year's uprating of a 1 per cent. overestimate: the 16½ per cent. instead of the actual 15½ per cent. This amendment would not only preclude any such recovery but would require the payment of an additional ½ per cent.
554
on top of this, bringing the increase up to 17 per cent. I understand that the intention of this amendment is to make good shortfalls in relation to earnings from previous years. The effect would be to make good shortfalls in relation to earnings not only for long-term benefits but for short-term benefits as well. I understand that it has never been the policy of the Opposition that short-term benefits should be uprated in line with earnings. I do not intend to embark here on a detailed argument about the figure. All I should like to say is that the Government regard the proposals embodied in subsection (3) as it stands as essential in the present economic situation.
It might be helpful in turning to the next amendment to say something generally about retirement pensions because they have been discussed at considerable length. I should like to confirm a figure that I gave in my previous reply and say that the cost of uprating the retirement pension together with unemployment and the other benefits is £2.1 billion. I hope that will set the record straight. It is true that when in 1976 the previous Government switched from a historic to a forecasting basis for reckoning upratings, a series of decisions different from those actually taken would have produced a higher rate of pension than the pensioners actually received. The precise calculations are a matter for argument. Some of the figures given by Age Concern seem too high; others are probably too low. We would all agree that the principle is undeniable. The rates of pension payable from November 1980 have more than maintained their real value since 1948 if the rates payable in previous years are revalued at November 1980 prices. The 1981 uprating is intended to secure the same result.
If the comparison is made with the net average weekly earnings of male manual workers, the pension has broadly maintained its relative position. If the additional earnings-related pension is also included, then the relative position of the pensioner has improved. The improvement will continue as the new scheme matures. This is something we would all regard as a very important factor. As more people reach retirement age, so their basic pension will be increased by this added earnings-related pension. Modest pay settlements in line with what the country can afford will help to maintain these relativities—and this is a very important point for everyone to recognise.
Two of the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Nos. 8 and 11, are quite specifically concerned with invalidity benefit, and of course we on this side of the Committee regret very much the fact that the clawback at this November's uprating will apply to the invalidity benefit and will not be exempted from the 1 per cent. adjustment. But we have considered this at very great length. One of the constituents of invalidity benefit is the invalidity allowance. We are proposing that the allowance should be brought back into line with the retirement pension this November—that is, the abatement applied for 1980 will be made good. With that in mind, it is difficult to be sure what effect the amendment would have on the allowances if invalidity benefit was exempted from the 1 per cent. adjustment and the retirement pension was not. The rates might be put back out of alignment again.
Indeed, to turn to Amendment No. 11, which is also

555
concerned with invalidity benefit though on a slightly different point, again the reasons for the abatement of the invalidity benefit at the 1980 uprating still hold good and the restraints on public spending continue to be necessary. But we do have the assurance given by my right honourable friend that the value of invalidity benefit will be restored to the level of the retirement pension when it is brought into tax. I should like to repeat that, and I am sure there will be a general welcome for the proposal I have already mentioned on the invalidity allowance which will be restored next November. Indeed, although the invalidity allowance is only a small part of the invalidity benefit it is not negligible, and in fact it is received by 83 per cent. of beneficiaries. Twenty five per cent. receive the higher rate, which will increase to £6·20; 20 per cent. the middle rate, which goes up to £4; and 38 per cent. the lower rate, at £2. It will cost £5 million in a full year and will make good the abatement of the invalidity allowance in this way—
Baroness Jeger: I do appreciate that the noble Baroness is trying to help us very much in this very complicated situation. Can she give us any information as to when the taxation of benefits, to which she has referred, is likely to take place?
Baroness Young: On this matter I do not think it is going to be possible to bring invalidity benefit into tax in 1982, as was at first thought to be possible. I think we would all regret this, but I can assure the noble Baroness that the abatement will he made good as soon as it is taxable. I do not think I can go further than that this afternoon.
Finally, perhaps I might deal with Amendment No. 10 which was concerned with dependency increases. This amendment would have the effect of precluding the recovery of the excess uprating in November 1980 for increases for children and adult dependants of those getting unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, invalidity pension, maternity allowance, widow's allowance. widow's and mother's allowance, retirement pension, child's special allowance and invalidity care allowance. The amendment would have the effect of precluding the recovery of the 1 per cent. for increases for children. The cost of this would be about £20 million, of which £18 million would be attributable to adult dependants. The effect on beneficiaries would, of course, be small. An unemployed person would get 10p extra for an adult dependant and 5p extra for a child dependant, but in any event we do not believe it would be right to single out these dependency additions for exemption. The dependency additions go to the basic personal benefit to provide an income for the family group as a whole.
I understand fully the desire to mitigate the effects of Clause 1 and in another place a whole series of similar amendments were tabled and the case must surely lie for or against the 1 per cent. generally. I should emphasise that the 1 per cent. merely ensures that what the Government intend to happen and what Parliament approved last year actually does happen.
I am conscious of trying to give an answer to six amendments at once, but I have covered a lot of ground and of course if there are points that I could pursue
556
further I should like to do so, either on this occasion or by correspondence. I have done my best to answer the points raised by the noble Baroness, and unless she wishes to raise any further points at this stage, I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Cullen to speak on Amendment No. 12.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, spoke most movingly on the subject of unemployment, which worries all of us so much, and so I should like to say a word about this matter in reply. The Government have repeatedly said that we shall consider what the rate of unemployment benefit should be, when it is brought into tax, in the light of all the circumstances at the time. I understand, of course. the force of the arguments that the noble Baroness has put forward, that abatement must end when taxation starts. Those arguments will be high among the considerations of which we shall have to take account. But restoring the abatement will cost some £50 million a year and we must take that into account as well.
Baroness Jeger: The noble Lord has just referred to a figure of £50 million, if I heard it aright. That means that the unemployed are being deprived of £50 million.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: It can be put in any way one likes, but from a public expenditure point of view this would make a difference of £50 million; and at a time when we are having to constrain public expenditure as much as we possibly can, clearly we cannot visualise this sort of expenditure, at any rate at this moment, with any equanimity. What I have said is that we shall consider this along with the other considerations at a time when unemployment comes into tax.
It is perfectly true that when we decided we had to make savings in social security as in other areas of public expenditure, we chose to trim back the increases in those benefits which both sides of your Lordships' House have agreed ought to be subject to tax, but which for practical reasons could not be brought into tax straight away. We therefore thought it right to introduce the abatement provision, pending taxation of the benefits in question, as one of our savings measures. But we have had to make it clear that invalidity benefit apart, what the level of benefit should be once it was made liable to tax would have to be considered when the time came in the light of all the relevant circumstance, including the economic situation. That time has not yet come; and your Lordships must not expect me to anticipate the decision. I can only repeat at this stage that all the relevant factors will be taken into account. I cannot give any commitment beyond that. Still less can I accept the suggestion that the abatement should be restored even before unemployment benefit becomes taxable. In the present economic situation that is not a realistic expectation.
I have to remind your Lordships that the rates proposed by the Government for November 1981 have been announced. We do not intend then to restore the abatement; nor, on the other hand, are we using the power which Section 1 of the No. 2 Act provides to make further abatement. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment; but, failing that, I must ask your Lordships to reject it.
Baroness Jeger: This debate will have brought no cheer and no consolation to those outside who will be wondering what your Lordships are going to do to mitigate the hardship under which many of them are suffering. The only note of comfort we have had from the noble Lord is that they can look forward to the time when they have to pay income tax on their benefits, which seems to me to be something of less than cold comfort. I have listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have said, and I do appreciate the complicated way in which these amendments have had to be dealt with. In view of all that has been said, I will ask leave to withdraw the amendment for the moment. We feel very strongly about certain of these matters and we shall want to come back to them again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 13 not moved.]
4.50 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
Page 3, line 24, at end insert—
"(6) The Secretary of State shall request the Social Security Advisory Committee to investigate and report on the inadequacy of the current level of child support provided through the child benefit, supplementary benefit and social security schemes and this report shall be laid before Parliament ".)
at end insert—
"(6) The Child Benefit Act 1975 shall be amended as follows—

(a) at the end of section 17(1) there shall be inserted the words "provided that no regulation to take effect on annual uprating shall have the effect of increasing the total child support by less than the figure for inflation adopted by the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 125 of the Social Security Act 1975."

(b) in section 17 there shall be added a new subsection—

"(1A) In subsection (1) above the words "total child support" shall mean the combined total of child benefit and any increase equal of benefit payable under section 41 and Schedule 4 Part IV to the Social Security Act 1975."").
The noble Lord said: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are taken together, because they deal with the same subject. They deal with support for the children of parents who are sick, unemployed, disabled or widowed. Before November 1980, such children received £5.70 per week, made up of £1.70 for the person who was sick or unemployed and £4 for the mother in child benefit. When the uprating of 16½ per cent. was made last November, the £5.70 should have been increased by approximately 95p. That would have taken the weekly payment from £5.70 to £6.65. Actually, the child benefit went up to £4.75, but the dependency addition was reduced to £1.25—an increase of 30p per week for each child.
For the majority of people, social security benefits will increase by 9 per cent. next November. For the parents of about 500,000 children, the child benefit will increase by 50p. National insurance payments for the sick, unemployed and industrially injured will be reduced from £1.25 to 80p per week. Taking into account the two increases between November 1979 and November 1981, the total increase for the child
558
of someone who is sick or unemployed will have risen from £5.70 per week to £6.05—an increase of 35p over two years; well below the other benefit rates.
The cost of keeping a child has risen by more than 35p over two years, as those with children or grandchildren will realise. That is obvious, because of rising prices and so on, and I do not think anybody can doubt it. But there is an even more disturbing factor in this rather sorry picture, which affects not only the benefits that I am talking about, but others as well. I refer to the unfortunate possibility—and the somewhat clear possibility—of inflation rising to 12 or 13 per cent. in the final quarter of the year, whereas the social security benefit uprating is based on an estimate of 12 per cent.
A lot of people who are more experienced than I have already forecast this and, apart from the drop in the value of the pound—and, I admit, that the value can fluctuate—raw material costs over the past six months have been increasing at an annual rate of 23½ per cent., which, in turn, indicates an increase in retail prices in about nine months' time. What I want to ask, apart from the general question about child benefits, is: what will be the Government's action if the estimate of inflation proves to be too low in November next? This is a question which is very relevant and very much in the public mind at the moment. It calls for a clear-cut and honest answer from the Government.
I must be fair and say that I do not expect the two Ministers on the Government Front Bench to be in a position to answer the question now; that lies further ahead. I do not think it lies with the dead hand of the Treasury; it lies with the dead hand of the Prime Minister. In the old days, we used to refer to the dead hand of the Treasury, but, from information received from various sources, it looks to me as if it is the dead hand of the Prime Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: The noble Lord has spoken to two amendments, Nos. 14 and 15. I think that he has devoted most of his remarks to No. 15, so it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I deal first with that, and then go back to say something about child benefits.
The effect of the amendment which the noble Lord has moved, which was debated at length in another place, would be to prevent the Secretary of State from using the up-rating method which was used at the last two upratings. Instead, full price protection of the combined child benefit and child dependency increase would be required. In fact, the method to be used at the uprating means less than this when the child benefit increase is taken from the dependency increase for children.
This is a very technical matter, as the noble Lord has already indicated, and I should like to try to put the issues as simply as I can. This year, the uprated national insurance child dependency increases are being reduced by the amount of uprating of child ben-fit. The method that has been used is one that was used in 1980 and, indeed, in 1977. So it is entirely in line with the law and is not being used for the first time
Over the two upratings, 1980 and 1981, total child support as defined in the amendment, will have risen from £5.70 a week with short-term benefits and £11·10

559
a week with long-term benefits, to £6·05 for the short term and £12·95 for the long term respectively. At the same time, the rates of supplementary benefit on account of children have gone up substantially; in particular, with the changes made in November last year. I should like to emphasise that these have given full price protection—indeed, the increases in percentage terms range from 21 per cent. to 52 per cent. The biggest increase is in the scale rate for the youngest children, which rose from £5·20 to £7·30 in November 1980, and will go up again to £7·90 next November.
As the noble Lord said—and, indeed, an assurance was given by my honourable friend Mrs. Chalker in another place—there is a fair measure of agreement on the desirability, in principle, at any rate, as a long-term objective, of having the same child support available to people whether they are in work or out of work. The short-term national insurance dependency increase—80p from next November—has reached a level at which this objective is foreseeable as a practicality. In terms of simplification, and as a sensible allocation of resources, it will probably be felt that this process ought not to be halted at this point.
So, in asking your Lordships to reject this amendment, I would emphasise the fact that the Government, far from penalising the poorest families, have in real terms improved their position and, at the same time, taken a further and significant step towards the simplification of this complicated social security system. I am sure that we can all agree on that, because this is a complex matter. But I should like to emphasise once again that we are, by deliberate choice, helping the poorest families in this regard.
The noble Lord also spoke to Amendment No. 14, and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if, at this stage, I say something about child benefit. We announced an increase of 50p, taking the rate to £5·25 next November. We have given an undertaking that we will fully protect the November 1980 rate, and it meets in full the commitment given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services last July that, subject to economic and other circumstances, we would maintain the real value of child benefit. This increase will cost £275 million net in a full year. It is the most that the country and the Government can afford in the present difficult economic situation. I, for one, should have liked to see more, but it is very important, because it shows the Government's concern to give help to all families through the child benefit scheme.
Finally, may I comment in detail on Amendment No. 14, and make a general point about the Social Security Advisory Committee? The committee has established good relations with a wide range of representative organisations, and I understand that members of the committee have been visiting social security offices before they launch their first major public initiative. They will be monitoring how the new supplementary benefits scheme is working, drawing on the experience of the department and of representative bodies who have been asked to provide evidence to it.
We believe that we must give the committee all the help it needs, but we do not want to start loading it
560
with major new studies of the kind envisaged in this amendment without proper consideration of the other priorities competing for its attention. The committee have already chosen family support, together with benefits for long-term unemployed people and for disabled people as their key interests for 1981. The committee will no doubt comment on these important issues in their first annual report. I suggest that it would not be wise for us to try to tell them what the format of their work should be at this early stage. We have already said that the committee hope to produce this and subsequent annual reports in time for them to be available in the Budget debates and succeeding discussions.
With these comments on both Amendment No. 14 and Amendment No. 15, I hope I have been able to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: So far as Amendment No. 14 is concerned, I fully understand the point which the noble Baroness has made. I do not want to be unreasonable about it. There is a limit to what advisory committees can cope with at any one time, so I withdraw Amendment No. 14 completely and absolutely. Turning to Amendment No. 15, as the noble Baroness has said the position is very complicated. She has certainly given me a great deal of food for thought. I shall withdraw that, too, for further consideration. It is a matter that one cannot rush into in a quick debate of this kind. One needs to be fully informed. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw Amendments Nos. 14 and 15.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause I agreed to.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Review
The Secretary of State shall review the relationship of the Retail Price Index (as at present constituted) to the needs of Social Security Beneficiaries and shall submit to Parliament a revised index based on such needs.").
The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble colleague Lady Jeger, who is undertaking certain matters which would interest me if I had the time, I beg to move Amendment No. 16, which I hope is couched in parliamentary draftsman's terms. I drafted it myself. It is based on the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Jeger during the Second Reading debate. A great deal of argument is taking place—in fact, there has been argument this afternoon—on what indices shall be used for various purposes.
Without forcing the issue—we are not asking the Government to make sensational moves—we believe that there is a case for a general review. Having had this review, the Minister will in due course report to Parliament. The present situation on indices is mixed. Therefore I recommend the Committee to accept the amendment. I hope the Government will give me the shock of my life by doing so.
Baroness Young: I must begin by expressing a certain degree of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace

561
of Coslany, who finds himself, in this complicated Bill, suddenly having to move an amendment of this kind. I think he will understand that in our discussion of Amendment No. 6 we went into the question of what index of prices is to be used for determining what the rise in prices in a given year actually is. I should like to assure him, because he asked the specific question, that the measurement of price changes is kept under review.
Other indices besides the retail price index are available. It has been mooted that we should look at others but the traditional practice of successive Governments has stood the test of time. It is true that the general retail prices index does not cover all social security beneficiaries. Pensioner households in which at least three-quarters of the total income is derived from national insurance or similar pensions are excluded from the households covered by the index. But it covers the majority of social security beneficiaries, including about half of pensioner households, together with other households receiving unemployment benefit, sickness and invalidity benefit, supplementary allowances and other benefits.
Pensioner households excluded from the general index are covered by two other indices: that for one-pensioner households and that for two-pensioner households. However one must accept that the pensioner indices are limited in scope. In particular, for technical reasons they exclude housing costs and are only published quarterly. It would not be appropriate to uprate benefits in line with an index which did not cover housing. In any event, if we compare movements in the general index, excluding housing, with the pensioner indices, over the years they have diverged little.
As I indicated in an earlier answer, for three years the pensioner indices rose by less than the general index, excluding housing, so it would be very much a question of taking one year on one index, which would perhaps show a higher rise in prices and in another year a lower rise in prices. In these circumstances, I think that the Government (indeed, the noble Lord's Government when they were in office did so) are quite right to accept the retail price index.
The noble Lord's point that changes should be kept under review is very important, and I understand that this is the case. What is important in maintaining the general acceptability of the retail price index is that its method of construction—what it measures and how it is compiled—is decided by the Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee which includes members from the TUC, the CBI and from trade and consumer organisations, as well as leading academic experts and Government statisticians. The Committee reports when necessary to the Secretary of State for Employment with recommendations for changes. The index is accepted as a reliable and accurate method of measuring the changes in the cost of living.
I hope that this reassurance will meet the point which the noble Lord has made on the price index and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Jeger: I apologise for the fact that I did not hear the beginning of the reply of the noble Baroness. However, I did hear her say that the previous Government had agreed that to link pensions to the retail price index was the best answer. May I
562
point out that the policy of the previous Government was to link pensions to average national earnings or to the price index, whichever was the higher. It is the breaking of that link with average earnings which has caused so much hardship and confusion. In view of the fact that nobody seems to be able to find a sensible retail price index, may I ask the Minister whether or not it would be worth looking at this again?
Baroness Young: I think that the noble Baroness has raised a quite separate point from the one raised in the amendment. However, this is the Committee stage and of course she is perfectly entitled to do so. We have been over the fairly well worn ground of the Government's decision to link pensions to prices and not to earnings. As the noble Baroness will be aware, it was not always easy for her Government to keep up pensions against earnings. There was an earnings shortfall which was made good in November 1979, and there was a shortfall against prices which was not made good in 1979. If one goes back through the years one finds that at different times Governments have been faced with difficult economic circumstances and that they have been unable to do as much as they would have wished.
On the question of keeping up with prices, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will feel that there is a degree of agreement between all parties that the retail price index is the index to be used, in particular as I understand that it reports regularly, unlike the pensioners' index. It is drawn up on the advice of this advisory committee which must obviously consider all the matters which are regarded as appropriate to be included in the index. Even if any of us might have views about the appropriateness of one or other of the items in the index—and I must honestly confess that sometimes I have looked at it and have been rather surprised—nevertheless it does cover the broad spectrum of what are regarded as items which should be included in this kind of index, which is used as a measure for so many other matters apart from pensions. If we were not to use this for pensions I think we could be criticised for not using one which has a national acceptability over so many different Government departments.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: On behalf of the noble Baroness, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Take up of Benefits
At the same time as the Secretary of State makes any statement under the provisions of section 1(1) he shall make or cause to be made in each House of Parliament a statement of the actions which he is taking and propose to take to acquaint persons eligible to claim benefits to which they are entitled, their right to claim and to encourage them to do so.").
The noble Lord said: This is quite an important new clause—I say that with the greatest of respect to myself! In fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, or her advisers will have spotted, it is a modified version of an amendment that was moved in another place. In my candid opinion the one moved in another place asked for too much of the Government. It wanted

563
statistics and all sorts of things which would take up much valuable time. I personally realised that it would be pointless to ask the Government to produce masses of statistics in the present situation.
Having said that, I would say that this simple clause deals with the issue of social security benefits, means-tested benefits where, except in the case of child benefit, the take-up of such benefits is not as high as is socially desirable. It means that a considerable number of people are not availing themselves of benefits to which they are fully entitled and which in fact they need. In the case of supplementary pensions it is estimated to be in the region of 700,000 people or more. In most cases the take-up is about 70 to 75 per cent. of those entitled. Some are just a shade lower.
I frankly admit that the situation is not new, as previous Governments have not tackled the problem effectively. Perhaps the most worrying instance is the failure to take up the attendance allowance, the benefit available for disabled people who need frequent or constant assistance from others. One could quote a number of other examples, but I shall not take the time of the Committee to do so. It is a situation which is worrying many voluntary bodies such as the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, the Disability Alliance and others, including—as I indicated in my Second Reading speech—the local authorities.
There is the distinct possibility that many more fully entitled people will not claim because of the fear generated by the Government's anti-scrounger campaign. I can understand the Government taking action against fraud but it is being carried out on a scale which may put people off. I say "may" because it is my opinion that it would do so, but there may he a difference of opinion on that. It may be arguable but it is my own experience as a former constituency MP that many people, honest and straightforward, are sensitive and fearful of authority when placed in the position of needing help.
With elderly people particularly, pride enters into the question. To them it is seeking charity or public assistance; to them their financial affairs are private and straitened circumstances produce an agony and a determination to manage and to do without. That is the position. I go right back to my youth, when I became one of the unemployed in the depression of the early years after the First World War. I was faced with going on to the dole and my pride would not let me, but my mother had to have some help. So I went to a company and got a job addressing in my room envelopes for sale catalogues, working day and night, with my mother keeping the fire burning in the grate to keep me warm, because it was in the winter. At the end of the week I had earned 18s.—which was one shilling less than the dole, but I had maintained my pride. Of course my mother had expended money on maintaining the fire. I only mentioned that, not in any soft way of my own experience, but because this is the attitude particularly in the minds of many elderly people, and it is worrying.
Leaflets and forms are not always simple. Some are all right, but not all elderly people can really understand what on earth it is all about. Some of them are just scared stiff. Many of us have had to help people to fill in such forms and to get advice. I readily accept
564
that the remedy is not an easy one, and the new clause does not attempt to tie the Secretary of State down to exact detail. Consultations with voluntary bodies, local authorities and others would be worth while; and perhaps a little more help from the media, with more attention on the needy rather than on scroungers, which has been a tendency which has caused a great deal of public alarm and Government reaction, would be very much worth while. Without running the Government into a great deal of expenditure there is something here about which we could all get together and do something.
I am not introducing the point as such, but some people will say that they will not accept this simply because it will cost more money. But that is not the point at issue. I think the noble Baroness and her colleague, who are very kindly people at heart, will accept that there are a number of very worrying cases of people who have not taken up that to which they are entitled. Deal with the scroungers, yes, and deal with them ruthlessly. I have no argument about that and I would not disagree; but here is something where we can have a joint operation, whether we be in public service or volunteers in social organisations. We can do something about a social problem that exists and something which I am sure, in the way in which I have worded this amendment, the Government can accept. If the wording is wrong I will change it, but I do not think they will disagree with the principle; indeed, I shall be very surprised if they say otherwise. So I sincerely hope that this clause, which I am sure in general terms is acceptable to all sides of the Committee, will have some acceptance from the Government, and that is the very least I ask. I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: The noble Lord has raised a very important point. I entirely agree with him on the principle, and certainly I know that all my colleagues feel as strongly as he does that the take-up of benefits should be improved in any way possible.
The amendment would have the effect of requiring a statement in each House, at the time of uprating, of the action which the Secretary of State proposed to take to acquaint people of their rights and benefits and to encourage them to claim. Whereas the amendment that was debated in another place on 13th May was concerned only with certain benefits, this amendment has a wider effect, requiring the statement to cover all benefits for which the Secretary of State is responsible. The statement envisaged on take-up of benefits would have no immediate relevance to the up-rating of benefits required by Clause I of the Bill. That Parliament which provides entitlement to certain benefits at certain levels wants people who are entitled to them to get those benefits is undoubtedly true. I confirm once more that all my colleagues share that desire.
The action taken to encourage people to claim specific benefits or benefits generally is kept under constant consideration. However, the uprating announcement is not the best time to air all this, and the Government consider it more appropriate for such information to be made available at other times and in other ways—for example, in relation to specific benefits as the occasion arises. A statement on take-up made at the time of the uprating announcement

565
would not add anything to the strenuous efforts we are making to ensure that people claim benefits to which they are entitled. I should like to repeat that for the noble Lord opposite; we do make strenuous efforts, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will remember the efforts that were, and are, made in the department. We are trying all the time to increase the take-up of benefits. The Government would always be glad to have any suggestions on matters of this kind.
We do not think there is any need to have this amendment in the Bill. I am going to ask the Committee not to accept it, and I should like to make one other point. The noble Lord referred to fraud and abuse. I know that it is the case that some disabled people actually fear that others are abusing the system, and that deters them from claiming benefits. This is the other side of the coin on the point which the noble Lord made. In many ways I sympathise very much with the aim of the noble Lord's amendment, but I shall ask the Committee to reject it.
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, decides what course to pursue, perhaps I may say something else on this matter. It seems to me there is one aspect of this very important question of take-up which was not referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in moving his new clause, or by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, in replying. All my experience of investigating the extent of take-up of different benefits—a subject in which I have been deeply involved over many years—has shown me that time and again we find very substantial local and regional variations. I think that that is a most important point. It is not actually referred to in the clause, though I know there is nothing in the new clause which would preclude the Secretary of State from collecting differential figures from different districts. I have no doubt that steps will be taken by whatever party happens to be Government; I believe that there is general concern about the low level of take-up of certain benefits, and, if Parliament goes to the trouble of voting money for the specific help of certain people, it should obviously take steps to make sure that those people do get that help. If we take things like the attendance allowance, the invalid care allowance, there is no doubt in the early days there were enormous differences in the extent of take-up between one area and another. If statistics are to be collected from time to time, as I very much hope they will be—and I am absolutely certain that, whether or not this new clause is incorporated into the Bill, Ministers, either in your Lordships' House or in another place, will be required to make statements because they will make statements in reply to questions which will undoubtedly be put to them—I very much hope that, those collecting them will make a point of collecting differential statistics, because I think there may be some message to be learned there.
I have been concerned in this field mainly through presenting for 11 years on a citizens' advice basis a television programme in the Granada area. We were able at one time to achieve a situation where the take-up of family income supplement in our area was double that of any other area in the country. That was mainly because we went to great lengths to explain
566
to people how they should apply, to whom they should apply, and so on. At one time we were looking very closely into certain forms of assistance provided by social services departments—which is perhaps slightly out of the scope of this Bill—for example, various steps taken under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Act. We were able to collect differential statistics and publish them on television, showing, for example, the number of telephones installed in Salford, in Oldham, in Bury, in different districts, and it was quite remarkable that, when we had shown that one area was right down at the bottom of the league, within no time at all it was up near the top. Once those figures are published and publicised it is quite remarkable how quickly the people concerned take action to remedy the situation.
My experience in investigating these differences between one locality and another shows that they relate to a number of things. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has referred to the difficulty of making Government publications readable. I think it is very difficult to make a leaflet wholly readable to the people concerned, because it has to be accurate and therefore has to be couched in terms not necessarily very readily assimilated by ordinary folk. So there is a difficulty centrally. But locally there may very well be a difficulty arising from the attitudes of individual people who act in this field. I do not wish to level any criticism at all at some of the excellent people who work away in supplementary benefit departments in different parts of the country. But I do think you will find a close correlation between the level of take-up in a certain area and the attitude and demeanour of people in the office in that area. I think one will find a correlation between the actual number of health visitors recruited in particular areas and the take-up of certain benefits about which it is the duty of the health visitor to advise patients, for instance, by asking when calling at a patient's home, "Have you applied for this or for that"? The extent of the take-up will be very much related to the attitude, behaviour and general conduct of the people involved in the whole area. I merely make this extra point.
I am entirely in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has said, and I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, has said in regard to the Government's intention. But I do urge most strongly that, when they collect statistics on these matters and report them to the House, they can do nothing but good if they also report differential statistics which will show levels of success in certain areas and levels of failure in others. If the Government do that openly and loudly, it will be remarkable how quickly the different extremes will level themselves up.
Baroness Phillips: We do all accept that the generation we are talking about is a very proud generation, and I think that that is one of the difficulties in getting over to them that this is something to which they are entitled and not something that appears to be charity. It is very significant in London how they will quite cheerfully apply for their bus passes and their rail cards. This, I think, is because they do not see them in the same way as they still see supplementary benefit. The other difficulty it seems to me we have to overcome is that once you are brought within the net of the Health

567
Service you will know all about benefits; the social worker will tell you, the doctor will tell you. But a lot of people go on collecting their pension, not troubling their doctor or anybody in the social security or the health service. This is the group which is the most difficult to get at, and they will continue to struggle on on what they have rather than seeking extra help. I have no ideas on how we should reach them, but would merely say that perhaps we should look a little more at why certain groups are very successful in take-up and others not so successful.
Baroness Faithfull: May I add one or two points? First, it is extraordinarily difficult to get some people to take up benefits and there is nothing you can do which will make them take up. I might also perhaps suggest to my noble friend that one of the very real difficulties is that the Citizens' Advice Bureaux are the bodies best able to give advice, and many of them at the moment are very short of money and partly short of staff. Perhaps that is something we could give consideration to.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I am very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness who has just spoken and to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and my noble friend Lady Phillips because they have added fuel to the case which I have made out. I am also grateful for the expected sympathy from the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, because I knew that he personally would express sympathy. I think that I was a bit naughty as regards the Second Reading because they both thought that I was attacking them. They are people with their hearts in the right place, but they have a rotten Bill to deal with. That is the trouble.
I rather gathered from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, on this important subject—and it is obvious that we are all at one somewhere or other on this particular clause—that it is tainted with reference to Section 1. Section 1 is a nasty section in the Bill. It occurs to me, with my ingenuity and with the help of people who are far more expert than I am, that if I removed, the taint of Section 1 and just put down a simple amendment on Report, there would be no objection to this going into the Bill. I think it is rather important that it does go in, because we must draw attention to the problem. It is a constant problem and I certainly agree that it is a regional problem—it depends on the type of people with whom one is dealing. If the Government accept that I should be given the chance to think about the matter and to remove the taint of Section 1—I regard it as a taint, but I do not know their personal opinion—then I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I should like some reassurance.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment I should like to point out that my noble friend Lady Faithfull mentioned the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. The director recently met the Social Security Advisory Committee to discuss common interests in this area. I think that that is the type of move that we can make that will really help in this matter. On the question of disablement benefits, there is now a new poster in post offices featuring
568
Brian Rix with a handicapped child. The DHSS regional information offices play an important role. There is a lot of movement taking place as regards this matter. I can see that the noble Lord may wish to come back to this matter on Report, but I am not sure that to have the Bill amended will help tremendously as regard the activities which are going on to try to get people to take up benefits.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I think it will, because, if we associate the Secretary of State and the Government with it, there will be far more effect than just leaving it to the voluntary organisations. I admire the work of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. They are worried about this situation. I have had their literature. The other organisations are also worried. I want to associate the Minister and the Government with what they are doing. The amendment is not asking the Government to pay out money, although the CAB and other people could do with a little more income. I want the support of the Minister and the Government and I do not care whether it is this Government or a future Government, the party label of which I have no idea at present. My point is that I want the Government associated with this. Therefore, I shall bring the matter back on Report and I shall see what I can do, with the advice of other colleagues here, to get something to deal with this very important question. This is the first non-arguable debate that we have had in this Committee stage. I am very keen about it and I hope that the House will do something about it in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for the moment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Benefits for the Long-Term Unemployed
The Secretary of State shall request the Social Security Advisory Committee to report on the adequacy of current benefit provision for the long-term unemployed with special reference to the level and duration of unemployment benefit and the level of supplementary benefit paid to the long-term unemployed and this report shall be laid before Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 18. This amendment is a very modest amendment—in fact, in my view it is far too modest considering the enormity of the subject. However, we thought that if we asked for something small we might get a crumb or two, as we have had such an unsuccessful afternoon. The amendment asks only that:
"The Secretary of State shall request the Social Security Advisory Committee to report on the adequacy of current benefit provision for the long-term unemployed with special reference to the level and duration of unemployment benefit and the level of supplementary benefit paid to the long-term unemployed".
We are quite well aware that the Social Security Advisory Committee must have a degree of independence. It was set up as a very experienced body to get on with its work and I am sure that we shall be told that it is, of course, already looking at this problem. However, I do not think that that goes far enough. At the end of the day, however, many experienced and wise committees we set up, it is Parliament which must take responsibility. We are only asking this

569
afternoon that there shall be written into the Bill a request for a report to be made to Parliament on this subject.
I am encouraged in that request because, reading through the last report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission before it was dissolved, paragraph 3.20, on the subject of the long-term unemployed, states:
"We regard this discrimination against the unemployed and their families as wrong and its removal is our highest priority for the improvement of the supplementary benefits scheme".
I very much hope that the successors to the commission have taken that on board, as I am sure they will have done, and therefore I cannot see any possible objection to writing it into the Bill so that it is clearly a statutory responsibility to make such a report.
Why is it so important? Reference was made earlier this afternoon to the question of unemployment and I must emphasise again that it is the question of the long-term unemployed that concerns us so greviously. In January 1980 there were over 335,000 people who had been unemployed for over a year. In January this year the figure had increased to 430,000 people who had been out of work consistently for over a year. We have been worried often in your Lordships' House about the young unemployed. I find that 10 per cent. of the unemployed under 25 years have been out of work for over a year. We all know some of the sad social consequences of the long-term unemployment of young people. In the age group of 25 to 54 years, 20 per cent. of the unemployed have been without a job for over a year. Sadly, in the over 55 age group, 37 per cent. have been without a job for over a year.
When we look at those long periods of unemployment we must wonder why long-term benefits which apply to the disabled and other recipients of social security benefits, are not made available for the long-term unemployed who are specifically excluded from the long-term benefits which other beneficiaries are entitled to claim. Looking at the picture as a whole, with the phasing-out of earnings-related supplements, the position becomes very sad and worrying indeed.
There is the added hardship to these families of the less than generous uprating of children's additions. In my calculation, for an unemployed family with two children the changes that have already taken place have done them out of about £145 a year. That has happened against the background pressure on local authorities, the welfare services and the social serivces to cut their budgets, to make even less and less provision and to make less of what one might call "the social wage" available to those whose actual financial income has already suffered.
Asking only for a report means that we hope that the Government will come back when they have received this report—and may it be soon—and resolve to make some legislative changes that will increase the long-term benefits to include the unemployed. I am sure that everyone here is sympathetic and imaginative and can think of what it must mean to be out of work year in, year out. At first there is a shock; often there is some redundancy pay to help; sometimes there are savings to help. But as the year goes on, and the next year and the next year, the savings disappear and the redundancy money goes, and real poverty bites, and it bites at the whole family. It increases; it is a sort of geometric progression because things wear out and inflation means
570
that they cost more to replace; the children get bigger and their clothes cost more. As they get older at school they want to join in more activities; they want to go on school journeys and they want more money in their pockets for their evening pastimes of sport and recreation, which we all agree that they need and deserve and which make such a difference in their lives.
We then reach a situation where the savings have gone and where, in fact, a man gets no more after he has been out of work for four or five years; how many years has a man of 55 to wait before there is any real improvement in his income to help him catch up on the fact that household equipment is wearing out and that life, in all sorts of ways, is wearing out for him? We would not expect a car to stay in good condition without any servicing, yet we seem to expect men and women to carry on without the wherewithal to keep their homes going and to keep their lives even in some modest state of enrichment and pleasure.
Earlier I gave some figures for the number of people who have been out of work for over a year. For those who were registered in April as being out of work for more than six months, which is long enough, especially for young people, the figure was over 1 million. I only remind your Lordships of the gravity of these figures because they back up our argument in asking for at least a report on what is happening to these people and to their children, how they are managing; and what are the adverse effects on their lives and the effects on other branches of the social services which might be forced into higher expenditure when the fabric of home life breaks down. It seems to me that we are always more ready to put a child into care because of some family breakdown than to spend a little more to prevent that family breakdown. All of us who do any work in this field know of many families where the stains of long-term unemployment have led to severe breakdowns either in health or in matrimonial happiness.
In discussing this with employers, I have found that the longer a man has been out of work, the less likely he is to get another job. The other day an employer told me that if two men applied for a job, with all things being equal, and one had been out of work for a year and the other for three months, he would always take the one who had only been out three months because he was afraid that the first man, with over a year sitting around at home, would have lost his work pattern and would have become demoralised. He said that he finds himself wondering, subconsciously, whether the fact that the chap could not get a job for over a year meant that he was not up to much. The employer admitted that this was totally unfair and totally subjective; but I am sure that if one employer thinks like that, others must have the same kind of reaction.
Even more important, the unemployed themselves feel like it. I have spoken to men of 55 and 56 years of age who do not believe that they will get another job. They go off in a dreary, sad way when there is a chance of an interview, with very little confidence and with even less hope. Therefore, there are many reasons why we cannot simply tackle long-term unemployment as a fact that a man has been out of work for a little longer than another man. It is a separate social problem which eats deep into family life and which causes all sorts of side effects which I do not believe happen in very short-term unemployment, but which

571
certainly happen in areas of the country where people are increasingly feeling not only that they have to change their jobs, but that they will never get a job again.
Of course, we know that this is all tied up with other problems of economic recovery. Meanwhile we have the Social Security Advisory Committee at work, and all we are asking is that this part of their work should be put into statute so that it is laid on them as a duty. I am sure that this would be helpful to them, and it will at least be something that this Government can say they are doing for the long-term unemployed. For too long the unemployed have been used as a tool in this Government's economic policies. They have already paid grievously with loss of jobs and broken careers. Certainly the sort of help which they so badly need is little enough to ask, and I very much hope that, instead of putting a heavier load on them, the Government will accept this modest amendment and ask the Social Security Advisory Committee to report at the earliest possible time, and later on a regular basis. I beg to move.
Lord Winstanley: I should like to raise one specific matter arising from the new clause of the noble Baroness. If I raise it now, it might be for the convenience of the Committee if the noble Baroness or noble Lord who is to reply could take on board this point as well. I am concerned with the narrow point—and I share the view of the noble Baroness in general about this—of the effect of the savings rule with regard to supplementary benefits for the long-term unemployed. I have encountered this so often that I thought that if I raised it now I might receive an answer.
Once a person who has been long-term unemployed is not entitled to national insurance unemployment benefit, his only recourse is to fall back on supplementary benefit; of course, if his or her savings exceed £2,000—which I think is the appropriate figure at the moment—by £1 or £2, that is an absolute bar to the receipt of supplementary benefit. I am responsible for advising many of these people and it seems curious that if a chap tells me that he has £2,025 in a building society savings account, which is the remains of his redundancy payment or something of that kind, I have to tell him that when he runs out of national insurance unemployment benefit in a fortnight's time he will be disqualified from receiving supplementary benefit, and that the sensible thing for him to do is to go out and spend £50 or £30, or whatever is the appropriate figure.
I accept that once there is a savings limit there will always be demarcation difficulties of this kind with anyone who is very close to the limit. However, this is a problem that arises very much more now, because not only are there more and more people who are long-term unemployed, but we are tending to get more and more long-term unemployed people who have certain savings which have sometimes been eroded to the point of being very close to the savings limit. I know that the savings rule excludes the value of personal possessions, the family house, chattels and so on, but with this new situation of a greatly increased number of long-term unemployed people, I just wonder whether those responsible for this inquiry might look
572
at the present operation of the savings rule in relation to entitlement to supplementary benefit.
Baroness Young: The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, spoke to Amendment No. 18 and the precise point in that amendment is, in fact, a request that the Social Security Advisory Committee should report on the adequacy of the current provision for the long-term unemployed. The principle here is very similar to the principle which we debated under Amendment No. 14, which was a request to the advisory committee to consider the adequacy or otherwise of child benefits. But in this particular case, I do not believe that there is in fact a need for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to ask the Social Security Advisory Committee to consider matters, because they are already considering them without any prompting from Ministers.
I recognise the sincerity of the noble Baroness's views, and the matters that she has described are of great importance. I do not think that any of us in your Lordships' Committee today would dispute that, and I am not in the least surprised that the committee have decided that they should take a high place among the many questions to which they could address themselves. The Government are glad that the committee are studying the issues, and we shall naturally welcome their considered advice upon them.
That being so, it seems to me that it is not necessary to include this new clause in the Bill, but I do not necessarily accept that that is just a conclusive reason for rejecting it, and it might be helpful if I go on to say that we have established the committee, and that if we went on telling it, certainly within Acts of Parliament what it ought to be studying it would limit its freedom of action. Once this happened, after a period of time many of your Lordships would quite rightly get up and say, "What is the point of having an advisory committee if you keep telling it what to do and not allowing the committee to advise as it thinks appropriate to do"? So, there is an issue of principle; but on the particular point of the amendment, this has actually been met by the Government.
As the whole question of the long-term unemployed has been raised, I should like to make a further comment on this issue, because it is a matter of concern to everyone when the numbers are unfortunately as high at they are. That was why when we had to make savings of contributory unemployment benefit we made sure that the level of provision for long-term unemployed people from supplementary benefit was not affected, and thus the position of those worse off has in fact been safeguarded, for you will know that the higher long-term scale rate recognises the fact that after being on supplementary benefit for some time claimants can be expected to have extra expenses, of the sort described very movingly by the noble Baroness, over and above the normal day-to-day living expenses provided for by the short-term scale rates.
In the nature of things, pensioners particularly are long-term claimants and they get the long-term rates at the beginning of their claim. Apart from unemployed people, all other claimants, such as the long-term sick and single parents, move on to the long-term rate after one year on supplementary benefit. The

573
Government accept that there is an argument for extending the long-term rate to unemployed people. We regret very much that because the change would cost well over £100 million at current benefit rates we cannot consider it until the financial situation has improved.
The noble Baroness's Government were well aware of the arguments for such a change, but unfortunately they were unable to find the money to carry it out. What we have managed to achieve even in the current straitened economic circumstances is to reduce the qualifying period for the long-term scale rate from two years to one year.
May I make one final comment on this matter. We are all very concerned about the whole question of unemployment. This is something which unfortunately is now widespread throughout the industrialised world, and it has in fact been growing in this country for a number of years. Whatever the advisory committee may or may not recommend on the scale rates for unemployment benefit, this is not in fact going to create new jobs. Of course, at the end of the day, it is the creation of new jobs, real jobs, which will solve this problem, not unemployment benefit, however generous that might be. I am sure that is again a point on which we would all agree. I hope that on the particular point of her amendment the noble Baroness will feel that I have met this case—it is being considered—and that she will feel that she can withdraw her amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, raised a quite separate point about the operation of the savings rule. I am aware of the difficulties. Whenever there is a cut-off point for capital there is always the difficulty of those on the margin who are clearly affected by it. As this is a slightly separate point, might I write to him if I have any further information about it, because I do not think that I can go further on that this afternoon, except to acknowledge his point and to acknowledge the difficulties which would arise wherever the cut-off point came.
Baroness Jeger: Can the noble Baroness give the Committee any information as to when the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee might be expected?
Baroness Young: I am afraid I do not have that information before me, but if I can let the noble Baroness have any information before the next stage of the Bill I will do so.
Baroness Jeger: In anticipation of receiving that useful information, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Long-term Benefits
Within six months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State shall consider and report to Parliament whether persons who have been in receipt of a national insurance benefit for longer than 12 months and whose resources are less than their requirements as measured by the long-term supple-
574
mentary benefit rates (including housing requirements and any additional requirements) should be deprived of entitlement to supplementary benefit by virtue of the fact that they do not qualify for supplementary benefit at the ordinary rate".)
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause, Amendment No. 19 on the Marshalled List. This clause deals with what is generally known as the invalidity trap. The trap arises because many invalidity pensioners have an income which is too high for them to qualify for supplementary benefit at the ordinary rate, yet it falls below what they would receive were they eligible for supplementary benefit at the long-term rate. Because they do not qualify for the former they can never qualify for the latter, though their situation is a long-term one and their income is less than the minimum regarded by the Government as necessary for people in that situation.
The 5 per cent. abatement of invalidity benefit in 1980 reduced its value relative to the long-term rate of supplementary benefit, and will therefore have increased the number of people who were caught in the trap. Even before the 5 per cent. abatement the Government's estimate was that the people involved numbered about 100,000 individuals. The invalidity trap has many ramifications for those caught in it. The total financial help forgone in a particular case will depend on the particular circumstances, but it could be substantial. The long-term rate of supplementary benefit is intended to represent the minimum acceptable level of income for people who are unable to work and whose situation is a long-term one. Yet at least 100,000 chronically sick and disabled people who are in such a situation are receiving lessthan they would receive if they were eligible for the long-term rate.
There can be no justification for refusing to extend entitlement to the long-term rate of supplementary benefit for those who are now caught in the trap. The Government cannot justify the position. In fact, they do not attempt to, but have indicated that they will put it right when the economic situation permits. We have heard that so often. In other words, that it would cost too much for the moment. The £15 million involved is only 7½ per cent. of the £200 million saving resulting from Clause 1 of the Social Security Bill in a full year, and a mere £1 million more than the amount saved in a full year on invalidity benefit alone as a result of the 1 per cent. clawback.
That is the situation. The Government do not deny that the situation exists. They say that it will be put right when the economic situation permits. I would submit that this situation is one that does not permit of waiting for some future date if and when the economic situation allows it. I submit to the Committee that here is an outstanding moral case for the Government to think again and accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: The noble Lord has drawn attention to the trap about which we have heard so much, and it is a matter of great concern to all noble Lords. The subject was discussed in some detail at the Committee and Report stages of this Bill in another place, and the problem arises, as the noble Lord explained to the Committee, because entitlement to any one of the three benefits mentioned may prevent some people, depending on their circumstances, from ever

575
qualifying for the higher long-term rate of supplementary benefit. This is because the level of their invalidity benefit and other resources are higher than their ordinary supplementary benefit requirements, and so they do not qualify for this benefit. This in turn means that they can never be assessed at the higher long-term rate, for which there is a "qualifying period" of one year on the ordinary rate of benefit.
The cost of counting periods on these benefits towards qualification for the long-term rate of benefit would be quite large. The best estimate we can make is that about 100,000 people would become entitled to the long-term rate after a year on incapacity benefits, and that at current levels of take-up about 70,000 people might be expected to claim. At November 1980 benefit rates, the annual cost of this would be about £15 million a year, but one must add the administrative costs to the department, which are estimated at about 340 additional staff in the first year and 300 in subsequent years.
The Government are well aware of the problem. Only last November, when the qualifying period for the long-term rate was reduced from two years to one, we relaxed the rules to enable 16 and 17 year-old recipients of non-contributory invalidity pension to count periods in receipt of NCIP towards the qualifying period for the long-term rate. We need no prompting to look at this problem. However, I must remind the Committee that the Government's resources are limited and that before we can decide on a major change of this sort we must first generate the wealth to pay for it. When the economy is on a sound footing once more we can decide on priorities for change. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security said in another place:
"I assure my honourable friend and the Committee that this issue is very much in our minds. It is something with which we have the utmost sympathy and we intend to take action as soon as circumstances permit".
I cannot say more than that; that is exactly the position the Government are in.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: Frankly, that was a shocking answer for the Minister to give. The Government admit the whole position and the noble Lord agreed that the financial involvement was not great. He said it would involve a few more civil servants. The Government have a considerable number checking on scroungers. Why not, in all sincerity, put a few on the task of putting right what the Government themselves admit is a situation that is wrong? I have already given the figures; it is a negligible amount of the saving the Government intend to make, anyway, under Clause 1. There is no substantial argument the Government can advance against the amendment. They say all will be put right at some time in the future, but meantime the deserving people suffer. I cannot accept the Government's attitude and must divide the Committee.
6.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 98.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Barrington, V.

Listowel, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Birk, B.

Maelor, L.

Bishopston, L.

Mishcon, L.

Blease, L.

Molloy, L.

Blyton, L.

Peart, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Brockway, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Rochester, L.

Chitnis, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Scanlon, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Segal, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Shinwell, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Foot, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Stone, L.

Gardiner, L.

Tordoff, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Underhill, L.

Gosford, E.

Vernon, L.

Hampton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hanworth, V.

Walston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

Winstanley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hereford, V.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hives, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Alport, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Auckland, L.

Kemsley, V.

Avon, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bellwin, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Belstead, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Bessborough, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Bolton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Loudoun, C.

Burton, L.

Lyell, L.

Cairns, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chelwood, L.

Mancroft, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mansfield, E.

Cockfield, L.

Marley, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mills, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Mottistone, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Croft, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Northchurch, B.

Daventry, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

de Clifford, L.

Orkney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Digby, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Renton, L.

Eccles, V.

Rochdale, V.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

St. Germans, E.

Faithfull, B.

Sandford, L.

Ferrier, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Forester, L.

Savile, L.

Fortescue, E.

Shannon, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sharples, B.

Gainford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gisborough, L.

Soames, L.

Gowrie, E.

Spens, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Hastings, L.

Swansea, L.

Henley, L.

Swinfen, L.

577

Swinton, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Teviot, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Tranmire, L.

Westbury, L.

Vickers, B.

Young, B.

Vivian, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Take up of Child Benefits
At the same time as the Secretary of State makes any statement under the provisions of Clause 1, subsection (1) he shall cause to be published a report on the number of children for whom no child benefits are paid, because they are in the care of a local authority; and any proposals he has for altering this situation.").
The noble Lord said: This is the last amendment of the Committee stage and I have no doubt that noble Lords on the Benches opposite will be very pleased about that. The noble Baroness has another hard stint ahead of her, and I, too, shall have to be present later. Therefore, I shall now be as quick as possible. The new clause containing the amendment is a matter of interest so far as I am concerned. I shall be frank about it: I picked up the point of it from debates in another place. It is an intriguing question. The new clause deals with an anomaly affecting foster parents who do not receive child benefit for the foster child. Children who are in care do not attract child benefit because the local authority receives money from the Government via the provisions which support the rates. In other words, included in the Government's allocation to local authorities is a sum to compensate for the fact that child benefit is not paid, and in theory, and to some extent in practice, the local authority allows for this in formulating the boarding out allowance.
Unfortunately, Governments' cash allocations can get lost in other expenditure. In addition, local authorities budget for April when decisions are taken on boarding out allowances, whereas child allowance increases are effective in the following November; but boarding out allowances do not take this into account, having been already settled.
I am open to correction on this, but I would submit that it would be fairer and more practical for child allowances to be paid to foster parents for children in care, as with other children, so as to put them on the same level. There is an anomaly here; that is admitted. But apart from that—and this is a point which concerns me, since at present it is a question of rates so far as boarding allowances are concerned—what happens when the Secretary of State for the Environment imposes his threatened sanctions on some local authorities? That is another reason for some careful consideration being given to this matter. I think that it would be better to pay the foster parents the child benefit. Fostering of children is becoming increasingly popular, and it is a good thing for children to have a home background. This is a side issue of the matter that is not unimportant. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: Before answering the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany,
578
perhaps it would be convenient to the Committee and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, if I refer to an earlier matter. On Amendment No. 18 the noble Baroness asked me when the Social Security Advisory Committee was likely to report. I can now tell her that it is thought that it will report next March on this matter. It seemed to me to be helpful to clear up that point before we went any further.
The amendment now before the Committee deals with quite another matter. The regulations under the Child Benefit Act 1975 provide that child benefit is not paid for children who have been in local authority care for more than eight weeks, unless they return home each week for at least one complete day. It is also payable where a child returns home for a complete week.
Child benefit is regarded as a contribution towards the cost of a child's maintenance. Once a child leaves home to go into care, the onus of maintenance lies with the local authority, which receives Government funds for this purpose through the rate support system. It is true that an authority can require a parent to make a contribution towards a child in its care, but once the parent ceases to receive child benefit any contribution can be expected to be reduced accordingly. There are therefore no real grounds for continuing to pay benefit for children in care. It is paid for the first eight weeks to avoid the necessity of terminating or adjusting benefit for short periods of care.
I do not at present have information about the number of children in care in respect of whom benefit is not paid. This information is not available. It would be expensive to set up a procedure for obtaining it, and in the circumstances the Government do not think that the expense would he justified. I am sure the noble Lord would agree that if money is available it is better to spend it on the benefit rather than on collecting information about the benefit.
I now wish to turn to the noble Lord's other point, about fostering. This was raised in another place, and it is indeed an important point. We all accept that fostering of children is often best in the children's interests, and it is much to be encouraged. I accept that the fostering of children in care—that is, giving to these children the kind of family life that other children have—is valuable to the child and indeed to the whole community. Central Government funds go towards this, as they go towards other local authority services. But I do not think this means that central Government should by-pass the normal arrangements by substituting child benefit for part of the local authority payments to foster parents. As regards the timing of any increase in payment to foster parents, I think that this is a matter that we would want to leave to local authorities. We believe that the existing balance of payments arrangements seems to be probably about right.
There is always an argument as to whether, if the child benefit was paid, it would actually mean less in terms of general Government grants or in the amount paid by the local authority. One is trying to achieve the maximum payment for the foster parents or, alternatively the local authority home looking after the children. That would be achieved, because it looks to me as if there would be a redistribution of the money that was being paid, rather than the giving of

579
the extra to the person who was in fact looking after the child. I believe that it is for those reasons that Governments of neither political party have altered the arrangements which were agreed by Parliament under the 1975 Act. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said and for the information that she has given the Committee. This is a very interesting point and, quite frankly, I tabled the new clause simply to obtain information for myself and for the rest of the Committee. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Reciprocity with other countries]:
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Young: The reference in relation to Clause 6 is that, on page 4, lines 22 and 23 should read:
"may, instead of or in addition to making specific modifications or adaptations, provide generally that this Act shall be modified";
and, on page 5, line 3 should read:
("4) Any enactment mentioned in subsections (1) to ".
Clause 6 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and the schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Licensing (Alcohol Education and Research) Bill
6.23 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is perhaps appropriate, on a day when the Order Paper of the House includes such compassionate subjects as social security and disabled persons, that there should come before your Lordships the small Bill which is now before us, touching on another social problem, the problem of alcoholism. It is a problem, as we know—a disease—which our caring society has tried to arrest and reduce for over a century; but I believe we have failed, partly from ignorance and partly from a desire to sweep the problem under the carpet. It is a subject that most of us have encountered, from the small degree of a wee nip before one speaks here, perhaps, to the extreme case of human tragedy and misery that alcoholism can wreak; from a taste, to a habit, to an addiction—a frightening progression that can befall any of us. It is, as we know, a costly burden upon our society, when one hears the figure of over £500 million a year lost to British industry through the direct cause of alcoholism. It is, as we know, a heavy load on the National Health Service; and we see such stark statistics as drunken offences having risen 50 per cent. in the last 10 years, and drink/ driving cases, which now dramatically run at over 53,000 cases a year.
580
My Lords, what is the solution? How are we to arrest or to limit this social disease? It is a habit that in moderation can add such pleasure, but which in excess has such a bitter sting. I believe the solution is an awareness and knowledge as to the causes of alcohol-related problems, and an education as to how to tackle those problems. It is not, of course, the whole answer, but I think it is a significant step in the right direction. Successive Governments since 1869 and 1904, when there was the introduction of the Licensing Acts, have been aware that they have a social duty to combat the problem and to devote resources to meet it. We are lucky with the many charitable organisations which have assisted so magnificently over the years, particularly the National Council on Alcoholism. But there remains much to be done, and if this small Bill which I have the privilege to introduce should be accepted by the House, then much needed finance can be made available for this purpose.
The Bill arises from a recommendation by the committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale, which was set up in 1971, and which reported in 1972, to review the liquor licensing laws in England and Wales. My noble friend's committee highlighted the archaic system that they found of compensation payable to licensees whose premises had been continually licensed (or on-license as it is known) since pre-1904. A fund had been set up, raised by levies from within the industry, to pay compensation to licensees whose businesses were lost, or whose licences were terminated, for no other reason than the policy of reducing the number of licences in the area. The sum grew, and was distributed by the area licensing compensation authorities when a proper claim was submitted.
By 1972 Lord Erroll's committee found that the fund had almost outgrown its usefulness. The number of claims had diminished to a trickle, and many of the licensing area compensation authorities were not even raising levies. Nevertheless, there stood at that moment an accumulated fund of over £3·2 million, which was sitting there doing nothing, or doing virtually nothing. After very careful consultation within the industry, notably the Brewers' Society, to whose members, of course, the money really belonged, and indeed other organisations, such as the medical and charitable organisations particularly concerned with alcohol misuse, a scheme was produced to unblock this sizeable fund and put it to use. This Bill, if accepted, sets out that formula.
Clause 1 is designed to abolish the 59 current area licensing compensation authorities and dispose of their combined assets, now having risen from £3·2 million in 1972 to, I am glad to say, over £4·3 million on the latest estimate. My noble friend in fact announced the way in which the Government should like to see this money dispersed last July: that 50 per cent. of the fund should go to a new Alcohol Education and Research Fund; 25 per cent. should go to a new trust for the benefit of the licensed trade charities; and the remaining 25 per cent. should go to meet any legitimate claims from the industry—that is, the claims from the old licensees.
Clause 2 deals with the appointment of a liquidator, and Clause 3 sets out the method of transfer of the

581
funds to the liquidator. Clause 4 provides for the dissolution of the area compensation authorities and the payment of any necessary redundancy compensation to staff. Clause 5 splits up the fund as I have already described; and Clauses 6 and 7 and Schedule I establish the appointment of a council for administering this new fund, to be known as the Alcohol Education and Research Fund. Members will be drawn on a representative basis. They will be independent of Her Majesty's Government; and the council will run, I am advised, at an absolutely minimum cost. Clause 7 sets out the four objectives of the fund, and these, I am glad to say, have been drafted in consultation with the Charity Commission. I would add that the fund is not a bottomless pit. It is hoped that it will see further donations from other sources in future. I am glad to say that the Brewers' Society have already announced that they anticipate that their members will donate further substantial support to the fund.
Clause 8 deals with the trust fund for licensed trade charities, which, again, will be a self-renewing charity. Clause 9 sets out the third arm of the distribution: the fund for the repayment scheme for those eligible within the industry and who have been connected with licensed premises for the past 25 years. It will be administered by agreement with the industry, it will be wholly dispersed and the scheme of arrangements will be first presented to Parliament for its approval in the form of a statutory instrument. Clauses 10, 11, 12 and 13 and Schedule 2 are basically administrative matters dealing with and consequential upon the main purpose of the Bill.
My Lords, that is the Bill. It is a little complicated when one reads it, but understandably when one is unlocking funds for disposal one must go through many different procedures. This Bill has already been most skilfully piloted through another place by my honourable friend the Member for Harrogate. It received all-party support. It was to have been introduced into this House by my noble friend Lord Kimberley, whose work outside the House on this subject is well known. Regrettably, my noble friend could not be present, so the privilege fell to me.
This Bill comes with the blessing and agreement of the industry and the charitable organisations concerned with this subject. I have received no letters of objection. My noble friend Lord Belstead's own department has done splendid work behind the scenes to secure this Bill, so I hope it will meet with his approval. The Bill seeks to unlock the available money and to put that resource to work on education and research into this worrying social disease. It is a worthy cause and It commend it to the House.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
6.33 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on introducing this Bill and on the considerable amount of work that he has put into it. I should like to join him in commending his honourable friend the Member for Harrogate, Mr. Robert Banks, who was responsible for conducting the Bill through its stages in the other place. I join him also in the tribute he has paid to the various voluntary organisations which over the
582
years have helped to combat alcoholism.
I should like to welcome the Bill from this Bench, although the need for it is less welcome, as the noble Earl himself has indicated. It is a very useful measure and I think it will perform a very valuable service. If it is enacted it will bring to a successful conclusion a problem which I believe successive Governments would have liked to see settled some considerable time ago—the future use of the compensation authority's funds—and it will, as the noble Earl has said, implement a major recommendation. Although this is a small Bill it is an important one based on the report made by the Committee on Liquor Licensing chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale.
It is excellent that these funds will be used to combat the problem of alcoholism. Not only will any success in that aim help those who are directly afflicted by excessive drinking, but it will also bring some relief to the families of those who are so afflicted. There will be the added advantage that measures to bring drinking under control will help the fight against crime, too; for the crime figures show a high proportion of cases in which alcohol has played some part in the commission of the offences themselves.
So far as the purposes of the Bill are concerned, perhaps I might say that I hope that the Alcohol Education and Research Council, when it is set up and comes to administer the alcohol education and research fund, will have closely in mind the need to give a high degree of priority to measures to counter excessive drinking among young people. It is particularly and deeply disturbing that this is a problem which affects so many young people.
This was brought out in the recent Department of Health and Social Security report (commissioned, I think, by the department), Drinking Patterns in England and Wales. It was especially worrying to see the results of the survey carried out for that report, for it showed that over a three-month period covered by the survey more than three bouts of drunkenness had been experienced by 1 out of every 12 males and by 1 out of every 50 females, and that in the case of the 18–24 years old age group the figures were 1 in every 4 males and 1 in every 8 females. The survey also revealed even more disturbing indications of the effects upon the health of the young. If we look at the figures showing the proportion of people whose consumption of alcohol is above the level at which liver damage is likely to be caused, we find that 1 in every 17 males and 1 in every 100 females drink above that limit. In the case of the 18–24 year olds, the figures are 1 in 7 males and 1 in 25 females. So there is a great deal of scope for remedial work there and, as a long-term investment, it might be said that efforts to counter excessive drinking among young people would be particularly productive.
In singling out this aspect of the problem I would not want it to be thought that I think there are not other aspects which also merit urgent and additional attention and assistance. I would add a word of commendation for all those in the brewing industry, the National Union of Licensed Victuallers and others, who have contributed to the successful conclusion of negotiations which led to the compensation fund scheme and to the noble Earl's Bill. I was pleased to hear what has been said about the extra funds mentioned by the Brewers'

583
Society, which are to be added by companies in the drinks industry to the fund dealt with under the Bill itself. That news will make the drink that I take in moderation all the more enjoyable.
As far as the fund is concerned with which the Bill itself deals, this is the only question which I will address to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I wonder whether he can give us any approximate indication as to how much there is now in the fund itself. With that, I would join with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in hoping that your Lordships will give this useful measure a Second Reading.
6.39 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for his very helpful and clear explanation of the Bill's intentions. As my noble friend has mentioned, this Bill gives effect to the Government's own proposals for the winding up of the licensing compensation funds and the disposal of their assets. The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, asked me what those assets now stand at. My latest information is that they stand at some £4.3 million. As I stated on 30th July last year, in reply to a Written Question by my noble friend Lord Kimberley, who, incidentally, has done so much to press the Government to see that these funds are unlocked, these proposals were agreed following consultations with the Brewers' Society and the National Union of Licensed Victuallers, representing those who have contributed over the years to the area funds, and the National Council on Alcoholism and other organisations interested in the problem of alcohol misuse. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for making the point that, clearly, this had been reached by agreement, and that the societies and organisations representing the growing industry are very much to be thanked for the part they have played in all this. The Government believe that the scheme proposed in my noble friend's Bill reflects the agreements reached in those discussions, and, although some of them may seem complicated, we believe that they are thoroughly workable. The Government therefore welcome this Bill and commend it warmly to your Lordships' House.
I should like to say a few words about the Government's role generally in the field of alcohol education and research, because a part of the funds which will come from this Bill will be used precisely for the purposes of education and research. I ought to say just a word also about the proposals in the Bill which will impose duties and responsibilities upon my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
My noble friend has given an indication of the problems which the excessive consumption of alcohol creates in society and the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, added his voice to that. I have little to add, but the trend towards drinking problems is an increasing one. We accept that there is much to be done to make society as a whole—and perhaps the young in particular—more aware of the dangers of alcohol misuse, to encourage a sensible pattern of drinking, and to devote more resources to research in this field. We are confident that the Alcohol
584
Education and Research Fund set up by the Bill will provide valuable additional funding to complement that currently allocated from the resources of Central government.
In the financial year just ended, the Department of Health and Social Security allocated £1.2 million to voluntary organisations concerned with problem drinkers. In addition, the Medical Research Council, which is the Government-funded body primarily concerned with financing biomedical research into the subject, is estimated to have spent £400,000 last year on research into alcoholism and related matters, while the Social Sciences Research Council is estimated to have spent £37,000. I should like to reassure your Lordships that the existence of the new fund will not detract from the Government's commitment to funding initiatives in this field.
I should like, too, to mention one specific area in which the Home Office has a particular concern at this time: that is, the development of a new concept in dealing with drunken offenders. As an alternative to imprisonment—because drunken offenders have no money to pay the fines imposed and no other disposal would be suitable—we consider it more appropriate that the police should be able to take these people to overnight shelters where someone can look after them. But that is by no means all: if drunken offenders have a drink problem and want to do something about it, arrangements can then be made for them to receive treatment through an appropriate agency. The Home Office is anxious that a number of these shelters should be developed on an experimental basis. We hope that the Alcohol Education and Research Council, which will he administering some of the money distributed from the licensing compensation funds, will consider sympathetically any applications made to them for funding of this kind.
In the meantime the Home Secretary, through the Voluntary Services Unit of the Home Office, has already allocated money for the funding of two experimental shelters. The first will be in the Birmingham area, within the Trinity Centre at Bordesley. Already staff have been recruited and it is hoped that the centre will open at the end of this month. Discussions are still in progress about the establishment of a second centre. The activities of both these experimental centres, and any others which follow, will be carefully monitored. We hope that they will fulfil our hopes and that they will also help the problem drinkers who are admitted to them, and keep such people out of prison.
As my noble friend has said, the proposals for the liquidation of the funds are complicated—especially for anyone not familiar with the rules and procedures provided for the licensing compensation scheme under the Licensing Act 1964. However, I am assured that these provisions will facilitate a speedy transfer of the funds from the 59 county compensation authorities to the liquidator and thence to the charitable fund, which is where we all want to see the money go. A liquidator will be appointed by my right honourable friend—and it is my right honourable friend's intention to appoint a qualified accountant to undertake this task. We hope to announce this appointment shortly after the Bill is enacted; if it passes through your Lordships' House, I trust that liquidation will be carried out expeditiously. My right honourable friend the Home

585
Secretary will also be responsible for appointing the members of the Alcohol Education and Research Council. In making these appointments he will consult the Secretaries of State for Social Services, Education and Science, and Transport, and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—all of whom have an interest in the purposes of the fund and, because the Alcohol Education and Research Fund may be applied throughout the United Kingdom, the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
As I said in my Statement last July, my right honourable friend has also undertaken to consult organisations with an interest in alchohol education and research. A start has been made in this process of consultation and, again, my right honourable friend hopes to announce these appointments shortly after the Bill has been enacted.
In the discussions of the Bill in another place, my honourable friend the Minister of State made the point that appointments to the Education and Research Council will be on a personal basis and that no individual organisation will have a right to be represented as such. While it is important that the council should include those with specific knowledge of the areas of activity to which the fund may be applied, I hope your Lordships will agree that the essential qualification for appointment should be the ability to consider objectively and to distinguish the relative merits of the applications which are made to the council for funding. After all, this is essentially the statutory task of the council. The members will not serve as an advisory body in the general field of alcoholism, but it is hoped that they will select worthwhile projects for funding and that the research they approve will help to dispel many of the myths that exist in the area of alcohol misuse; and we hope also that the new insights into the problem which will stem from this research will contribute to the development of Government policy in this field.
Because it is extremely unlikely that the amount of money available will be sufficient to meet all the requests for assistance, it is important that the council's members should command the confidence of all those with an interest in the fund, and, in making these appointments, my right honourable friend and his colleagues will apply the criteria I have just mentioned. The chairman will need to have additional qualities, and we hope soon to announce the name of the person who will be appointed to undertake this important public service.
Like my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, I am delighted that the Alcohol Education and Research Fund can look forward to receiving substantial additional funding from companies in the drinks industry. The Government welcome this, and I am sure that I speak for your Lordships' House when I say that the industry is to be congratulated on having come to this decision. There are some who have said in the past that the industry has commissioned research out of self-interest. I know of no reason to believe that that is true today and I know that may companies and the trade associations have given financial assistance to many organisations which care for those who have become dependent on drink. By channelling their funds through an independent body such as the new Alcohol Education
586
and Research Council, the industry will be able to demonstrate its goodwill. The extra money will enable the council to undertake a much more ambitious programme than it would were it to rely solely on the income it receives from its share of the assets of the compensation authorities.
Finally, may I just express the Government's thanks, as both noble Lords who have spoken have done, to my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale, whose committee, many years ago now, identified the need to make use of this money, which was not really being put to any good use. I must also thank my honourable friend Mr. Robert Banks for having chosen to introduce this Bill in another place and for taking it through its stages there. I am grateful, of course, to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, for his work in your Lordships' House. We look forward to the enactment of this Bill in the near future, and, for the Government's part, we shall do all we can to facilitate the speedy transfer of these funds and to see that they are put to work soon in this important area of social concern.
Lord Fraser of Kilmorack: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I say that while I do not in any way disagree with anything he has said or that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Boston, and while I am entirely in favour of the objectives of the Bill, would he not agree that it is a matter of keeping things in perspective? Judged on any international comparison, whether in relation to spirits, wines or beer, we are still a relatively abstemious nation.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, all of us who have spoken so far would agree that, whatever the relativities, there are causes for concern, not least regarding the trends of alcohol consumption at the present time. It is for that reason that I am particularly glad that this Bill has reached your Lordships' House and I hope that it will be given a Second Reading.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, may I briefly thank the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for his warm words of support from the Opposition Front Bench? The noble Lord referred to an authority which will have to deal with young people and their problems. I am sure his words will not fall on deaf ears. The noble Lord also gave a word of praise to the Brewers' Society. I join him in that. I am sure that its members have shown great social responsibility in being able to bring forward their support for this Bill. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Belstead for his warm words of support. I am sure my noble friend Lord Kimberley is grateful for what has been said, particularly about the two experimental centres which the Government are setting up. I trust that this House will accept the Second Reading of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill
6.52 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Masham of Ilton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Needs of the disabled on highways]:
Baroness Darcy (De Knayth)Baroness Darcy (De Knayth) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) It shall be a duty of highway authorities, whenever a new pedestrian crossing or crossing of similar purpose is being constructed or laid out, to provide ramps which are constructed in accordance with B.S. Institute code of practice B.S. 5810: 1979 or such other code as the Secretary of State may prescribe.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is self-explanatory. It simply places a duty on the highway authorities to provide ramps only at new pedestrian crossings, so no extra expense would be involved. It is very necessary because only the very agile wheelchair users can tip themselves up on to the back wheels of the chair and drop down a kerb. Some can go down backwards but many have to ask for help every time they cross the road.
Going backwards (which I do myself) can have its disadvantages. It is confusing to the traffic because it is thought that you are going back up on to the pavement and therefore drivers do not stop. Some friends of mine (both in wheelchairs) went to Rome and had the greatest difficulty in doing any sightseeing, because every time they went down the kerb on to the crossing loads of helpful Italians rushed to push them back on to the pavement, and so they could never get across the street. I feel this amendment would be useful for people pushing prams as well. I hope the Minister will feel that she can accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Ingleby: I should like to support this amendment. I experience the same kind of difficulties, that have been described. As the noble Baroness said, it would be of benefit not only to the disabled but also the elderly and those who push prams and trolleys.
Baroness Young: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I comment on this amendment at this stage. We of course accept that ramps should be provided wherever possible at pedestrian crossings to avoid the difficulty of manoeuvring wheelchairs over kerbs. This would avoid the difficulty which the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount have both mentioned. The Department of Transport's advice in Roads in Urban Areas is that in these circumstances kerb heights should be reduced to about one inch and footways ramped down in an easy slope. However, the Government would be reluctant to see either this advice or that concerning ramps in the British Standards Institution's Code of Practice on Access for the Disabled to Buildings applied inflexibly and without regard to the circumstances, because there are some pavements so narrow that to devote 30 inches or so to a ramp would create dangers, especially in icy weather, for pedestrians and the disabled using the footpaths,
588
whether or not they were users of the pedestrian crossing.
On such narrow pavements the problem cannot, for obvious reasons, be resolved by providing a steeper ramp, and unless a solution can be found by a general lowering of the whole pavement, there may be no safe alternative to the retention of the full kerb. I am glad to say that this is a minority of cases but it is a significant enough factor to make us cautious of a statutory requirement that a ramp should invariably be provided, which would be the effect were this amendment to be included in the Bill. It might be helpful if I also say that points were made in the debate on Second Reading of the Bill about the difficulties for blind people and those with sticks or crutches. They can experience problems if there is not a clear edge to the pavement. This was a matter we all noted. There are different degrees and sorts of handicap that are affected by different circumstances.
I would ask the noble Baroness to accept that this is an instance where the highway authority should retain discretion for reaching the right solution for each particular set of circumstances, having taken full account of the needs of the disabled. I should like to give the noble Baroness an assurance and all Members who are taking part in these proceedings that this is exactly the kind of point to which we would expect to draw local authorities' attention in the circular about this Bill which we shall be issuing, and therefore I hope she will withdraw this amendment at this stage.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I put my name down to this amendment because I feel strongly about it. I do not know whether members of the Committee realise that electric wheelchairs cannot be tipped up and go up kerbs. There are more and more people now with mobility allowances buying wheelchairs for outside use. Also, I am absolutely sure that if babies could have spoken they would have lobbied Parliament a long time ago because they get shaken up and down so much when they are pushed up and down kerbs. I hope that the Government will look again at this amendment because we see no harm in it and we think the amendment would make an improvement to the Bill. Something should be written into the Bill in this connection, although perhaps this amendment is not perfect. Perhaps the Government will take this away and put down something suitable even though the noble Baroness has given us some encouragement.
Baroness Darcy (De Knayth): First, I should like to thank the noble Baroness. I should like to point out that I read the Second Reading debate, which included the worries of the blind and the ambulant disabled. At the back of the code of practice there is listed the people on the drafting committee. The blind, the ambulant disabled and many forms of the disabled were all represented on this drafting committee. Presumably they approved the specification for the ramping of kerbs. I know that the code of practice was sent out in draft form for approval by many other organisations for the disabled. That answers that point.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness will take this amendment back and consider bringing in an amendment of her own specifying that it will only concern

589
crossings where the pavement exceeds a certain width, which would cover her other point.
Baroness Young: I am bound to say to the Committee that I am reluctant to take something back when I feel I might be misleading the Committee and the noble Baroness into believing that something could actually be done over this amendment. There is no doubt at all that the current advice on this matter is that where possible there should be ramps. That is appropriate, as I have already indicated, and that is the Department of Transport's view on it. I am sure it is the sort of thing that local authorities would want to do; but it does lead us down a rather difficult way when we are now suggesting the width of the pavement that should be applied before a ramp could or could not be put in. If one tries to think about the different widths of pavements, for example, in old towns and new towns, the differences can be very considerable.
I think it most unlikely that I can meet the point of the noble Baroness, but as it is the Committee stage I will ask my advisers about this to see if anything further can be done. However, as I have said, I do not want to mislead the noble Baroness into thinking that we are in a position to make an amendment of this nature or to go further than we have in the guidance that we shall undoubtedly give in the circular. That is as far as I can go at present, and I hope very much that the noble Baroness will appreciate that nobody is unsympathetic about this Bill; we want to see it on the statute book and the Government will be putting forward this evening three major amendments which will strengthen the Bill and make it a better Bill than it would otherwise be. I will look at this, but I cannot give any guarantee that I shall be able to bring back something that will satisfy the noble Baroness. With the assurance that I will do what I can, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw this amendment now.
Baroness MacLeod of Borve: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder whether she could advise us whether the Department of Transport also takes into consideration the very important point of prams. I doubt whether they do, but certainly a pram being pushed along is very similar to a disabled person's wheelchair. Perhaps the noble Baroness could say whether or not the department does take notice of pram-pushers.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: As the noble Baroness is going to get us some more information, there is something which rather interests me in connection with the blind. I have watched them as they go along the street, and they tap along the pavement by "feel". When the pavement stops, as it does at a ramped kerb, I should have thought this would have been of tremendous benefit to them because they would then know that a zebra crossing was there to be crossed.
Baroness Young: I really feel on rather safer ground when I am talking about prams! I have brought up three children and pushed them up and down many kerbs, so I feel that I can speak with more confidence on this issue than on some of the others that have to be dealt with. I must be honest with the Committee and
590
say that I have not in fact had the opportunity to read the whole of the advice given in Roads in Urban Areas. I have no doubt it does say something about this matter, in which case, should this matter come up again at a later stage, I can give the noble Baroness the answer that she wants.
On the point about the blind, it may well be that blind people would find it easier to manage a ramp rather than a kerb. I imagine that it would depend very much on circumstances: for example, age, whether the kerb is newly there and whether the ramp has been newly put there or has been there for some time. I was very struck on Second Reading by the difficulties described by the noble Baroness, which we all recognise, and the other difficulties described by my noble friend Lady Macleod—the difficulties that people experience when they are lame and require sticks and when in fact a ramp is not very helpful to them. I was trying to draw this distinction. However, these are all matters which I will certainly look at, as I have indicated, but without any commitment to accept the amendment.
Lord Molloy: I wonder whether the noble Baroness has noted one important fact. I have a great deal of sympathy with her in the submission that she made, but the amendment as I read it does say:
"… a new pedestrian crossing or crossing of similar purpose …".
That does not mean that the Government should be apprehensive that we want to change every pedestrian crossing in the country by the end of the year, though that would be a good thing if it helped the disabled. As I understand the amendment, it means that henceforth, when this Bill is enacted, every local authority shall provide ramps. If I may speak here parenthetically, one of the first Acts that was introduced by Mr. Alfred Morris in another place had the full support of the able-bodied and the disable-bodied. I can tell you who did not support it—many laggardly local authorities. It required questions in the other place and all sorts of things, and all sorts of excuses were made. We had to listen to the appalling argument that buildings constructed 50 years ago could not be changed to put in a ramp. There was just one short answer I would have given to any civil engineer who said he could not do that: he should have been dismissed.
I can understand the point the noble Baroness made, but in the context of the future I hope she would agree that the Government would be prepared to see whether they can find words to put into legislation to the effect that henceforth, whenever we build pedestrian crossings or similar divices to aid the able-bodied across any road, we will take full cognisance to see that full safety is provided for the disabled, particularly those in wheelchairs.
Baroness Young: If I may just comment on that, the difficulties about this amendment are not in fact to do with what local authority practice is or is not; they are actually to do with the advice of the Department of Transport. In fact we would be inserting into a Bill the duty to do something with new pedestrian crossings. The difficulty is not, for once, to do with cost but is a technical matter of whether it would be possible to require this in a good many different circumstances, rather than relying on a circular.
Baroness Darcy (De Knayth): First, I should like to thank the noble Baroness very much for the honesty of her reply. She has not given me a great deal of hope but I am most grateful to her for being so honest. While I would welcome a circular, I feel that as we are dealing only with new crossings it is not really very much to ask to put it down in black and white. I am in fact a little surprised that she cannot accept it. I will read carefully what she has said, but I am slightly at a loss to understand her argument about the width or the narrowness of pavements. I understood her first to say that it was unacceptable because certain pavements would be too narrow to be ramped because that would take all the pavement away. Presumably, if you know how narrow is too narrow, you would know how wide is wide enough to be able to do it. Therefore, I cannot see why you could not specify, for example, that all pavements above a certain width on new crossings could have this kerb which apparently the noble Baroness thought would not be possible. However, as she has undertaken to see what can be done, we will hear what she has to say at Report stage and perhaps, if I am not happy, I might bring back something on Third Reading. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.9 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) In executing in a street any such works as are mentioned in subsection (1) above, any such authority or person as is mentioned in that subsection shall have regard to the need of blind persons to have any openings, whether temporary or permanent, in the street, properly protected.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a technical amendment which changes the wording of subsection (4) to make it clear that the duty to protect openings in a road applies when street works are being carried out. Subsection (1) of the clause imposes the general duty to have regard to the needs of the disabled and blind when carrying out works in a street. In practice, most of the works to which subsection (1) refers involve the making of openings in the road or footway; and so subsection (4), as amended, requires those undertaking the work to have openings properly protected so as to avoid accidents to blind persons. Responsible highway authorities and statutory undertakers already do this.
The deletion of the reference to "holes" reflects the fact that, notwithstanding the statutory responsibility of highway authorities for the repair and maintenance of highways and footways, which the Bill does not affect, they cannot reasonably be expected to protect minor holes and potholes as distinct from deliberate openings. I hope that the Committee will accept this amendment. It goes some way to meet a point which was raised on Second Reading, and which was of particular concern to blind persons. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 19, at end insert—
("(2) The following paragraph shall be inserted in subsection (1) of section 50 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970, after the definition of "statutory undertakers"—
"street", for the purposes of section 27A of this Act, means a road or footpath;").
The noble Baroness said: This is a further technical amendment which inserts a new Section 27A into the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970 referring to the execution of works in a street. The Act does not define the term "street" and it has therefore been necessary to add a definition referring specifically to the new section. The definition of "road" already in the Act covers footways which, together with carriageways, form the two traffic components of a road, the former for pedestrians, the latter for vehicles. But it is intended that the new section should apply also to footpaths which are not associated with carriageways and which are not thereby caught by the definition of "road". The definition of "street" will, therefore, refer to "footpaths" as well as to "roads". I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I wanted to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, a question on Amendment No. 2, but as Nos. 2 and 3 are similar I shall ask it on this one. Do "openings" include holes, because it is appalling how many dangerous openings are left unprotected and open for people to fall into? This is of concern mainly to blind people, although it may affect drunken people.
Baroness Young: I am sorry if I did not make the position clear in what I said on Amendment No. 2. The deletion of the reference to "holes" recognises the fact that the Bill does not affect at all the statutory responsibility of highway authorities for the repair and maintenance of highways and footways. They cannot be expected to protect minor holes, which I think we would call potholes, as opposed to deliberate openings when a road is dug up in connection with services and when there is a very large hole. I think we are clear about the difference between general wear and tear, or an accident, and works which are being carried out and which mean that a hole is being dug. This does not cover potholes or small holes in the road, but only the others.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she tell us what is meant by "properly protected"? A blind person cannot see gates that are put around either a pothole or any other kind of hole. I wonder how such places can be properly protected for a blind person.
Baroness Young: I should have understood this to mean that there would be something which would actually prevent a blind person from falling into a hole. I quite understand that a blind person will not see it. But, as I understand it, the danger is that some public utility may have dug up a footpath for some very good purpose, left the hole unprotected and a blind person could fall into it and have a very serious accident.
The hole would be protected by having it fenced off in some way. I recognise that the blind person might walk into the fence. This is a hazard which one must accept. But that is infinitely better than that the person should fall into the hole. If the blind person had a stick, it would presumably knock against the fence. I am not suggesting that this amendment will help blind people in every circumstance, but it is intended to be an improvement on the present position.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Wrongful parking of vehicles in spaces reserved for disabled persons]:
7.14 p.m.
Lord Chelwood Lord Chelwood moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2)—
"(2A) Where an order under subsection (1) above provides for the reservation of a parking place or parking places for disabled persons' vehicles, the local authority making the order shall ensure that a notice stating the maximum fine payable under subsection (3A) below is prominently displayed in the vicinity of the parking place or parking places.".").
The noble Lord said: Parking bays which are specially reserved for disabled people are rather few and far between, but many local authorities have done their very best to meet the needs of the disabled in this way. I have carried out something of a study of the extent to which these specially reserved bays are used by people who are not entitled to use them. As a result of that study, based largely on two or three bays in the neighbourhood in which I work in London, around Sloane Square, I have found, on average, that, on one day in three, a bay which is specially reserved and marked as being for disabled people only is taken by somebody who is not displaying a disabled person's badge on his or her car. Sometimes a car is parked in a bay for several days on end. One particular bay, immediately outside my office, is often in just this position.
For the last 21 years, I have employed a marvellous private secretary, who was crippled as long ago as 1936 and has never walked one step since then. Sometimes she has not been able to come to work at all, because the pavements have been icy or the roads have been wet. What I am saying applies not just to her, but to many thousands of other disabled people who, if these bays are occupied are unable to get to work, to go shopping or to have an evening out and are therefore, inhibited in many serious ways.
People who park in these bays are, no doubt, either thoughtless or careless. They have no idea of the problems that they are creating for disabled people, who, as a result of their thoughtlessness, are frustrated and have many anxieties. ft is true also—and this, too, is based on my experience—that in many cases, and much to my surprise, the parking attendants and police, when their attention is drawn to a car parked in a bay reserved for disabled people when it should not be, do nothing about it. They simply ask somebody to move on. I know of many cases when a ticket has not been given to an offending driver.
The signs in different local authorities vary in what they say. in the Chelsea area they say
"Disabled. Kensington and Chelsea Council. Blue permit only".
But the signs do not say that wrongful parking there may lead to a heavy fine. Perhaps my amendment is wrong in suggesting that the signs on these special bays should say what the maximum fine is, because it would be irritating when the maximum fine was raised as a result of inflation, to have to keep changing them. But the signs could, at any rate, refer to the possibility of incurring a heavy fine. if that were done,
594
the law would be far less often ignored. It would also draw the attention of police and traffic wardens to the seriousness of the offence—and it is a serious offence. The cost would be tiny and the work could be quickly carried out. It would pay handsome dividends in terms of the peace of mind of disabled people, and I urge my noble friend to give most careful thought to this amendment, which I truly believe is a simple and a sensible one.
I should like to say to my noble friend the Minister that, if she is unable to accept it now for any reason, perhaps she will be good enough—and she is a most understanding person—to give careful thought to the arguments which I have put forward so briefly, and to any others that may be put forward, with a view to putting down a Government amendment at Report stage. I beg to move.
Viscount Ingleby: I should like to support this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has just said, we are talking about a much more serious offence than an ordinary parking offence. It may mean that a disabled person will just have to go away and forgo whatever plan he or she had at that time. If there were a notice and a heavier fine, it would be most helpful.
Baroness Young: I have listened with great care to what my noble friend Lord Chelwood and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, have said on this matter and it may be helpful if I begin by saying that one of the general principles which we have to bear in mind in deciding what information should be imparted in traffic signs is that they should be immediately intelligible; they therefore contain only essential information. Parking spaces reserved on-street for disabled persons' vehicles are indicated by a traffic sign which contains the white P on blue parking symbol, the black on orange wheelchair symbol and the legend "Disabled badge holders only". This is one of the signs prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, and any variant to the prescribed traffic sign indicating a parking space reserved for a disabled person's vehicle would need to be specially approved for use.
In the interests of clarity and keeping signs uncluttered, the prescribed signs do not include any indication of the maximum penalty for contravention of the order. However, there is nothing to prevent local authorities from supplementing the signs with a separate plate indicting the maximum fine for the offence, and in their off-street car parks they are not bound to use signs prescribed in the regulations. However, the Government would be reluctant to oblige local authorities to use such plates, which we are content should remain a matter for their discretion. If there were a statutory requirement for maximum fines to be indicated, local authorities would be put to considerable expense, and this would be repeated if the maximum fine were subsequently changed.
The Government have accepted a proposal in the report of the Inter-Departmental Working Party on Road Traffic Law that the maximum fine for parking place offences should be increased from £20 to £50 in future legislation. In preparing this legislation it will be necessary to consider the maximum fine for the separate offence created by Clause 2 of illegal parking

595
in a space reserved for a disabled person's vehicle—precisely the case which my noble friend described. This may lead to an increase in the fine to the next point on the Home Office's four-point scale of penalties for summary offences; namely, £200. We would not want to put local authorities to the expense of signing a maximum fine which may subsequently be changed.
I have gone into this matter in some considerable detail because I want to assure my noble friend that we recognise the point which he is trying to make. We believe that this would be putting extra expense on local authorities. My noble friend will himself recognise that where you have too many signs they are less likely to be obeyed. One of the good features of the signs currently in use is that they are intelligible and understood by everybody. If after reading the signs people fail to obey them, that is an offence. But at least they are understood. I am not sure that we should get better understanding by putting up more signs.
I hope that after that explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I think the Bill would be improved if it contained something to encourage local authorities to make the public aware that there is a fine. There ought to be a clear differential between the fine for parking in an ordinary parking place and the fine for going into a disabled person's parking place. I hope that the noble Baroness will take back this point and look at it. It is a very serious problem. Disabled people have considerable difficulty in parking. There are not many parking places for them. It is even more frustrating when the few places that there are are taken by able-bodied people. I was therefore very pleased when the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, proposed this amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will think again.
Lord Chelwood: I am very grateful to my noble friend for what she has said. It was not my intention at any time to press Amendment No. 4, which is the only one that I have so far moved. I have not yet moved Amendment No. 5 or Amendment No. 6. It was not my intention even to think of pressing Amendment No. 4 to a Division. However, I wanted to draw attention to the fact that there is a great deal of carelessness and thoughtlessness on the part of drivers who are not disabled in the way in which they park in spaces which are specially reserved for disabled people.
What my noble friend has said makes absolute sense. I hope local authorities will use their discretion. This is exactly what my noble friend the Minister has said. They do not use it enough. I hope that local authorities will think that the suggestion made in the amendment is a good one and will draw attention to the fact that a heavy fine is attached to the abuse of these specially reserved parking places. I see no reason why they should not. I cannot see that the extra expense involved should be more than quite tiny. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Chelwood Lord Chelwood moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("£50") and insert ("£100").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 go together and I am sure that I have permission to talk
596
about them as briefly as I did about the last amendment. This is an amendment upon which my noble friend Lady Young touched when she replied to Amendment No. 4. This amendment is self-evident, essential and in line with the Government's own thinking, as evidenced by Amendment No. 7, where the fine for the wrongful use of disabled persons' badges on cars is going to be put up to £200. That is a serious offence. So indeed is parking in a bay specially reserved for disabled people.
The maximum fine of £50 which is in the Bill at present was laid down when the maximum fine for an ordinary parking offence was only £20. This is a differential in the ratio of five to two. But the £20 has been so eroded by inflation since 1975, when that figure was set, that the report of the Inter-Departmental Working Party on Road Traffic Law, dated 20th May 1981, which is right up to date, recommends in paragraph 13 that the maximum fine for ordinary parking offences should be put up to £50. At the end of the paragraph, they say:
"Such an increase for parking offences would have implications for the maxima in respect of a number of other offences".
No doubt they had particularly in mind this offence of parking in a bay which is specially reserved for disabled people.
It gave me great pleasure to read in the foreword to this report, which is signed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Transport, that:
"The Government accept the other recommendations in the report".
In particular they propose to increase the maximum fine for parking offences from £20 to £50 and to increase the fixed penalty under the existing powers from £6 to £10. The fixed penalty cannot be more than half the maximum fine. This has always been the case.
I am sure that here I am pressing on an open door. The question arises as to whether the maximum fine should be £125, preserving the five to two differential, or £100. I went for £100, simply because it is a round figure and because I wished to draw attention to the fact that, as drafted, the Bill has been overtaken by events, or at any rate by inflation. Presumably the Home Office will at some time bring all fines up-to-date so as to bring them into line with current thinking and current costs. Just how long it will take them to do that I do not know. However, it appears to me from the report from which I have just quoted that it has taken since 1977 to bring this particular fine into line with inflation. That is four years, which would be much too long.
How hard we press this amendment, either now or later during the course of the Bill, depends, first, on whether it is acceptable now. It may well not be acceptable, for one reason or another. If it is not acceptable now, all of us who are interested in this matter would want an assurance that if it is to be left to the Home Office there is not going to be an unconscionable delay. I should have thought that a delay of 12 months was about the maximum which would be acceptable to anybody. It would be a ridiculous situation if this differential were not maintained and there was only a maximum £50 fine for parking in a bay specially reserved for disabled people

597
and exactly the same maximum fine for any ordinary parking offence. I feel very strongly about this matter and I look forward very much indeed to hearing what my noble friend has to say in reply.
Viscount Ingleby: I should very much like to support this amendment. Obviously there is a great deal of common sense in maintaining the differential.
Baroness Young: I hope that I shall be able to say something about these two amendments which my noble friend Lord Chelwood and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, will feel is helpful.
The position is that, following the Criminal Law Act 1977, the Home Office established a four-point scale of penalties for summary offences. The prescribed penalties are £50, £200, £500 or £1,000. All new offences introduced since 1977 have penalties which are consistent with this scale. Since £100 is not a point on that scale, I must ask my noble friend not to press his amendment.
However, I should like to assure my noble friend that when, as a result of the review of the traffic law recommendation that the maximum fine for parking place offences should be increased from £20 to £50, the maximum fines for the offences, including that created by Clause 2, are reconsidered, the Government will wish to retain a distinct and higher rate of maximum fine for this offence. I think this would bring it into line with an amendment I shall move shortly. We recognise the force of the point that the noble Lord has made, and that this kind of parking offence is something rather separate from what I might call (for want of a better word) an ordinary parking offence. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: We welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said, but I hope that some means of letting the public know about this will he found.
Baroness Young: Clearly we have not got as far as considering the circular to follow the Bill, but in any circular the Bill and the new offences will be described, and I have no doubt that one of the ways in which the public will be informed is by being affected themselves by the higher penalties when they come into force. If I may say so, I think that concentrates the mind as nothing else does.
Lord Chelwood: I am very pleased indeed, as I am sure the whole Committee is, with my noble friend's reply. It seems to imply quite clearly that the maximum fine for this particular offence—in other words, an able-bodied person parking his car in a bay specially reserved for disabled people—will in fact rise to £200, which is a lot better than £100 because;this is a serious offence and the punishment should fit the crime. There is nothing between £50 and £200 in the four-point scale of summary fines introduced by the Criminal Law Act of 1977, to which my noble friend has referred. So on the assumption that I am right in saying that, it only remains for me to ask my noble friend to be good enough to indicate whether this is to be left to the Home Office for what might be quite a long time and,
598
if so, whether there is any objection to putting the fine into the Bill as it is. I see no objection to that, and I hope my noble friend can reassure me on the timing and perhaps make it absolutely clear that the figure which the Government have in mind as the maximum fine for this offence is £200.
Baroness Young: I can give the noble Lord the assurance that we entirely accept the principle of what he is trying to do. This is a serious offence and it ought to carry a heavier fine. I wonder whether he will accept that perhaps I might get in touch with him before the next stage of the Bill, about just what is the timing of this. I have not got the information on that point this evening and I hope he will accept that we may discuss this matter, having accepted the principle of what it is that he wishes to do.
Lord Chelwood: With great pleasure. I should be very appreciative indeed if my noble friend would be good enough to let me know what figure the Government have in mind and what timing they have in mind; and assuming that that is, in essence, what she has just said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
7.34 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 11, after ("£50";) insert—
("(bb) the following section shall be inserted after section 86:—
"Wrongful use of disabled person's badge.
86A.—(1) A person who is guilty of an offence in relation to a motor vehicle under a provision of this Act other than this section ("the first offence") is also guilty of an offence under this section if the conditions specified in subsection (2) below are satisfied.
(2) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1) above are that at the time of the commission of the first offence—

(a) a disabled person's badge was displayed on the motor vehicle;

(b) he was using the motor vehicle in circumstances where a disabled person's concession would be available to a disabled person's vehicle; and

(c) the vehicle was not being used either by the person to whom the badge was issued or under section 21(4) (institutional use) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
(4) In this section—
"disabled person's badge" means a badge of a form prescribed under section 21(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; and
"disabled person's concession" means—

(a) an exemption from an order under this Act given by reference to disabled persons' vehicles; or

(b) a provision made in any order under this Act for the use of a parking place by disabled persons' vehicles.".").

The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to penalise the misuse of disabled persons' parking badges, generally known as orange badges. This amendment is in fact the amendment that I promised at Second Reading that the Government would bring forward. These orange badges are issued

599
to people with severe mobility problems, and the blind, who are entitled to park for up to two hours on yellow lines, without charge or time limit at meter bays and without time limit where limited waiting only is allowed. Additionally, many local authorities provide special parking facilities for badge holders both on the street and in off-street car parks. These valuable concessions, which are intended to allow disabled people to park close to their destinations, unfortunately give rise to the temptation for unscrupulous people who are not disabled, but who have access to a disabled person's orange badge, to pass themselves off as disabled, or to pretend to be carrying a disabled passenger when they are not in fact doing so, by displaying the badge in order themselves to take advantage of the concessions. This anti-social conduct not only makes it more difficult for people who are disabled to find parking space close to where they need to be, particularly in town centres, but it also tends to bring the whole orange badge scheme into disrepute in the eyes of ordinary motorists when they see able-bodied people taking advantage of orange badges when there is no disabled person being carried in the vehicle.
At the moment people who use orange badges under false pretence cannot normally be proceeded against other than for an ordinary parking offence, which in most cases means that they simply get a fixed penalty notice. The Government consider that this abuse of a most valuable system, which amounts to fraud or deception, should be made a separate offence, as well as being a parking offence, in order that its seriousness should be brought home to those who perpetrate it.
The amendment before your Lordships will make it an offence for any person who is not a badge holder to use a vehicle displaying an orange badge in circumstances where the orange badge concessions would be available to disabled persons, but where in fact no badge holder is using the vehicle. The offence will carry a maximum penalty of £200, which the Government feel is justified, given the nature of the deception that is practised by those who masquerade as disabled people, and which in many cases can ultimately deprive people who genuinely need the parking facility of a parking space.
I should perhaps make it clear that the offence will apply to wrongful use of the various exemptions or facilities provided for disabled people under traffic regulation orders. There are, of course, many private car parks, for example commercial concerns and other organisations to whose premises the public has access who provide special parking facilities for the disabled. But abuse of the privileges conferred where traffic regulation orders apply is the problem which has been of primary concern to the Government, to the police and to local authorities.
It may be helpful if I underline the difference between the offence created by Clause 2 of the Bill as it stands, and the offence which this amendment would add. The clause as it stands deals with misuse of parking spaces reserved for the disabled. It will apply to misuse of these spaces irrespective of whether the offending vehicle displays an orange badge. The offence created by the amendment is an additional offence, and applies only when the orange badge is misused; it is not confined to offences in spaces specifi-
600
cally reserved for the disabled but to any use of the badge under false pretences, for example on a yellow line, or at a meter.
The amendment before your Lordships is not however the only action that is proposed to improve the operation of the orange badge scheme. It forms part of a wider package of measures which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has in mind to reduce abuse of the scheme and to win back the respect of ordinary motorists for orange badge holders as people genuinely in need of the facilities which the scheme provides.
Other forms of abuse, such as those which occur in the issuing of badges, will be tackled by means of changes in the regulations under which the scheme operates, by tightening up the guidance given to local authorities and by a number of administrative measures. My right honourable friend hopes to consult interested bodies shortly on the form of the new regulations; among other things, the regulations will seek to define more clearly the categories of disabled people entitled to badges. I can assure the Committee that, in drawing up the new regulations, my right honourable friend will be looking closely at the points that have recently been raised on this last amendment by my noble friend and indeed those that were raised at Second Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I should like to welcome straight away the clause that my noble friend has moved on behalf of the Government. No doubt some questions will be put about parts of it, but very briefly I should like to take up the general point which my noble friend has made because I know that a review is taking place to bring about improvements in the orange badge scheme. Improvements certainly are needed because, as she has said, there are abuses and the abuses can be carried out very easily because the badge remains on the car even though a disabled person is not using it.
In order to reduce the abuse of the scheme by able-bodied people, I suggest that the following points need to be taken into account by the review being carried out by the Department of Transport: First, every orange disc should have the name of the disabled person on it. This has been done from the beginning, in the early 1970s, in many local authority areas, and notably in Scotland, but it is not done everywhere. That means that an orange disc which does not have a name on it can easily he used by other people. Secondly, every disc should be removable from the windscreen, and the disc should only be in place when the car is being used by a disabled person, either as the driver or as a passenger. The simplest method is one used, and this again is used in Scotland—I hope noble Lords will forgive my speaking from knowledge of my own area—in certain local authority areas. A little holder is provided which is stuck to the windscreen; the orange badge can be lifted out, but put in when a disabled person is travelling, and that person's name is upon it.
The third point is that the degree of disablement which qualifies for an orange badge should be revised and, if possible, standardised. I welcome what my noble friend said about the various kinds of disablement which were being looked into again in relation to this

601
scheme. When the scheme started some local authorities very generously issued badges to people in the category of 50 per cent. disablement and above. I think it should be more than 50 per cent. I think it should be more like 70 per cent., and it should also be related directly to mobility. There is no point in giving an orange badge to someone who is deaf; he may be severely disabled with deafness, but it does not arise in the case of parking.
The fourth point is that the square badge stuck to the rear window of a vehicle should be abolished, or else it should have no meaning or validity. That square badge is not removable at the moment and it should not have any validity as regards parking. My suggestion is that it should be removed altogether, because it is the orange disc at the front which is the one that matters.
The fifth point is that wardens and police should be encouraged to check who is using a vehicle, who is dismounting from it and who is getting in, to check whether they are the person whose name is on the orange badge. The sixth point is that there should be a standard acceptance that a single yellow line can be parked upon when parking places in the area where the disabled person is trying to park are not available. At the moment this is not standard and some wardens apply tickets, even though there is an orange badge, if the car is parked on a yellow line. Those are six points I would ask should be taken into account. I think these would greatly improve the acceptability of the system.
I am very glad to hear that the review is taking place. I realise that the Department of Transport must sponsor the review, but of course other departments who deal with the local authorities are the ones who will have to sell it and make sure that it is carried out. Those include the Department of the Environment for England, the Scottish Office for Scotland and the Welsh Office for Wales. I do welcome what my noble friend has said, but I think we ought not to think that this will simply mean that the system will be improved out of all recognition. This is an improvement, but a great deal more needs to be done in order to get it accepted by the country as a whole.
Baroness MacLeod of Borve: I warmly welcome what my noble friend Lady Young has put forward this evening. What worries me very much indeed is this. As she implied by the words "many local authorities", it is the undoubted fact that many other local authorities do not at all consider parking for the disabled. My local town is one of them, although they have plenty of room. I am wondering whether the Government, perhaps during the course of this review, could possibly make it mandatory for all local authorities to provide some parking places for disabled people's cars. It seems to me to be very unfair that some towns are helpful while others are not.
I would make perhaps two other points, commenting on the fact that there are many abuses. One does not need necessarily to have a disablement which is visible, either blindness or deafness or even impaired mobility. There are many people who suffer severe heart conditions who have the orange badge, and I feel that they should continue to have the badge. I think the idea of having the name on the disc is a particularly helpful
602
one. I should like to thank my noble friend for this amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to support this amendment and thank the Government for bringing this very difficult matter to the fore. There has even been a black market in badges, with people selling on their orange badges when they no longer use them. I should like to ask the noble Baroness: what is going to happen to the badges when they have been given out to people with a temporary disablement and who no longer use them? This is a problem. And will the Government make quite clear who gives out the badges? Is it the local authority or the GP or both?
I would agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, says about the name being on the badge, because then one can check up on who has the badge and who it belongs to. I think it is very important as far as the disabled passenger is concerned that the badge should be easily removable. I would not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, about not having a badge on the back window. I had a very personal experience when my car suddenly stopped on a busy part of the A1 one evening. I had to sit for about three-quarters of an hour with my hand out of the window trying to get help. It was in the end a lorry driver who stopped to help me, and he said the only reason he had stopped was that he had seen on the back of my car that I was a disabled driver. He had to stop two other articulated lorries, and there were three parked beside me in the end. One of the leads in my car had broken off and he had not got a penknife; so he had to stop another lorry, and in the end there there were three of them.
Lord Campbell of Croy: If I may intervene, I think the noble Baroness has made a very good point and I do not think we are in disagreement. I think people in her situation should have some sort of sign on the back of the car for that kind of difficulty. But that has nothing to do with parking, and the parking problem has to be dealt with by the orange disc.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I would agree with the noble Lord, but I think the cars of severely disabled people should be marked clearly back and front. That was the point I was trying to make. I also think it is of help to the police and traffic wardens when there is a row of cars and they can see clearly from the back, because, as we all know, the police are so very busy. I know that there is a lobby against the marking of the car at the back, but I still think it is necessary.
Lord Campbell of Croy: For the severely disabled, but not for everybody else.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: But I do not think the not severely disabled should have the orange badge. I think it should go, as the noble Lord himself said, only to those who are severely disabled. I would agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, that it should go to those who have severe disabilities; it may be heart, it may be asthma, it might even be cancer.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): If I could just take issue with my noble friend on the question of the rear badge. I do not think there is any way you can ban it, because

603
it gives you no legal permit; it is just a sticker like any other sticker that anyone can put on the back window. But I think this is something which does mislead the public. Even if you have the front orange badge removable and a non-badge holder takes the car and parks it somewhere, this is where the public will be misled because they will see this rear badge and think that they are abusing it. I think it is essential to have the name on the proper orange badge, and to issue it with a pocket so that it is easily removable, so that anyone else using the car, particularly now these fines have been introduced, can remove it easily.
Lord Winstanley: I have no wish to prolong discussion on an amendment which I am quite sure is wholly acceptable to each and every one of us. But I should like briefly to support the words of warning, as I think they were, put by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod. This is a matter to which I referred in earlier discussions, when I perhaps took issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and I think we substantially agree with one another. There is, I think, a problem in relation to the person who is not visibly disabled. At an earlier stage in our proceedings in your Lordships' House today we were discussing the take-up of various benefits. There is no question that there are certain disabled people who are not particularly anxious to carry about a badge, despite the fact that the badge is very helpful, and who do not like somehow to be labelled as disabled.
As a general practitioner, I have had occasion to persuade someone that it is worth his while applying for a special badge and special assistance in this way and that. General practitioners find this a difficult subject. It is not very easy for a general practitioner to exercise responsibility as between one of his patients and another and say that one patient is so disabled that he requires an orange badge, whereas another patient is not. That is why general practitioners tend, so far as possible, to refer these people to the community physician and feel that the responsibility ought to rest in hands which are rather more detached than those of the general practitioner himself.
The point that I wish to emphasise is that it really is the case that there are some people who experience some embarrassment at having this kind of a badge, and particularly people of the kind referred to by the noble Baroness. I had a patient—I think that I have referred to this example in your Lordships' House already, but it is absolutely true—with a cardio-vascular complaint of some severity which severely limited his ability to walk. Nevertheless, he was adjudged by consultants to be a person wholly fit to be the holder of a driving licence. He looked extremely fit. It so happened that he parked his car outside our local chemist at a time when I was coming out of the chemist. Another patient of mine who had been refused an orange badge turned to me and said, "Isn't it disgraceful that this fit chap should be walking in there and have an orange badge on his car". As I said earlier, this particular holder of the orange badge then rather obligingly collapsed and died in the chemists' shop, thereby providing, I should have thought, pretty clear evidence of his entitlement to the badge. I merely mention that as a graphic illustration of the fact that it is not necessarily only people
604
with wheelchairs who are disabled or only people with white sticks and dogs who are blind. We should be very cautious about phrasing anything or using words in any way which might discourage people who ought genuninely to be the recipients of this kind of help from seeking this kind of help.
I accept that there is abuse and I wholly accept that that abuse should be stamped out. I entirely accept the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Cambell of Croy, that the name of the holder should be on the badge and that the badge should be removable so that it cannot easily be used by somebody who is not the holder. I entirely accept that we should do those things. I also accept that we should do the things which are contained in the amendment of the noble Baroness. Let us stamp out abuse by all means, but in stamping it out we should take great care not to discourage people who could rightfully be the holders of these badges from seeking to obtain them.
Baroness Young: I am, of course, very grateful for the welcome that this Government amendment has received, and I shall try to answer the various points that have been raised during discussion on it. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, raised six points about the orange badge scheme where he felt that there could be improvement. I should like to assure him that I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the points that he has made. All points relating to entitlement to badges, concessions, the design or types of badge and the withdrawal of badges are matters for the regulations and can be raised by interested bodies when they are consulted on the draft regulations in the near future. So it will be very helpful for my right honourable friend to have these points drawn to his attention and I shall certainly see that that is done.
The noble Lord also raised the point about who issues the badges. I should like to confirm to him and to my noble friend Lady Macleod, who raised this point, that the administration of the scheme is by local authorities—usually social service departments—who issue badges to those who satisfy the eligibility criteria laid down in the regulations. Those include that the badges are issued only to those people suffering from a permanent disability which causes difficulty in walking, and the blind are entitled to a badge as well. I think that that answers the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who asked about temporary disablement. Of course, it does not apply in that particular case—only to a permanent disability. The last census of badges in 1976 showed that some 220,000 were issued in Great Britain. The figure is now thought to be around a quarter of a million.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), also raised a number of points on the shape and the form of the badges, and, of course, I shall be drawing the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport to this debate and the points that she has made will be included in that.
Finally, both the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, raised the point about the difficulty for people who are not visibly disabled. My goodness me! the story which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has told us is one that should stand as an awful warning on this matter. I am

605
certain that the noble Lord has a real point and that there might well be people who would not wish to have a badge. However, it seems to me that this must be very much a matter for good practice by both doctors and social services departments which would be considering whether or not somebody was eligible to have one of these badges.
I should like to conclude with a number of points relating to the administration of the scheme. This is essentially a matter for local authorities, including local authorities providing parking spaces. The Department of Transport is considering what further and improved guidance might be given to local authorities and to GPs to assist them in the task of determining the entitlement or otherwise of applicants and of administering the scheme generally.
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, raised a point about local authorities which do not have parking spaces. It is not quite the same point but, of course, the orange badge scheme is not applicable in central London and the concessions do not apply in parts of central London because of the pressure on parking space, and because traffic congestion is particularly acute in those areas. However, as the Committee may know, the authorities concerned operate their own schemes for people living and working in their areas. I hope that that covers all the points that have been raised on the amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Before the Minister sits down, I should like to ask whether the Government could possibly persuade, as well as encourage, all local authorities outside Greater London to provide parking spaces for disabled people. They do not do so at present and it would be helpful if all local authorities could possibly be persuaded to do so.
Baroness Young: I do not have either the circulars or the regulations in front of me, but I should have thought that all local authorities were aware of the need to provide parking spaces for the disabled. I am aware that some do this better than others and certainly where I live, my local authority provides a number of spaces for the disabled. I would suggest that if that is not so in the area where the noble Baroness lives, then she would be well advised to take the matter up with them direct. No one, I am sure, could be more persuassive than the noble Baroness on these matters. I hope very much that, when the circular comes out after this Bill, any reluctant local authorities will make provision if they have not done so in the past.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.59 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert—
("(2) Subsection (1) above shall not have effect in relation to offences committed before the commencement of this section".).
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 8, I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to a slight change in the wording of the amendment as it appears on the Marshalled List. The word "Act" at the end of the amendment should read "section". This is a purely technical change and I put it to your Lordships in the confident expectation
606
that you will agree to it.
The amendment itself is a technical one. Clause 2 creates a new offence of wrongfully parking in a space reserved for a disabled person's vehicle, with a maximum penalty of £50 as opposed to the maximum penalty of £20 for other parking place offences. The amendment provides that the increased maximum penalty will apply only to offences committed after the date when the Bill comes into effect. The amendment is necessary because prosecutions under existing parking regulations could come to court after the Bill has received the Royal Assent. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Planning (England and Wales)—Access for the disabled to buildings etc.]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 9 and at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 16, Clause 3 provides that developers have their attention drawn to the relevant provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and to the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings when they receive planning permission from the planning authority. The effect of the amendment is to substitute the Department of Education and Science Design Note 18, Access for the Disabled to Educational Buildings, for the code of practice in respect of educational buildings on grounds of appropriateness.
This amendment may appear substantial, but I believe that its effect is quite simple. Clause 3, as drafted, as I have indicated, provides that the attention of developers will be drawn to the relevant provision of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings when they receive planning permission from the planning authority. The amendment merely substitutes for the code of practice a design note published by my own department in respect of educational buildings, including universities.
The design note is comparable to the code of practice but has the added advantage that it was drawn up specifically with educational buildings in mind. It takes into account, for example, that the majority of the occupants of a primary school are clearly smaller in stature than adults. The design note also refers to means of escape in case of fire on which great stress is, quite properly, always laid in designing school buildings. I beg to move this amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I am very worried about this amendment. I can understand the reason for having the design note but I am concerned about not having the code of practice. The noble Baroness has said that it is geared to the needs of pupils; for example, in a primary school you have children of small stature. But what about the disabled teacher in a primary school or visiting disabled parents? Their needs will not then be catered for. I think that it is very important to have disabled teachers in education when we have integrated education.
The noble Baroness said that the design note included

607
universities. So far as I remember, the design note only caters for people who have locomotive disabilities and not, for example, the deaf or the blind; but the noble Baroness may correct me over that. I think that the deaf would be very disillusioned if, for example, they found that in a university hall there was no induction loop system for them. I hope that there has been some oversight here. I think that we need both the code of practice and the design note. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to consult on this matter.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Before my noble friend replies perhaps I could raise this point. Clause 3 applies to England and Wales and this amendment applies to England and Wales. I know that we are now approaching the stage where the Government's Scottish Bill, which has been passing through the House, also has application because we are discussing with Amendment No. 9, Amendment No. 16 in which the Government propose quite a large new clause, which has the heading:
"Duty to draw attention to certain provisions for benefit of disabled—educational buildings".
That of course applies to England and Wales. Can my noble friend indicate how this relates to the equivalent provisions being made for Scotland?—which may well be found in the Local Government Bill for Scotland and not in this Bill. There seems to be a difference between the way in which this is being applied in Amendment No. 16 and what is being proposed for Scotland.
Baroness Young: I should be very disturbed if it was felt in any way that the Government were retracting on any promises that have been made, and I should like to give an assurance to the Committee that this amendment in no way takes away any of the agreements that have been reached and which we shall debate when we come to Amendment No, 16.
It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I deal with the particular point raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. With the substitution of Design Note 18 for the BSI Code of Practice in respect of educational buildings, the provisions in the Bill now differ from the similar provisions which relate to Scotland. The Government have tried to make these provisions as sensible as possible and Design Note 18 is, as I have described, more appropriate guidance for educational buildings. There is currently no equivalent document for Scottish educational buildings, and therefore in the amendment introduced at the Report stage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill the BSI document was the only guidance formally available for all classes of building. However, I understand that the BSI Code of Practice will probably need to be revised and no doubt its applicability to educational buildings will be among the points that will be under consideration.
Perhaps I may now turn to the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), has just raised. There may well be some differences between Design Note 18 and the BSI Code of Practice, but the design note, which applies to all educational building, has many similarities with the BSI Code of Practice and is considered the more appropriate document overall,
608
that is, for educational buildings. In particular it deals with means of escape as well as of access. Escape provisions in the design of schools and colleges are just as vital as means of access. The BSI Code of Practice itself advises that guidance about access to and emergency escape from maintained educational establishments should be sought from the Department of Education and Science. In other words, the code commends Design Note 18, implying that for educational building it is the note's advice which is appropriate.
Both of these documents will probably need revision to make them suitable vehicles for statutory requirements. Each is presently couched as advice and guidance. In the course of such revision the opportunity can be taken to refine and improve the provisions in each document. I have no doubt that on this matter the Government would seek the advice of organisations on what should be included in it. With that reassurance, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to support the amendment which I have just moved.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her assurance. We had a meeting this afternoon with some colleagues from outside your Lordships' House who represent disabled organisations, but as the amendment had only just been tabled (as your Lordships can see, Amendment No. 16 has a star attached to it) no one had seen Design No. 18, and therefore there was worry about what it includes. Universities cater for adults and, therefore, there was concern that the code of practice was not included.
I think that everyone would have been happier if both Design Note 18 and the code of practice could have been included and used, where appropriate, in both cases. I personally know several severely disabled teachers, both teachers in schools and also lecturers at universities, quite apart from disabled students. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness can let us see Design Note 18 before the next stage.
Baroness Young: I should be very happy to give that assurance. If it would be helpful to the noble Baroness, I should like to give her an opportunity to discuss, with any of the department's advisers on this matter, the design note or put any questions that she or her colleagues might have, because it would be helpful to clear up any misunderstanding before the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): May I just come back to the noble Baroness? I accept what she says that the design note may in many cases be more appropriate, but would she not agree that if you were constructing a new primary school and you followed the design notes whereby the handrails, the "loo", everything was suitable for a disabled child of that age, you would not be catering for the needs of, say, the wheelchair disabled teacher or the ambulant disabled parent visiting the school?
Baroness Young: I would find it very difficult to comment on that particular instance that the noble Baroness has raised. Clearly, if one is looking at the needs of the disabled in a school it might be necessary to provide lavatories suitable for use for a disabled member of the staff if you are putting up a new

609
school. Clearly, this would be a factor in the school. But it is also important that the other provisions should be suitable to school use.
I do not think there is any disagreement in principle between us in that we want to achieve what is the best for the disabled, whether it is on educational buildings or on any other buildings. I think that it would be more helpful to us all if we perhaps discussed this matter rather than debated it at present, when the noble Baroness has not had the opportunity to see the design note and I was unaware, until they were raised, of the difficulties she was going to raise at this Committee stage. If there is something further, we could come back to it on Report. In the meantime, I think it would be better to study the design note and have this further discussion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.12 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 23, after ("premises") insert ("to which section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 applies (buildings or premises").
The noble Baroness said: This is a technical amendment. As Clause 3 is drafted paragraph 1(a) of the new Section 29A to be inserted in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 would have overlapped with paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c). This would have been undesirable and the amendment will make clear that paragraph 1(a) applies only to premises to which Section 4 of the 1970 Act applies. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendments Nos. 11 and 12:
Page 3, line 26, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 36.
Page 4, line 16, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 17.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 19, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 7 and").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 5 of this Bill will extend the provisions of Section 7 of the 1970 Act so that signs must be provided indicating that provision is made for the disabled on buildings where there is provision and which come within the scope of Sections 8 and 8A of the 1970 Act. This amendment will ensure that the attention of developers is drawn to this requirement when they receive planning permission for such buildings. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 21, leave out (", subject to subsections (3) and (4) of this section,").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 15. Again this is a technical amendment to alter the provisions enabling the definition of the Code of Practice on Access for the Disabled to Buildings to be amended by order. The new clause which is being inserted after Clause 5 of the Bill amends Section 28 of the 1970 Act to give a power to amend the definition of the code of practice. This amendment applies Section 28 to the new Clause 29A which is being inserted in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. The power under Section 28 of the 1970 Act will thus
610
be sufficient to amend the definition of the code of practice for the purposes of Section 29A of the 1971 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, leave out lines 25 to 37 and insert—
("(3) Section 28 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (power to define certain expressions for the purposes of provisions of that Act) shall have effect as if any reference in it to a provision of that Act included a reference to this section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 37, at end insert:
Duty to draw attention to certain provisions for benefit of disabled—educational buildings.
29B.—(1) When granting planning permission for any development which will result in the provision of a building intended for the purposes—

(a) of a university, university college or college, or of a school or hall of a university; or

(b) of a school within the meaning of the Education Act 1944, a teacher training college maintained by a local education authority in England or Wales or any other institution providing further education pursuant to a scheme under section 42 of that Act,

the local planning authority shall draw the attention of the person to whom the permission is granted—

(i) to sections 7 and 8 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; and

(ii) to the Design Note.

(2) In subsection (1) of this section "the Design Note" means Design Note 18 "Access for the Disabled to Educational Buildings", published on behalf of the Secretary of State.
(3) Section 28 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (power to define certain expressions for the purposes of provisions of that Act) shall have effect as if any reference in it to a provision of that Act included a reference to this section.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Access for the disabled to sanitary appliances at places of entertainment.
The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (10) of section 20 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (provision of sanitary appliances at places of entertainment)—
"(11) A notice under this section shall draw the attention of the person on whom it is served—

(a) to sections 6(1) and 7 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; and

(b) to the code of practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings.

(12) In subsection (11) of this section "the code of practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings" means, subject to subsections (13) and (14) of this section, the British Standards Institution code of practice referred to as BS.5810: 1979.
(13) Section 28 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (power to define certain expressions for the purposes of provisions of that Act) shall have effect as if any reference in it to a provision of that Act included a reference to this section.".").
The noble Baroness said: The new clause provides that a notice served under Section 20 of the 1976 Act shall draw the attention of the owner or occupier to Sections 6(1) and 7 of the 1970 Act. Such a notice

611
could itself include a requirement to make particular provision for the disabled. In that case, a reference to the relevant sections of the 1970 Act would give added justification to the requirement. In other cases, such reference in a Section 20 notice would remind the owner or occupier of his own obligations under the 1970 Act. The clause also requires that Section 20 notices shall also draw attention to the British Standard Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings. This standard includes recommendations on the layout and fitment of lavatory facilities for the disabled. The Secretary of State is empowered to order that references to the standard by local authorities shall allude instead to any later edition of it, or to any amendment to it. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to welcome this new clause. I should just like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, whether this extends to Scotland, because some of this Bill does and some does not. I should just like her to confirm that.
Baroness Young: No, the amendment does not relate to Scotland. The new clause to be inserted in the Bill after Clause 3 requires that a notice under Section 20 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 should draw the attention of the owner of the building to Section 6(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and to the code of practice.
However, in Scotland where a local authority makes an order under Section 11(4) of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959 requiring the owner of an existing building to make the building conform to specified provisions of the building standards regulations, the form of the order can be prescribed by the Secretary of State for Scotland under Section 24 of the 1959 Act and if prescribed must be used.
Such a form is at present prescribed. This prescribed form has various notes attached which must be incorporated in the order, and there should be no difficulty under existing powers in prescribing a new form to include a suitable reference to Section 6(2) of the 1970 Act and the British Standards Code of Practice. I hope this explains the position in Scotland. The noble Baroness may like to read this point in the report. It means that it applies in Scotland but it applies in a different way. That is why this particular amendment does not apply to Scotland.
Lord Campbell of Croy: As it is a new clause I would just raise an editorial point which no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will take into account. If this new clause does not apply to Scotland then there ought to be something added at the bottom of it to say that this section does not apply to Scotland, because in the form of the Bill at present Clause 7 of the Bill simply says:
"This Act does not extend to Northern Ireland."
Unless a section has something at the end stating that it does not apply to England, Scotland, or Wales, it would be read as if it did apply to all three.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: If it is already being done in Scotland would it not be simpler just to include Scotland in the Bill?
Baroness Young: I am not a lawyer, but I think it is extremely difficult to apply one set of laws to Scotland
612
where the law in many instances is different, and in this particular instance we know that it is different. The point that my noble friend Lord Campbell has raised is important and I shall, in consultation with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, see if there is a further amendment that we should introduce to put the matter in order.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Planning (Scotland)—Access for the disabled to buildings etc.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
8.20 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I wish to remove from the Bill Clause 4, which amends the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 in the same way as Clause 3 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Sections 36 and 37 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act, which received the Royal Assent on 11th June, have the same effect in relation to Scotland as Clause 3 and the new clause being moved today have in relation to England and Wales. Clause 4 of the Bill is therefore no longer necessary.
Baroness Young: I am glad to accept that suggestion which the Government fully support.
Clause 4 disagreed to.
Clause 5 [Signs indicating provision for disabled]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 34, at end insert—
(.(4) All signs provided for by this section shall accurately denote the different types of handicap for which provision has been made.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is designed to cope with the sort of situation described by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, on Second Reading when he spoke of a beautiful loo for the disabled being built, with a wheelchair symbol displayed, and then the loo was found to be down nine steps. There is another case in a town where a wheelchair symbol is displayed several streets away from the loo; one pushes along for miles, it seems, following the arrows to get there, getting more and more frantic all the time, and finally one gets to the loo only to find that it is underground.
Most such examples are due to lack of thought and understanding. Clause 5 tries to help by stating that there should be signs indicating facilities for the disabled displayed at various places, such as outside buildings, in car parks, and so on, and I think this would be a convenient place in the Bill to have it stated in black and white that the signs should accurately denote the type of handicap for which provision has been made, so that people are not misled. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will be able to accept the amendment.
The Earl of Swinton: I support the amendment and, having been thinking about the matter since Second Reading, I feel that perhaps it would be wrong to try to penalise people, who, after all, have tried hard to

613
provide something, simply because they have made a boob of it, as in the cases the noble Baroness mentioned. I think the key here lies in the use of the word "accurately"; if that were inserted in the Bill I think it would do a lot to stop the damage that is done by people who shove up signs all over the place when some of the facilities being provided are quite incapable of being used by the people whom they are supposed to benefit.
Baroness Young: I am sure we all have great sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), particularly after the stories that were given on Second Reading to illustrate the difficulties which the disabled can experience, and we can understand therefore why she has tabled the amendment. The fact is that at present only two emblematic signs to indicate disabled facilities have been accepted nationally or internationally; the wheelchair sign and a newer sign to show equipment for people with defective hearing. It may be reasonable and convenient to sign some facilities by name, but not all. For instance, access for some people may be best effected by well designed stairs with a convenient handrail, but to show every such route of travel by signs would produce a clutter of signs which might not necessarily inform but could have the effect of confusing and might be regarded by developers as unreasonable.
The British Standard code of practice on access contains advice on suitable signs and symbols that, used in conjunction with the proposed new Section 7 of the 1970 Act, should produce a reasonable compromise. The Government are sympathetic, but we have concluded that this further amendment would not achieve an acceptable result. I would add that it is very difficult to get agreements on signs. There is really no agreed pattern and it would probably involve at any rate a national, if not an international, conference to agree designs for these signs and it is important that the signs should have national agreement, and preferably international agreement, so that those travelling about see the same signs and recognise them at once wherever they are. This is not being put up as a debating point, as it were, to speak against the amendment because, as I say, the Government are sympathetic to it. But we think it would be difficult at the moment to go further than we have done in the Bill because of the great difficulty of getting agreement on signs and on whether there should be more signs.
Baroness Masham of Eton: Disabled people are very complicated to provide for because they are such individuals and their needs are so individual. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Young, would try to put something in the circular which is to be sent out to bring this matter strongly to the notice of the people who will be putting up signs, so that access for disabled people is handled in such a way that the right thing is done. I say that because much money is wasted by over-keenness; people sometimes go ahead and do too much, and, for example, make lavatories which are supposed to accessible totally inaccessible simply because they have done too much, perhaps blocking it off with rails fixed on either side. In some instances they do all the wrong things, not because they mean to but because they are over-keen. Therefore, it is important that the right thing is done and the right sign is
614
used. While I support the amendment, I see the problems which the Minister raised. Nevertheless, the matter needs looking into, with advice being given, otherwise wastage and the wrong outcome will continue to occur.
Viscount Ingleby: I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said. I remember driving along a major road and coming across a place with a disabled sign displayed; it was a lavatory for the disabled, but with a step down about six inches, and that of course made the whole thing pointless.
Baroness Young: As I said at the outset, it is not that the Government are unsympathetic to the proposal; it is the difficulties of definining the different types of disablement by more badges. I shall certainly look at the points that have been raised and, where it is possible to include something in the circular, of course we shall look most sympathetically at doing that. After the Bill is on the statute book there will be many opportunities to comment on the circular and, as has already been indicated, that will be an occasion when the Government will seek not only comments from local authorities in relation to the circular, but comments from other interested bodies, particularly those representing the disabled, and I hope the kind of point that has been made in this debate will be met by that means. I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble Baroness comes to a decision in regard to the amendment, I wish to underline something the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said when she referred to the various organisations which represent the disabled. A number of them have done quite extraordinary work in bringing out guide books, catalogues and advice for the disabled as to facilities in rest rooms, hotels and so on in different areas. They have done a remarkable job in investigating, inspecting, cataloguing and publishing documented information available to the disabled telling them precisely what happens and where.
I thought the last point made by the noble Baroness was particularly important; it could be helpful if the Minister and her department would have discussions with the different organisations which represent the disabled. I would expect much good to flow from them because some of those organisations might come forward with simple systems of signing which might prove helpful to those for whom the signs are intended. If the noble Baroness were to initiate such discussions, perhaps there would be found a simple way to cope with what is a very complicated matter.
Lady Kinloss: Can the noble Baroness, Lady Young, consider the placing of a ramp sign under the wheelchair sign where there is a step in, say, a lavatory and a ramp has been fitted?
Baroness Young: The question of whether or not a sign is put up would be very much for local discretion. So far as I understand it, there would be nothing to prevent a local authority from doing precisely what the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, suggested. But I do not feel that one could legislate in the Bill for something of this kind. This is not something that I feel the Government would wish to oblige local authorities to do if they felt that they had some other, and better,

615
solution to the problem. That is why I feel that this is the kind of matter that is much better left to be dealt with in a circular, rather than to be included in primary legislation.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I must say that I have all along seen some difficulties. I should be grateful if the Minister does deal with the matter in a circular, but I felt that it would be better to have something in black and white. Perhaps my wording could be amended so as to appear in a less strong form, such as:
"shall have regard to their accurately denoting the type of handicap for which they are intended".
The chief difficulty is that there is no international sign for the ambulant disabled. The wheelchair sign is OK; it covers the ambulant disabled, in that basically what is all right for the wheelchair-bound people is all right for the ambulant disabled. But what is all right for the ambulant disabled may not be all right for the wheelchair-bound. I hope that there will be discussions about this matter and that a circular will be issued. I hope, too, that this point will be firmly drawn to the attention of those involved in constructing buildings, so that they will be clearly aware that a wheelchair cannot go down a number of steps. I do not know what my noble friend (who added his name to the amendment) feels about this, but I am rather convinced.
The Earl of Swinton: I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment. I am very sympathetic to what the noble Baroness the Minister said. I think that the way to do it is by circular. However, I still do not know whether my particular point has been covered. I have in mind buildings where wheelchair signs are displayed but it is impossible to get in with a wheelchair. I want to stop this kind of thing. It is extremely frustrating, time-wasting and annoying. I certainly do not feel that the imposition of a penalty would be the way to deal with it, and I am equally fairly certain that the amendment is not the right way to deal with it, either. There are circulars and circulars, and I feel that a fairly strong circular must be the answer. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I agree that there are circulars and circulars, and I hope that some firm advice will be given in relation to this matter.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, I wish to raise a point with the noble Baroness the Minister. My noble kinsman has mentioned instances of incorrect signing, and I wonder whether this could not be penalised under the Trade Descriptions Act. Sometimes hotels insert in the AA handbook signs indicating facilities for the disabled. My noble kinsman is well aware of this situation because on one occasion I am thinking of he booked the hotel. The room was suitable for disabled people, but it was up a flight of steps, and so was absolutely useless. Yet in the AA Handbook there was a wheelhcair sign beside the hotel entry, indicating that it was suitable for access by wheelchair. Such an instance might come under the trade descriptions
616
legislation. I wonder what the noble Baroness thinks about that.
Baroness Young: I would hesitate to pronounce off the cuff on the Trade Descriptions Act, though I doubt whether the matter to which the noble Baroness refers would apply, because in many instances it is not a question of trade that is involved. If I may say so to the noble Baroness, this is raising a point that is somewhat separate from that covered in the amendment which in itself covers two points.
The first is the question of whether, under the provision that is made there should be different types of sign for different types of handicap, and I have explained the complexities of this. The other point was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. As I understood him, the idea would be to prevent developers wasting money simply because they had not thought through all the requirements for the disabled before installing facilities designed for the disabled. That was really the point behind the complaint about the hotel. I would hope that this kind of matter would be covered, at least in relation to new buildings, by means of developers having to satisfy the authority on the question of access. That would mean that the point would have to be looked at in relation to the code of practice that we have been discussing.
So I believe that there are here two points, one of which could be satisfied under other parts of the Bill; and I hope that I have answered the other point. I hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), will feel happier about this matter and will he prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
8.36 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Further provision as regards the needs of the disabled
.—(1) In each of sections 4(1), 5(1), 6(1), 8(1) and 8A(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (which impose on persons undertaking the provision of public buildings etc. certain duties as regards the needs of the disabled)—

(a) for the words "provision, in so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable" there shall be substituted the words "appropriate provision"; and

(b) at the end there shall be added the words "unless such body as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State is satisfied, after carrying out any procedures which may be so prescribed, that in the circumstances it is either not practicable to make such provision or not reasonable that such provision should be made; and different bodies and different procedures may be prescribed for different classes of buildings or other premises to which this subsection applies".

(2) After the said section 4(1), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) In subsection (1) above "appropriate provision", in relation to any case, means provision conforming with so much of the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings as is relevant to that case and "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and in the foregoing provisions of this subsection "the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings" means the British Standards Institution code of practice referred to as BS 5810: 1979.".
(3) After the said section 5(1) the following words shall be inserted as section 5(1A)—
"Subsection (1A) of section 4 of this Act shall apply in relation to the interpretation of the last foregoing subsection of this section as the said subsection (1A) applies in relation to the interpretation of subsection (1) of that section.";
and the same words shall be inserted as sections 6(1A) and 8A(1A) of the said Act of 1970.
(4) The following subsection shall be inserted after the said section 8(1)—
"(1A) In subsection (1) above "appropriate provision", in relation to any case, means provision conforming with so much of the Design Note as is relevant to that case and "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and in the foregoing provisions of this subsection "the Design Note" means Design Note 18 "Access for the Disabled to Educational Buildings", published on behalf of the Secretary of State.".
(5) In section 28 of the said Act of 1970 (which empowers the Secretary of State to define certain expressions appearing therein), after the word "Parliament" there shall be inserted
"—(a)"and at the end there shall be added the words "; or
(b) amend—

(i) the definition of "the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings" in section 4(1A) of this Act; and

(ii) the definition of "the Design Note" in section 8(1A) of this Act.".

(6) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument.
(7) This section extends to England and Wales only.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 21. During consideration of the Local Government (Miscellanous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill in your Lordships' House, an amendment was made to strengthen the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, dealing with access for disabled people to buildings. That amendment related only to Scotland, but the Government gave a commitment at that stage—and I repeated it during the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill—that a similar amendment relating to England and Wales would be introduced during the Committee stage. The amendment fulfils that commitment, and I am very pleased to be able to commend it to your Lordships' Committee. It differs only in minor points of detail from the amendment relating to Scotland.
The arrangements for prescribing a body to adjudicate in cases where a developer does not propose to make provision for the needs of disabled people in accordance with the code of practice, and the details of procedures to be followed, will need to be considered carefully. It is our intention to consult all interested parties on these matters and to take full account of their views before determining the content of the regulations. The timing of the regulations will depend on the progress of these consultations. I think that this matter was gone into very thoroughly on a previous occasion. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: It would be less than civil of me not to express gratitude to the Government and to my noble friend for moving the new clause. As she has recorded, a new clause was added to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which has just been enacted. I was responsible for drafting and tabling the new clause in
618
the Scottish Bill, which the Government accepted virtually in toto. Therefore I am naturally very gratified and pleased, particularly as chairman for Scotland of the International Year of Disabled People, to see this provision being extended to England and Wales. It has been recommended by the bodies which have been studying the question of access for disabled people. This further step was their main recommendation, and it should make the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 much more effective where the access sections are concerned.
The body prescribed by the Secretaries of State in England and Wales and in Scotland will determine whether an excuse that access arrangements cannot be included because they are impracticable and unreasonable is a relevant excuse, and whether it can be sustained. The advance being made is that a body prescribed by a Secretary of State will be able to determine whether or not the excuse about reasonableness and practicability is upheld. It does not go further than that—and I must draw attention to this point. To have gone further than that would probably have meant bringing in a new kind of offence and prescribing penalties. That would perhaps have been too much to try to include in a Private Member's Bill.
What I hope is that when a situation arises where one of these bodies finds that access arrangements should be carried out and that the developer is not meeting the difficulties of practicability and reasonableness, then there will he a great weight of public opinion which will shame the developer into carrying out something, which will not be a costly business—the cost is negligible. So I must draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that it is in the last analysis the weight of public opinion which is going to have effect. But this important stage of a test being made and a decision by a responsible body coming out and stating whether or not something is practical and reasonable will enable the weight of public opinion to be concentrated upon a developer who is clearly not carrying out his duties.
This should therefore be a considerable advance in the whole area of designing new public buildings to make sure that there are proper access arrangements for severely disabled people. There have been too many cases since 1970, in all parts of the United Kingdom, where buildings to be used by the public have not included the arangements prescribed by the 1970 Act, and in many of those cases it has not been deliberate; it has simply been an oversight. An aspect has just been overlooked until it is too late. I hope that this amendment will help to put the matter right.
Lord Chelwood: As I was involved in the arguments about this particular question in a small way, I, too, should like to take this opportunity to say how greatly I welcome the Government's change of heart and mind, which was announced by my noble friend Lord Mansfield on 2nd June during the passage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. I do not want to waste the Committee's time for one moment, but I must just look back to 1970, when the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill was going through both Houses and when the Government of the day flatly refused to consider doing just what we are doing now: and, indeed, when successive Governments of both parties equally flatly refused to do any-

619
thing about it, were totally deaf to reason, and trotted out contradictory and unconvincing arguments. However, that is all in the past, and now the Government have gracefully given way. They are in fact doing the right thing. I am absolutely convinced. I should like to suggest to your Lordships' Committee that Parliament, especially your Lordships' House, has been at its best in this matter.
I must say that I had some anxiety when I looked at the Marshalled List of amendments and saw Amendment No. 16, which makes special arrangements in the light of the design note for buildings used for educational purposes; and my suspicious mind made me wonder whether the requirements on local authorities to provide access for disabled people to educational buildings as defined in the 1944 Act were less stringent than where other public buildings are concerned. However, my noble friend has set my mind at rest completely on this score now, and I therefore simply want to say how delighted I am with this outcome and how many hundreds of thousands of people will be equally delighted.
Viscount Ingleby: I should also like to welcome this amendment and to thank the Government most sincerely. I notice two changes in this provision from that which was in the Scottish Bill, which perhaps the noble Baroness would be kind enough to explain a little more. At the bottom of page 5 of the Marshalled List there are the words,
"and different bodies and different procedures may be prescribed for different classes of buildings or other premises to which this subsection applies"
This is an addition, and I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she would tell us a little more about why these words have been included.
Also, on the following page there is reference both to the British Standards Institution code of practice BS 5810 and to Design Note 18. One wonders, if they are both mentioned as being relevant in this particular case, why they could not both be mentioned as being relevant in the clause relating to educational buildings. I hope the noble Baroness will include in her consultations—I am sure she will—CORAD in England, who have done so much valuable work on this. I should like to ask her: Is there going to be any final right of appeal on this? One trusts the local authorities, obviously, to exercise their good judgment, but they are not Solomon and they may not be right in every case. Will there by any right of appeal from their decision?
Baroness Young: First of all, I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have so kindly commended this amendment and have said how glad they are to have it in the Bill. I should like to try to answer the particular points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. He asked why there was this difference in the wording in subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new clause, it being slightly different in this English Bill from the provision for Scotland in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. This Bill, in the last four lines of the new clause, in paragraph (b), permits different bodies and different procedures for different classes of buildings. Scotland does not have these four lines.
620
The reason is that this clause has been, as it were, further tidied up—that is not a very good legal expression, but I hope the noble Viscount will understand what I mean—since a similar provision was made for Scotland. The legal advice we have received was such that such a provision could make more sense—for example, for educational buildings, where special expertise might be needed—than in the provisions of the other Bill. Scotland, I now undertsand, are considering whether they should do the same in their provision. I think the noble Viscount will recall the circumstances in which the debate took place, and that events have moved very rapidly; and as so frequently occurs, I think, when lawyers look at these matters, nobody is going against the principle. Indeed, an attempt is being made to improve the drafting, so that it tightens it up and makes it clearer to those who have to implement it. I can assure the noble Viscount that there is absolutely nothing sinister in it at all; it is, I hope, and improvement on the other Bill.
The noble Viscount also asked me a point about sanctions against developers. I should like to say that the views of the prescribed body which is to be established will have considerable status, in the same way as, for example, a report by the Ombudsman. As the clause stands, no penalties for non-compliance are provided. If it turned out that developers were flouting these prescribed bodies it would be open for consideration whether penalties for non-compliance should be provided. I do not myself think that this is likely to happen, and I hope that penalties will not be necessary. I do not think they are necessary at the present time. If indeed one looks at the achievements of the access provisions of the 1970 Act, I do not think that these should be under-estimated; they have been very considerable. I have no doubt at all that these new provisions will make a great deal of difference, coming as they will to augment the provisions of the 1970 Act.
Lord Winstanley: Having taken some part in the earlier discussions on this matter, I am sure it would be remiss of me to allow us to take this decision without first expressing my gratitude, and that of my noble friends on these Benches, to the noble Baroness for what she has done. I say without hesitation that we regard this new clause as immensely helpful and wholly acceptable. I honestly think that the noble Baroness and her colleagues really have gone as far as they possibly could.
Speaking purely personally, I should have liked to find a way of avoiding subsection (6), but the very nature of the whole procedure, with the discussions and with the other steps which have to be taken, makes it absolutely essential to have subsection (6), which, as noble Lords will know, says:
"This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument".
I should have liked to avoid that, but I see the very nature of things is such that we have to have that kind of procedure. I should merely like to assure the noble Baroness that we are deeply grateful. I really believe that she has gone as far as she possibly could go, and the measure she proposes is wholly acceptable and very helpful.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to thank the noble Baroness for this amendment. There is no doubt that it makes the Bill much better. I asked some questions in the course of the Scottish Bill, and I should like to repeat them. The noble Baroness may have answered them already. I will study Hansard tomorrow. The questions are these. Who will be the prescribed body? What will be the appeals procedure? Will the individual be able to take the body to court? And will they have the status of building regulations? I hope the noble Baroness will be able to answer these questions. In subsection (4) she has gone a long way to try to tell us that all is well; but I am still worried that the code of practice is not written in for places of education.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to extend a very warm welcome to the clause as a whole, but I should like to say, even more strongly than did my noble friend, that I am very concerned about the inclusion of subsection (4) which treats schools and university buildings differently. I concede that the design note is excellent; but we need the code of practice as well. I hope that we will be having consultations over this.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the noble Baroness replies, I hope that she will be able to give the undertaking and the hope that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, gave to us on the Scottish Bill. He hoped that this could come into operation in 1981, the International Year of Disabled People.
Baroness Young: Again, I am glad of the welcome that this clause has received. I will try to answer the questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked four separate questions. May I say to her that these matters—the prescribed body and the appeals procedures—are not yet resolved. They are important questions and they will all be the subject of consultation. The Government have not yet taken decisions and we have no view as to how the provisions under this clause should be implemented. It is our intention to consult with all interested parties, including local authorities and representatives of disabled people. My honourable friend in another place mentioned various possibilities for the prescribed bodies; that is, local authorities, independent bodies such as the Institute of Arbitrators, specially-established bodies or voluntary organisations. But I should like to say that we have not taken any decisions on these or any other possibilities and will be seeking views.
On the implementation of the new arrangements, wide-ranging consultation and the drafting of regulations will inevitably take time. I hope that no undue delay will occur. It is not possible to predict how long this will take, but I think noble Lords will be justified in some complaint if they are not given adequate time to submit views on a consultation paper, or if their views were given only a cursory examination or, more important, if the regulations were deficient because of hurried drafting. The Government support this Bill. We are glad to do so, particularly in the International Year of Disabled People, I should like to give an assurance that there will be no unnecessary delay; but we want to get it right and to have adequate consultation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Extension to Northern Ireland
An Order in Council made under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 which contains a statement that its purposes correspond to those of this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament instead of the order or a draft of the order being subject to the procedure set out in paragraph 1(4) or (5) of that Schedule.").
The noble Baroness said: During the Second Reading of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and myself asked about the position of Northern Ireland. In reply, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, confirmed that a suitable Northern Ireland amendment would be introduced at Committee stage. I consider it most important, especially in the International Year of Disabled People, that Northern Ireland should also benefit from the advantages of this Bill which relates to England, Wales and Scotland. I therefore have tabled this amendment which will insert a clause into the Bill to enable a Northern Ireland Order in Council to be made subject to the negative resolution procedure. Apart from the technical differences, the Northern Ireland order will replicate the provisions of this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Blease: I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for including Northern Ireland in her very noble effort suitably to amend this Bill. I know that many in Northern Ireland will with me welcome and be grateful for her thoughtful interest. I couple that remark with the earlier words of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, when he invited the Minister to consider the position of Northern Ireland in this respect. I have not had the opportunity to consult about the legal technicalities which may arise from this clause. If the noble Baroness, Lady Young, can be satisfied that this meets the requirements and procedural arrangements in the Northern Ireland Act 1974, then I should wish warmly to support it from this side of the Committee.
Baroness Young: I should like to say, as I indicated on Second Reading, that the Government fully support this amendment and are happy that the Bill should extend to Northern Ireland, and that this will meet the point that was raised.
Lord Blease: I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for that. I know that it will be warmly received on the other side of the water.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, has welcomed this amendment. I hope that such other places as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands will do likewise.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 7, line 29, leave out ("This") and insert ("Subject to section (Further provision as regards the needs of the disabled) (6) above, this").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 7, line 32, after ("(3)" insert ("with the exception of section (Extension to Northern Ireland) above,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendments Nos 23 to 27:
Line 3, after ("disabled") insert ("and blind")
Line 4, leave out from ("to") to first ("to") in line 9 and insert ("amend the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 in relation to persons who improperly seek to avail themselves of concessions provided for disabled persons")
Line 9, after ("authorities") insert ("in England and Wales"
Line 13, after ("public") insert ("to require local authorities in England and Wales when serving a notice under section 20 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 to draw the attention of the person on whom it is served to certain statutory and other provisions relating to the needs of disabled persons;")
Line 18, after ("premises") insert ("to amend the law relating to the duty to make provision for the needs of disabled persons using certain buildings and premises; to facilitate the making of corresponding amendments to the law of Northern Ireland;").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 23 to 27 en bloc. These are ail technical amendments that are necessitated by the amendments which have already been agreed. I beg to move.

(thousands)

1974–75

1975–76

1976–77

1977–78

1978–79

1979–80

Total school leavers

691·8

707·4

751·1

768·5

781·2

795·9

of which with—

1 or more A level pass

106·1

112·2

117·3

118·7

119·8

123·7

No A level but one or more higher (1) grade O level or CSE

235·1

242·8

269·2

275·5

287·0

289·5

No higher (1) grade but one or more other grades

215·4

231·9

248·0

259·1

269·4

279·9

No CSE or GCE qualifications

135·2

120·6

116·6

115·2

105·1

102·8

(1) Higher grades are O level passes or grades A-C for examinations taken since 1974 and CSE grade 1. Other grades are O level grades D or E and CSE grades 2–5.

SMALL BUSINESSES: INVESTMENT INCENTIVES
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will list those measures in their last two Budgets designed to promote investment in small independent businesses; and to indicate, for any convenient period, their estimate of the response to date for private and public sector sources of finance.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Lord Cockfield): Both this year's and last year's Budgets included enterprise packages. These contained a variety of measures designed to improve the fiscal and administrative climate for small businesses. Taken together, all of these will help to encourage the creation, growth, and profitability of small businesses, and so promote investment in them.
This year the Business Start-Up Scheme has been introduced specifically to encourage the provision of equity finance by outsiders for new business start-ups in a wide range of manufacturing service and other industries. Some of the measures, including the Business Start-Up Scheme, have not yet come into force, while others have been in operation only for a short time. While it is too early to evaluate the success of these proposals, the response to the various items has been encouraging, and businesses have already started to take advantage of the opportunities offered.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Matrimonial Homes and Property Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
Greater London Council (General Powers) (No. 2) Bill
  Milford Docks Bill [H.L.]
  Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.