HL Deb 13 December 1982 vol 437 cc369-415

3.2 p.m.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Trefgarne.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]

Schedule 6 [Medical practitioners etc.]:

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 86: Page 56, line 47. leave out ("(staff of health authorities)").

The noble Lord said: This first amendment is in the nature of a drafting amendment. The reference to "health authorities" in the words in brackets would be misleading inasmuch as the definition of "health authority" in Section 128(1) of the 1977 Act, as amended by paragraph 29 of Schedule 5 to the Bill, excludes an FPC; whereas the intention is to include FPCs among the authorities which may employ officers in accordance with paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 5 to that Act. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 12 [Charges for various social services provided by local authorities]:

Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 87: Page 14. line 22, leave out ("services") and insert ("any service").

The noble Lord said: I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I move Amendment No. 87 and speak to Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 together. When introducing subsections (1) and (2) of this clause during the Second Reading of this Bill before your Lordships, my noble friend indicated that the main aim of this clause is to bring greater consistency to the powers of local authorities who might, and indeed do, charge for day and domiciliary services. The three amendments that we propose seek to carry this process even further by making the wording of the new subsections to be inserted in the Bill as similar as possible. The amendments have one other purpose which is to make it clearer that the person whose means are to be taken into account in assessing the charge is the person availing himself of this service. I beg to move,

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 88: Page 14. line 23, leave out ("them") and insert ("the service").

The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 89: Page 14. line 24, leave out ("the services") and insert ("it").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential and I have already spoken to it. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 90: Page 14. line 24, after ("services") insert ("(with the exception of home help services)").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend and myself. The purpose of this amendment is to exempt home help services from charges by local authorities. A study in 1980 found that most home help organisers considered charges to be a deterrent to potential home help users. A study of the home help service in Warwickshire in 1977 found that clients paying full charges averaged 1.5 hours fewer per week than the average client, and that part-payers averaged 0.7 hours fewer.

The home help service is so crucial to the wellbeing and independence of many elderly people that it should be provided on the basis of necessity and without charge to the client. The charges for home helps have caused much distress in recent years. It has been the policy of successive Governments that: the amount of any charge is not to be such that a recipient would need, because of it, to seek supplementary benefit or an addition to supplementary benefit". That comes from the DHSS Circular 53/71.

Since November 1980 it has not been possible to receive an addition to supplementary benefit for a local authority home help. Yet several councils have imposed minimum charges and many disabled and elderly people have been forced to give up home helps who they desperately need or go without some other necessity. The local authority associations have not specifically advised their members not to impose charges in these circumstances, but the AMA pointed out the hardship which would be caused if they did so, in AM A Social Services Circular 21/80. The Report of the Joint Working Group on Personal Social Services Charging Policies, on which much of Part VII of this Bill is based, recommended: The level of charge should not preclude those in need of the service from using it: in particular, people on a subsistence level of income should not be exposed to financial penalties in using services provided for their needs".

There is no doubt whatever that home help services are absolutely vital, especially to the home-bound, and many of these services go to people living on their own. Vital human contact is received from the home help service. It is vital to these people that this service should continue without any restriction. Elderly people are particularly independent and very often would rather go without the service than face a charge. Therefore, I ask the Committee to consider this amendment very carefully indeed because it concerns a vital part of the caring community. I beg to move.

Lord Banks

I should like to support briefly what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has said. This amendment would make sure that all who need home help would get it, or at any rate they would not be deterred from getting it on financial grounds. The noble Lord emphasised that there is no addition to supplementary benefit now available in order to pay for a local authority home help, and in the absence of that it seems that this amendment is necessary.

Baroness Lane-Fox

May I ask my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary whether he can give us any guidance as to the amount that is recovered by this payment for home help service? I agree with the noble Lord as to the vital necessity of the service, but I feel that everything is comparative and if enough is not brought in by having this on a payment basis then I should have thought that there was a good case for thinking again.

Lord Trefgarne

As the noble Lord has made plain, the intention behind this amendment is to exempt from charges all those people availing themselves of home help services provided by local authorities. I am afraid I have to tell him that in that endeavour the amendment is defective. It applies to charges made to the broad categories of disabled people provided with home help services under the National Assistance Act and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, but does not extend to Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977, under which local authorities may also provide home help services for other clients and make charges.

Certainly the Government would not support an attempt to single out a particular client group for exemption whereas others, such as old people or problem families with equal need, were not exempt; but I do not think that that was in the mind of the noble Lord. Accepting, therefore, that the noble Lord's intention is that exemption from home help charge should apply to all clients, then I am afraid that here, too, the Government could not support the noble Lord's proposal. Our purpose in Clause 12 is to introduce consistency into charging arrangements between the various services. Given that local authorities will be obliged to take into account the ability of people to pay for these services and have the option, indeed, to waive charges altogether if they think necessary, we see no reason to single out the home help service for special legislative arrangements as proposed in the amendment.

Such arrangements are not a feature of existing legislation and would defeat the underlying purpose of this clause. I do not of course for a moment deny the importance of the home help service, particularly to people such as the ones the noble Lord described, but I do not think that we would be assisting those people by singling them out in the way that the amendment proposes, particularly having regard to the other provisions of Clause 12. As for the point raised by my noble friend, I have not got that figure in front of me. I will see if I can find it out and write to my noble friend.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

The noble Lord said that the aim of the Government was to obtain consistency in charges by local authorities. Is he aware that there is a widespread inconsistency at the moment, and that if the proposals of this Bill are carried forward that inconsistency will remain? The noble Lord said that the amendment is defective. That may be so, but he referred to Clause 12 and he has not yet come to the other amendments that I have tabled on this issue. This, to me, on the home help service in particular, is a personal matter of great principle. Therefore, I propose to divide the Committee on the principle, and if I am successful the Government may have the opportunity to amend the Bill in some way or another at a later stage.

3.15 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 90) shall be agree to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 75.

DIVISION No. 1
CONTENTS
Amherst, E. Kennet, L.
Amulree, L. Killearn, L.
Ardwick, L. Kilmarnock, L.
Aylestone, L. Kinloss, Ly.
Banks, L. Lawrence, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Leatherland, L.
Beswick, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Birk, B.
Bishopston, L. Loudoun, C.
Blyton, L. Lovell-Davies, L.
Burton of Coventry, B. Masham of Ilton, B.
Clancarty, E. Mayhew, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Mishcon, L.
Crook, L. Molloy, L.
David, B. [Teller.] Northfield, L.
Diamond, L. Peart, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Phillips, B.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]
Elwyn-Jones, L.
Elystan-Morgan, L. Rhodes, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B. Robson of Kiddington, B.
Fisher of Rednal, B. Sainsbury, L.
Gaitskell, B. Shannon, E.
Grey, E. Stedman, B.
Hale, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Hampton, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Hooson, L. Stone, L.
Hunt, L. Strabolgi, L.
Ilchester, E. Strauss, L.
Ingleby, V. Underhill, L.
Irving of Dartford, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Jeger, B. Wigg, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L. Wigoder, L.
John-Mackie, L. Wootton of Abinger, B.
Kaldor, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Adeane, L. Davidson, V.
Avon, E. De Freyne, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Denham, L. [Teller.]
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Drumalbyn, L.
Bellwin, L. Ebbisham, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Eccles, V.
Buckinghamshire, E. Elliot of Harwood, B.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Elton, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Faithfull, B.
Clitheroe, L. Ferrers, E.
Cottesloe, L. Fortescue, E.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Gainford, L.
Glenarthur, L. Northchurch, B.
Gore-Booth, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Gridley, L. Orkney, E.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Pender, L.
Porritt, L.
Hampden, V. Portland, D.
Harmar-Nicholls, L. Richardson, L.
Holderness, L. Romney, E.
Home of the Hirsel, L. St. Davids, V.
Hylton-Foster, B. Saint Oswald, L.
Kilmany, L. Sandford, L.
Kinnaird, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Lane-Fox, B. Somers, L.
Lauderdale, E, Stamp, L.
Long, V. Strathspey, L.
Lyell, L. Sudeley, L.
Macleod of Borve, B. Swansea, L.
Margadale, L. Swinton, E. [Teller.]
Marley, L. Terrington, L.
Massereene and Ferrard, V. Teviot, L.
Trefgarne, L.
Merrivale, L. Trumpington, B.
Mersey, V, Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Milverton, L. Vickers, B.
Mowbray and Stourton, L. Wakefield of Kendal, L.
Wynford, L.
Noel-Buxton, L. Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.23 p.m.

Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 91: Page 14, line 25, leave out (", having regard to his means").

The noble Baroness said: This is a simple amendment, to delete "having regard to his means". It would not stop a local authority doing it, but if those words remain in the Bill, some local authorities may go in for the distasteful practice of means-testing simply because they think they should. Severe disability brings many problems and stresses to families. Many marriages break up and homes are disrupted. Aids can be of vital importance to disabled people and their families. My noble friend Lady Lane-Fox knows only too well what an advantage her special bed is and what a help her special hoist is, not only to herself but her helpers. Some people are not so lucky as she. Some local authorities do not help a disabled person if they live in a private house. I have been told by a consultant, social workers and occupational therapists that when a person becomes disabled and owns his house, they have recommended that he should sell the house so that he can be rehoused and then helped.

On-going disability involves many extra expenses. I feel so sorry for the single person who has worked and paid taxes and never used the state system for any benefits, and who then becomes disabled in middle-age from a disease such as multiple sclerosis. He then undergoes the demoralising and degrading process of means-testing. His private knowledge of what little he may have saved in the bank by careful living has to be declared and is bandied about the social services department. Canada dropped means-testing, as the administration of it cost more than what it was providing. May we be told how much means-testing costs in this country?

The criterion should be need and it should apply only to necessary equipment and aids. Better assessment and instruction should be given, and the aid or equipment should be on a loan basis. If a patient is means-tested and is found to have over the limit specified in the means-test, then buys an expensive and vital aid and dies a few months later, what happens to the aid? All aids costing over £50 should be monitored and collected back when no longer needed. I suggest that aids under £50 should be provided without a means-test: some local authorities do that.

The Government pay out billions of pounds in unemployment benefit. Surely a scheme could be devised so that the unemployed and prisoners shut up in prisons could help to provide aids so that the disabled are helped to live in the community with what they need, instead of having to be scrutinised and interrogated. The Disabled Income Group knows only too well the extra expense severely disabled people have. They would prefer there to be no means-test, but the amendment does not go so far as that. I beg to move.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

I strongly support the amendment because it is most important to the position of disabled people. We in this country should be able to afford to give the disabled the necessary aids to living. Wonderful work is done, for example, by the voluntary organisations, but by introducing what is an unfortunate phrase into the clause the Government are doing a disservice. For that reason I strongly support the principles so eloquently expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and I hope the amendment will have the support of the Committee.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

May I ask the Minister to say what would be the effect of deleting the words as proposed by the amendment? It would seem to leave the local authority to fix charges on the basis that they were reasonable, and as I understand it, "reasonableness" in respect of these charges must include some consideration of the wealth or otherwise of the person concerned. A charge which would be reasonable for a rich man would be unreasonable for a poor one. Therefore, if my noble friend decided to meet the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, would he be losing very much? If not—if it were likely that the local authority would, among other things, take the means of the person concerned into account—is there not something in what has been said in support of the amendment as to the rather disagreeable aspect of laying down a specific means-test? Perhaps my noble friend, when he replies, will address himself to that point, among others.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) Following what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has said, when the noble Lord the Minister replies, when he deals with the point as to what is "reasonableness", can he say whether certain benefits—for example, the attendance allowance, supplementary benefits, special heating allowance, et cetera—would be disregarded, or would they be treated as income? It must be borne in mind when assessing the means of a disabled person that these items are to do with the additional cost of disability. As the Disablement Income Group has always argued, a person undergoing a means-test should not be assessed on the extra cost of disability; he should not be penalised for the extra cost of disabled life.

I should like very much to support my noble friend's amendment and to echo her request to the Minister to give some idea of the cost of means-testing a person. Furthermore, I wonder whether the Minister can say what proportion of people who are at present means-tested are found to be capable of making a financial contribution.

Viscount Ingleby

I should like to add the mobility allowance to the list of various allowances that my noble friend has just mentioned. This allowance, too, is given for a specific purpose. Will it be excluded?

Lord Trefgarne

I should like first to deal with the very last point that was put to me, by the noble Viscount. I can say that the mobility allowance is centrally provided, and what we are here discussing are services of, and provisions made by, local authorities. So I can at once assure the noble Viscount that the mobility allowance is not one of the matters that we are here discussing.

I now wish to turn to the point that was raised by, I think, almost everyone who spoke on the amendment; namely, the cost of conducting means-tests and the likely benefit to Government funds, or local authority funds, from such a system. I fear that at the outset I have to say that because these matters are all conducted in a different way by different local authorities, it is not possible to arrive at a single figure. However, I do not propose to rest my argument upon the question of the costs or savings, and though I shall be happy to look into the point that has been raised, I do not think that it is one that need persuade us one way or the other.

The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness is opposed to the main purpose of the clause, which is to bring consistency to the charging arrangements for local authority day and domiciliary services. It may assist your Lordships' Committee if I describe the present position, and then indicate the changes that we want to make. At present the powers of local authorities to charge for the services are set out in the Acts mentioned in Clause 12(1) and (2), on the one hand, and in Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977 on the other hand. The Acts mentioned in Clause 12 include the one to which the amendment refers; namely, the National Assistance Act 1948, which also contains the charging powers for the services provided under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The Acts mentioned in Clause 12 empower local authorities to recover from persons availing themselves of any service provided under the section concerned such charges, if any, as the authority may determine, having regard to the cost of the service. Those words—having regard to the cost of the service—are important.

Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977, on the other hand, empowers local authorities to recover from persons availing themselves of services provided under the paragraphs concerned such charges, if any, as the authority considers reasonable, having regard to the means of those persons. As I say, that term appeared in the 1977 Act, and at that time the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and his noble and right honourable friends were responsible for such matters, as indeed they were in 1948, when the National Assistance Act made the original provision for making charges.

In the case of certain services, such as home helps, as I said earlier, they may be provided under more than one charging régime, and I submit that it is desirable to secure greater consistency in these matters. So in essence we have two or three different statutory provisions for making the services available. All of the provisions enable charges of one kind or another to be made, and at least one provision enjoins us to have regard to the means of those persons being supplied.

The amendments proposed in the Bill thus seek to replace the requirement that authorities should have regard to the cost of the service in the Acts mentioned in Clause 12(1) and (2) by the requirement that they should instead have regard to the means of the person availing himself of the service. That will then mean that there is consistency in the charging powers for this group of services. We think it right that a local authority should be empowered, if it chooses, to recover some of the cost of the services from those who are able to pay. We also consider that if the authority makes a charge, it should be able to vary it according to the means of the person for whom the service is provided, so that no one who really needs a service is prevented by the charge from benefiting from it. I should perhaps emphasise that nothing in the clause requires a local authority to impose any new charge, or increase any existing charge. It leaves local authorities with full discretion to waive or rebate charges when they consider it desirable.

The amendment introduced by the noble Baroness refers only to the National Assistance Act 1948, and not, as I say, to the Acts mentioned in Clause 12(2). It thus introduces a further difference in local authority charging powers, with the result that those provided with services under the National Assistance Act (mainly physically handicapped people) would be in a position different from those provided with services under the Acts mentioned in Clause 12(2) (the elderly) or those provided with services under the National Health Service Act 1977 (mothers and young children, and those requiring help for the prevention, care and after-care of illness, and with handicap, including mental disorder). We do not believe that further difference between groups of people requiring services and indeed between one type of local authority service and another should be introduced by legislation in this way. Therefore I hope that in the light of the shortcomings to which I have pointed the noble Baroness will not wish to press her amendment.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I think that my noble friend overlooked the question that I put to him. I asked him—perhaps I may repeat it—what would be the effect of the deletion of the words referred to in the amendment? In particular, in deciding what was reasonable, would not the local authority have to take into account means and other matters, without the disadvantage of a specific means-test?

Lord Trefgarne

I would need to take some advice as to the precise legal implication of an amendment other than the one that is on the Marshalled List before us.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I asked the question in relation to the present amendment.

Lord Trefgarne

As I understood it, my noble friend was asking me what would be the effect of an amendment without the words to which he is referring.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

Surely the point is very simple. We are discussing the amendment that is before us. If it is carried, the words will be taken out. I am asking my noble friend what the clause would mean if that happened. With very great respect, surely that is about as relevant to the present amendment as anything could be.

Lord Trefgarne

I had misunderstood what my noble friend was asking, and I apologise. As I understand it, removing the words in the way proposed would mean that, despite the Bill, we should be left with most of the inconsistencies to which I referred in my earlier remarks, and that would be a distinct disadvantage. I am sorry that I misunderstood my noble friend when he first put the point to me.

The fact of the matter is that a whole range of different provisions are available under the present charging régime. At least one of the provisions requires the question of means to be taken into account, and two or three different charging provisions are also in place, two of them having been imposed on an earlier day by noble Lords opposite and their right honourable friends. In this particular proposal we are seeking to tidy up the arrangements. We do not seek to impose new charges. We do not seek to cause local authorities to make charges where they do not at present make charges, and I believe that the proposal that we have made, whereby authorities ought to have regard to the means of those receiving the service, is a right and proper one. As I say, I hope that the noble Baroness will not wish to press her amendment.

Lord Somers

I agree entirely with the noble Baroness that a means-test is thoroughly undesirable. It is degrading and an absolutely unnecessary invasion into a person's privacy. As the Bill stands, a means-test is not specifically called for. I presume that there is every likelihood that it would take place, but it is not absolutely defined as being necessary. Would it not be possible to insert words to the effect that a means-test is not implied or is not to be used? Surely, if a local authority cannot decide for themselves whether a person is or is not wealthy enough to pay, then they have not sufficient intelligence to be occupying their position.

Lord Trefgarne

With respect to the noble Lord, it is not a question of intelligence but whether the local authority have the necessary information available to them. I must say that I am unrepentant about the words in the Bill. I think that they offer a much better régime for the future than has existed in the past. I certainly take the point made by the noble Lord. If I am reading correctly between the lines of the speech of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I think that he, too, has some reluctance to see imposed a means-test in the worst sense of that expression. So do I; but that is not what is proposed by this provision in the Bill. I rest on what I have said already.

Baroness Wootton of Abinger

We are all in favour of tidying up, of consistency and of avoiding unnecessary complexity. It seems to me that there are two criteria here. One is the criterion of the cost of the service and the other is the criterion of the person's means. In a sense they are related for one would only consider a person's means in relation to the kind of cost that was involved. Would it not be possible for the noble Lord the Minister to take this back again and to think of a formula which would bring both criteria into the Bill?

Lord Trefgarne

With respect to the noble Baroness, that is exactly what I am trying to avoid.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

Of course you are!

Lord Trefgarne

At present, the arrangements are (in some local authorities at least) that patients or recipients are required to pay a percentage of the cost of the service or of the item supplied. That, in some cases, is a very large sum of money indeed. It imposes a great burden on some people who are of limited means. In future, we should like to see the question of their means taken into account by the local authority—not just an imposition of a bald percentage of the cost of the service which is being supplied. I do not think that the cost of the service, as far as the recipient is concerned, is the right criterion. I think that the criterion that we propose on the contrary, the ability of the person to pay, is a more relevant one; and that is what I should like to see in the Bill.

Baroness Wootton of Abinger

I entirely agree with that. That is what I am trying to get at. The cost of the service is a factor that comes in because a service that is a very small one may be a very burdensome one to a person of very small means, while the cost of a service which is much larger may not matter so much to a person of large means. Would it be possible not to prescribe a specific percentage of the cost of the service (as I understand is the present position) but simply to say that these two factors would be brought into the picture?

Lord Trefgarne

If I may speak yet again on this matter, that would be to replace one complex, unsatisfactory system with another even more complex, and probably even less satisfactory.

Lord Leatherland

Clause 12 deals with charges which might be imposed upon people who are blind, deaf, dumb and crippled. If any of those people should happen to be old-age pensioners, are they to be subject to these charges, or are old-age pensioners to be exempt from them?

Lord Trefgarne

It very much depends on the other resources available to the old-age pensioner in question. Some old-age pensioners, particularly after the age of 70 so far as men are concerned, and 65 so far as women are concerned, are not means-tested. There is no earnings rule applied to old-age pensioners after those ages. That being so, they might have very substantial other means. I do not think that that would be a right criterion.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

Is the noble Lord referring to old-age pensioners doing newspaper rounds and earning fabulous sums?

Lord Trefgarne

My own father drew the old-age pension—or would have done so—after the age of 70, had he lived that long. He would certainly have been able to pay, I think, for the sort of facilities we are thinking about.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

The Minister talks a lot about having regard to a person's needs, but I do not think he has yet answered my question on disregard—which I hope he will, because it is very important. He said in answer to my noble friend Lord Ingleby that mobility allowance could be disregarded. What about all the other benefits designed to offset the extra cost of disabled life, such as supplementary benefits, dependants' allowance, et cetera? Will they be disregarded, or will they be treated as income?

Lord Trefgarne

I am not in a position to answer the noble Baroness precisely because I think we want to leave some flexibility to local authorities in this matter. I am trying to resist the suggestion that we are imposing some very formal, classified, precise, procedure in these ways; because we are not. We are saying to local authorities that they ought to be able to take into account the means of people. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press me too closely on that point because I should like to leave a good deal of discretion to local authorities on this matter.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

Do I gather from the Minister's reply that if it is left open to local authorities some local authorities may disregard those essential allowances and others will not, and that there will be disparity between them?

Lord Trefgarne

There will, of course, be guidance to local authorities in these matters and we shall have to see how that comes.

Baroness Jeger

Further to that point, can the Minister say whether he will be expecting the disregards to apply for capital for purposes of supplementary benefit?—which disregards do not include the surrender value of life policies or leases of one's home as distinct from owner occupation. If that is so, there will be considerable hardship.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I think this is a very complicated matter and I, personally, feel very strongly that the Government have got it wrong. I think that the people who do not smoke, do not drink, have lived carefully and saved some money are then going to be penalised. I think that is wholly unfair. I think that in this amendment we are dealing with the dumb, the blind and the disabled. These are perhaps the most unfortunate people in our society. To answer the question of my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth), I was told the other day that somebody could have the mobility allowance and that this would not be taken into consideration until they had collected it and saved it to go on holiday and then, when they had a bulk sum in the bank, it would be taken into consideration. Therefore, to put emphasis on having regard to their means is just helping the skivers and being most unfair to those people who probably have very little and want to save and live carefully. For that reason I would ask noble Lords to come into the Lobby with me. I should like to divide the Committee.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

Before we come to that stage, may I, nonetheless, ask my noble friend to help some of us who are very much troubled by this? My noble friend said that guidance would be given to local authorities as to how they were to deal with the question of means. Obviously, in practical terms, a great deal will depend on that. I have no idea what the outcome of a vote now would be; but I wonder whether my noble friend would not think it a practical step to say that he will consider this matter further and so enable an amendment to be taken at Report stage; and that when we come to that he will then be, I hope, in a position to tell the House—it will then be a House and not a Committee—exactly how this would work by giving a quotation from the intended guidance and answering the question which, understandably (and I am not being impertinent in criticising him) he is in no position to answer this afternoon? I think that he can see that there is a great deal of feeling in the Committee, and not merely confined to one quarter. I wonder whether he can ease the position a little by giving us some help in this way?

Lord Trefgarne

I am certainly willing at some future stage of the Bill to expand further upon the various issues that have been referred to this afternoon. If the noble Baroness wants to withdraw her amendment and tackle me again on the subject at another stage, I have no objection at all to that course. However, I do not want the noble Baroness to get the impression that the Government are in any way wavering upon the proposals that are contained in this particular clause. I am convinced and unrepentant that the right approach is to standardise—to use a rather horrible word—the procedures in assessing the charges for these services. At the moment we are in a position where all sorts of different régimes can and do apply—generally I fear to the disadvantage of those who receive these services. I should like a better régime to apply in future. That is what is contained in these provisions. I remain willing to answer a similar amendment at another stage of the Bill, though I would not want the Committee to imagine that the Government are in any way reconsidering their position on this matter.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

The noble Lord mentioned guidance. Who is going to give the guidance to local authorities? Is it the AMA? If that is the case, the noble Lord is as well aware as I am that so far negotiations have foundered. There is no possible chance that the AMA can formulate a set of guidance to local authorities. He knows that as well as I do.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I think that the noble Lord the Minister has been honest. I feel that the Government will not change their mind so far as means-testing is concerned. I know that the people who worked on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 were very worried and are still worried 11 or 12 years later. This is because people who need help from the social services departments have not come forward because they are frightened of being rebuked. The five little words in my amendment are going to make people go even less to the social service department for help. So, I still ask your Lordships to come into the Lobby with me. I should like to divide the Committee.

3.52 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 91) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 76.

DIVISION NO. 3
CONTENTS
Airey of Abingdon, B. McFadzean, L.
Avon, E. Macleod of Borve, B.
Bellwin, L. Mancroft, L.
Beloff, L. Margadale, L.
Boardman, L. Marley, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Cathcart, E. Merrivale, L.
Cockfield, L. Mersey, V.
Coleraine, L. Mottistone, L.
Colwyn, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Napier and Ettrick, L.
Daventry, V. Newall, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Northchurch, B.
Dilhorne, V. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Orkney, E.
Eccles, V. Orr-Ewing, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Elton, L. Renton, L.
Faithfull, B. Romney, E.
Fortescue, E. St. Davids, V.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Saint Oswald, L.
Gibson-Watt, L. Salisbury, M.
Glenarthur, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Soames, L.
Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Hatherton, L.
Holderness, L. Strathspey, L.
Hornsby-Smith, B. Sudeley, L.
Hylton-Foster, B. Swansea, L.
Killearn, L. Swinfen, L.
Kinloss, Ly. Swinton, E. [Teller.]
Kinnaird, L. Terrington, L.
Kinnoull, E. Teynham, L.
Lane-Fox, B. Trefgarne, L.
Lauderdale, E. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Long, V. Vickers, B.
Loudoun, C. Vivian, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L. Wakefield of Kendal, L.
Luke, L. Wynford, L.
Lyell, L. Young, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Ailesbury, M. Gaitskell, B.
Ardwick, L. Gregson, L.
Aylestone, L. Hale, L.
Balogh, L. Hampton, L.
Banks, L. Hanworth, V.
Birk, B. Harris of Greenwich, L.
Bishopston, L. Hatch of Lusby, L.
Blyton, L. Houghton of Sowerby, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Ingleby, V.
Brockway, L. Jeger, B.
Bruce of Donington, L. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. John-Mackie, L.
Collison, L. Kagan, L.
Cooper of Stockton Heath, L. Kaldor, L.
Darcy (de Knayth), B. Kilmarnock, L.
David, B. [Teller.] Listowel, E.
Davies of Leek, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Davies of Penrhys, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L.
Diamond, L. Lovell-Davis, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. MacLeod of Fuinary, L.
Erroll, E. Masham of Ilton, B.
Ewart-Biggs, B. Mayhew, L.
Melchett, L. Stedman, B.
Mishcon, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Molloy, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Oram, L. Stone, L.
Paget of Northampton, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Peart, L. Underhill, L.
Phillips, B. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.] Wells-Pestell, L.
White, B.
Robson of Kiddington, B. Wigoder, L.
Sefton of Garston, L. Winstanley, L.
Shackleton, L. Winterbottom, L.
Somers, L. Wootton of Abinger, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

4.2 p.m.

Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 92:

Page 14, line 25, at end insert— ("Provided that no charge shall be recoverable for any service other than the provision of a meal from a person who is in receipt of supplementary benefit or whose weekly net disposable income is, or would be after payment of the charge, less than the aggregate of the sums for the time being specified in section 6(1)(a) of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 and column (3) of paragraph 6 of Part IV of Schedule 4 to the Social Security Act 1975 and whose capital resources are less than the sum for the time being specified in Regulation 7 of the Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Regulations 1981.")

The noble Lord said: After the Division we have had, which has given a degree of pleasure in some respects, I should like to move Amendment No. 92 and to take with it Amendments Nos. 94 and 95. They are all on the same theme and although they avoid means-testing they do give exemptions where need applies because of the circumstances of the individual. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has already referred to inconsistences in charging by local authorities and this, quite frankly, will continue to be the case if this Bill goes through unamended. These three amendments, therefore, are designed to avoid charges being levied on people with very low incomes for services provided under a variety of enactments.

It might be argued that individual local authorities should be left to make their own decisions. That is the theme which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has emphasised quite frequently during the Committee stage but, as I have pointed out, the patterns vary from local authority to local authority, and in some cases some of them impose charges which disabled people are unable to pay. It really boils down to the fact that whether you get the best relief for these services depends on where you live. That is not good enough. You might be in an area of a local authority—I am not pointing in any political direction—whose outlook was in the main progressive. Then you may come to another local authority whose attitude of mind seems to be, "These people must pay", and they are very tight indeed on their services. From one's own experience, one could point out a number of these authorities. I do not intend to do so, but it is a fact, and we all know it.

On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said at col. 772 on 22nd November that he thought the local authority associations would certainly be issuing guidance to their members. He mentioned that quite recently in the discussion on the previous amendment. The AMA appears to have made little progress, however, and the noble Lord will know that. I understand that there is in fact little chance of such action being taken because of the extreme difficulties in the way of formulating notes of guidance. In any case, whether the AMA can eventually act or not, these amendments provide a fair basis and will safeguard the worse-off section of our community. That is the basis of the amendments—to protect the worse-off, not avoiding any legitimate charge but at least protecting the worse-off sections of our community. Surely that should be our primary objective. I hope the Government will see that this amendment is not critical in the sense of avoiding any charge on a person. It lays down a formula which would help the Government in their objective of getting some real basis of consistency. I beg to move.

Lord Banks

Again, I should like briefly to support the amendment which has just been moved and to express support for all three of the amendments to which the noble Lord spoke. As he explained, they are designed to see that the elderly and the disabled do not have to pay for services except meals, if they are on supplementary benefit, if their net disposable income is less than the retirement pension after the effect of the charge has been taken into account and if their capital resources are less than £2,500. In those circumstances they are not required to pay; and that seems reasonable.

Lord Trefgarne

I hope I can assist your Lordships in this matter by saying that the Government have complete sympathy with the principle of these amendments in so far as they seek to relieve people on low incomes and with small capital resources from local authority charges for services that they need. It has been the consistent policy of the Government that local authorities should not charge those receiving day and domiciliary services who are living at supplementary benefit levels or who would suffer real hardship if required to pay charges. We need to be careful, however, about enshrining that principle in legislation and particularly in the terms proposed. Legislation removes any flexibility in suiting charging arrangements to the overall circumstances of the client.

The amendment already excludes the meals service from the exemption, presumably in recognition of the element in supplementary benefit which provides for food. Supplementary benefit is not a fixed sum: the scale rate varies according to the circumstances of the individual, and additional benefits may be paid for some items which may also be provided as local authority services. There are thus several areas of overlap which need to be examined. There is also some doubt whether the particular method of assessing the income level of those to be exempted from charges who are not in receipt of supplementary benefit is the most equitable and appropriate, however administratively convenient it may be or may not be. The advent of housing benefit will take some people out of supplementary benefit and reduce the supplementary benefit of others. Its effects will need careful assessment. The proposed amendment to Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act (paragraph 2(5)) also brings the provision of residential accommodation for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped, alcoholics and drug addicts within the scope of the exemption from charges and further consequent complications in relation to both supplementary benefit and charging other client groups for residential accommodation.

These are questions on which we need to consult the local authority associations. I said at Second Reading that the local authority associations had originally agreed to issue administrative guidance to member authorities about assessing people's ability to pay. The principle behind these amendments was among the conclusions of the joint working group of central and local government officials which led to these legislative proposals, and it might well have been embodied in advice by the associations. We have now heard from one of the associations that they no longer think it appropriate to issue such advice.

I would, therefore, ask the noble Baroness and the noble Lord whether they would consent to withdraw their amendment at this stage, on the understanding that the Government will look into the matter with the local authority associations, and, if a suitable formula can be devised—and I would not wish to hide from your Lordships some of the difficulties in the way of this—they will introduce an amendment at the Report stage of the Bill.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

The noble Lord has been quite generous—I nearly said "for a change", but that would not be fair—in indicating that there is some sympathy with the amendment. As he has undertaken to see whether there is a case for formulating something, I shall willingly withdraw the amendment. Let us look forward to the Report stage, or, if that is not to be. possibly to the Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 93:

Page 14, line 26, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ("(2) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (2) of section 45 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 (promotion by local authorities of welfare of old people)— (2) Where a person avails himself of any service provided in pursuance of arrangements made under this section, the local authority providing the service may recover from him such charges (if any) for it as they consider reasonable, having regard to his means.". (2A) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (2) of section 8 of the Residential Homes Act 1980 (provision of meals and recreation for old people)— (2) Where a person avails himself of any service provided in pursuance of arrangements made under subsection (1) above, the district council providing the service may recover from him such charges (if any) for it as they consider reasonable, having regard to his means.".).

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential upon the earlier amendments, Nos. 87, 88 and 89, to which I spoke. I am afraid I inadvertently omitted to mention that this amendment is part of that series. I beg to move.

Lord Somers

In view of the fact that Amendment No. 91 was agreed to, and two subsections of this amendment end with the words "having regard to his means", would the Government consider deleting those words? Without them, we would simply have "as they consider reasonable", which seems to me entirely satisfactory.

Baroness Jeger

While the Minister is looking for the answer, may I say that, as it was the will of the Committee earlier that the words "having regard to his means" should be expunged, it is surely for the Government to take them out of their position here in the Bill.

Lord Trefgarne

I think the noble Baroness is quite right. Although I could no doubt insist upon this amendment (or, at least, seek to) I shall not do so, and I seek leave to withdraw the amendment now. If I am right in my brief that it ought to be in the Bill, I will bring it forward at the next stage. But, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 not moved.]

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 [Contributions in respect of children in care]:

Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 96:

Page 15, leave out lines 14 to 23 and insert— ("46.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and section 47 of this Act, a local authority in whose care a child is may serve upon a person liable to contribute in respect of that child under section 45 of this Act (a "contributor") a notice in writing (a "contribution notice") specifying the amount of such contribution determined in accordance with the following subsections of this section.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the existing provision requiring the service of a notice is retained, and that it does not become a contractual or other legal obligation until after an agreement is reached, or a court order is made. The advantage of this arrangement is that there will be a clear procedure at three separate stages: first, the local authority informs the parent that he, or she, may be liable to contribute; secondly, the local authority and the parent have time to agree the charge or to get a decision from the court; thirdly, the arrangement is likely to enhance the chances of co-operation between local authority and family and, in turn, of regular payments from the parent. I beg to move.

Lord Trefgarne

We are, I think, discussing Amendments Nos. 96 to 103, which all address themselves to the same point. Local authorities have sought for some time the power to levy flat rate contributions in respect of children in care, rather than having to make a detailed assessment in every case. This was one of the recommendations of the joint local authority and departmental working group on charging policies. By means of this Bill, we are to give local authorities power to levy flat rate contributions for children in care. However, they will still have the power to make a detailed assessment in individual cases, if they so wish, subject to an upper ceiling. Local authorities will be given power not to levy a charge at all, if they consider contributions to be inappropriate in any particular case. The provisions of the Bill will have the effect of simplifying the administrative arrangements and reducing administrative costs.

The amendments proposed will, I fear, have the reverse effect and will also involve the detailed means-testing of contributors. The effect of the amendments is to impose complicated and restrictive rules on local authorities for the purpose of assessing the amount of contribution payable in respect of children in care. This was one of the recommendations of the joint local authority and departmental working group, to which I referred just now.

I consider that, as local authorities have been given statutory responsibility for the children in their care, it makes sense that they should be given discretionary powers on whether, and how much, to charge for the services they provide. Therefore, I do not, I am afraid, support the proposed amendments, including the amendment by which the Secretary of State would be given power to make regulations governing liability for, and assessment of, contributions for children in care. This is in keeping with our desire to keep to a minimum the number of central Government controls over the activities and delegated powers of local authorities.

A further effect of the amendments is to introduce a reduced and, if I may say so, inappropriate upper limit to the amount of contribution payable. Complete exemption from liability is introduced for several categories of persons, which again, I think, is inappropriate. Many young people in care, including those receiving social security benefits, have incomes sufficient to allow them to make some contribution towards their keep, however small. Under the arrangements proposed, a large number of these young people would be exempted from the requirement to make any contribution at all. I believe that this would not help them to develop a sense of responsibility in financial matters, which is so important. The net effect of these changes would be to reduce considerably the income which local authorities receive in the form of contributions in respect of children in their care.

I can tell your Lordships that the local authority associations will be setting up a working group to consider the drawing up of a sliding scale governing the charging of young people in care. In addition, they are going to consider drawing up a list of factors which may be taken into account in assessing the ability of parents to contribute towards the maintenance of children in care. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

The noble Lord has gone to town in a big way, because he has discussed all the subsequent amendments which I have yet to move. I am dealing only with the provision of the notice, but the noble Lord has gone hareing away and has replied to several amendments on which I may speak at some length. If there is difficulty over the question of the notice, I shall not press that point. I shall examine the mass of information which the noble Lord has given on all sorts of subjects related to the various amendments, and will come forward at Report stage on Amendment No, 96. Therefore, I shall withdraw that amendment, although I do not understand what the noble Lord is getting at.

Lord Trefgarne

I apologise to the noble Lord. I said at the outset of my remarks that I thought he wanted to discuss Amendments Nos. 96 to 103 together, and that is why I made the speech that I did.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

That may have been healthy anticipation, but I had no such idea. It has put me in a spot.

Lord Trefgarne

The noble Lord did not say "No".

Lord Wallace of Coslany

I was so astounded.

Lord Trefgarne

Again, I apologise. I thought the noble Lord nodded in assent when I said that at the beginning of my remarks. If I mistook the noble Lord in any way, I apologise.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.19 p.m.

Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 97.

Page 15, leave out lines 24 to 37 and insert— ("(2) The amount specified in a contribution notice shall not be greater than the weekly amount which is payable in respect of a dependant child to a person in receipt of the widowed mothers' allowance under subsection (4) of section 41 of and column 2 in Part IV of Schedule 4 to the Social Security Act 1975.").

The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment, in spite of what the noble Lord said. Its purpose is to set a realistic maximum limit on the weekly amount that a local authority can charge parents of children in care. The suggested maximum is the amount paid for a child to a person in receipt of a long-term national insurance benefit, such as the widowed mother's allowance. The current amount is, I understand, £7.95.

Under the present system, the charges which local authorities levy are often unreasonably high. Authorities are allowed to charge up to the weekly amount that they themselves normally pay to foster parents. In 1981, such fees could be anything from £17 per week for a very young child to £35 for a young teenager. A survey of local authority practice revealed that many authorities make an immediate charge of the allowed maximum, leaving it to parents to write back if they consider the charge to be too high.

Many of the demand letters from local authorities are in standard form and are full of complicated legal phrases. They can be so easily intimidating to vulner- able parents who are already suffering from the strain and stress of surrendering or losing their child to public care. If the parent does not reply and the authority does not review its scheme regularly, it could continue to operate the maximum charge throughout the child's stay in care. When parents submit details of their income and are then assessed by the local authority, they can still be liable for hefty contributions which drag them down to near or below subsistence level.

The amendment provides for equity between families. It seems to make sense that the amount paid to a parent who needs to claim benefit to maintain his or her child at home should be used as a guideline for the amount that a parent should contribute to the maintenance of a child away from home. I beg to move.

Lord Banks

I support this amendment. As the noble Lord said in his closing remarks, it seems right and wholly reasonable that the limit to be put on the contribution which is made to help to maintain a child in care should be similar to the limit which is placed on the amount of benefit given to somebody who wants to maintain his child at home. I do not believe that this proposal is subject to the criticisms of the other amendments which the noble Lord the Minister put forward in his reply to the previous amendment.

Lord Trefgarne

Although I am always reluctant to resist an amendment simply on the basis of some alleged technical defect, I am told that there is one in respect of this amendment of which your Lordships will wish to be apprised. It fails to make reference to any one paragraph of column 2 in Part IV of Schedule 4 to the Social Security Act 1975, and therefore to any one benefit, and is thus ambiguous. Be that as it may, I deployed the difficulties about this amendment in my earlier remarks. I am reluctant to bore your Lordships with a further extract from what I have already said, but the Government see difficulties with this amendment, along the lines which I described earlier. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press it.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

Apparently a technical hitch is involved. On that basis I shall reconsider the amendment, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 98:

Page 15, line 37, at end insert— ("(2A) A contributor shall not be liable under section 45 of this Act to pay any contribution in respect of a child in care for as long as the contributor is—

  1. (a) in receipt of or entitled to apply for supplementary benefit under the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976. or
  2. (b) in receipt of or entitled to apply for housing benefits under Part II of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982. or
  3. (c) in receipt of or entitled to apply for family income supplement under the Family Income Supplements Act 1970. or would be so entitled if the child or children in care were living in the same household as the contributor.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jeger. The purpose of the amendment—this comes right up against what the noble Lord said in his mass contribution on this group of amendments—is to exempt from parental contributions all families who receive or are entitled to supplementary benefit, family income supplement or housing benefit. The proposals in the Bill give local authorities discretion to waive a charge in any particular case but do not provide for the statutory exemption of any family or group of families. The proposed amendment would lift an impossible burden from whole groups of poor parents and greatly reduce the time, money and energy currently spent by local authority staff upon assessing and collecting contributions.

I shall not proceed any further because what I have just said should appeal to the Government. I claim that the amendment would greatly reduce the time, money and energy currently spent by local authority staff upon assessing and collecting contributions. I beg to move.

Lord Trefgarne

I am afraid that there is another small technical defect in this amendment. If the noble Lord turns his eye to paragraph (b) he will see the words, "in receipt of or entitled to apply for housing benefits". I am told that the whole world is entitled to apply for housing benefits. What is relevant is whether or not one is entitled to receive them. That is a difficulty which the noble Lord will no doubt wish to put right at some later stage, if he sees fit to proceed with the matter. I do not wish to deploy all the arguments which I deployed just now but, as I have already said, this amendment contains a technical defect.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

In view of the technicalities involved and the resulting defects, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 99:

Page 15, line 37, at end insert— ("(2B) In determining the amount to be specified in the contribution notice the local authority shall calculate the assessable income of the contributor by deducting from his gross earnings or other income the following amounts—

  1. (a) income tax;
  2. (b) any contribution under Part I of the Social Security Act 1975 paid by the contributor or by his employer on his behalf the amount of which is deducted by the employer from the contributor's earnings;
  3. (c) contributions to an occupational pension scheme;
  4. (d) expenses reasonably incurred by the contributor without reimbursement in respect of travel to and from his place of work, reasonable provision for the care of another member of the household during the contributor's absence from home in respect of work and any other expenses reasonably incurred by the contributor for the purposes of his employment;
  5. (e) expenses reasonably incurred by the contributor and his family in maintaining contact with the child or children in care, including the cost of travel and subsistence, of reasonable gifts and of items of clothing;
  6. (f) any child benefit payable under the Child Benefit Act 1975.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jeger. The purpose of the amendment is to provide local authorities with a clear statutory formula for calculating a parent's disposable income. At present, as we all know, authorities use whatever formula they choose, and nine out of 10 authorities use the ordinary supplementary benefit rates to measure how much a family can afford to pay. Then they subtract from the family's net income the supplementary benefit entitlement. After that, practice varies widely. Some, though not all, authorities make an allowance for travel to work and other expenses, such as hire purchase commitments. What almost all authorities fail to do is to ensure that the family is left with enough money to keep up contact with their child in care.

No authority we know of makes an allowance for the cost of visiting a child. Such visits sometimes entail a long journey, a meal out and possibly an overnight stay. Money is also needed for telephone calls and for buying and sending letters, cards, birthday presents and items of clothing. It is good for families to keep in touch and maintain contact; it is often crucial in attempting to reunite a family. But the expense incurred by parents can be heavy. If there is a technical fault this time I shall look into it, but I feel that this is a matter which could usefully be looked at by the Government. I do not intend to press the amendment at this stage, unless the Government give a most unsatisfactory reply. I beg to move.

Lord Trefgarne

I must confess that my scrutiny thus far has not revealed any obvious technical defect in the noble Lord's amendment. None the less, I would ask the noble Lord whether he really thinks it right to impose a detailed panoply of regulation and restriction upon the arrangements we propose. We much prefer a more flexible approach to these matters. Experience has shown in some other areas of benefit that a whole raft of tiny, minute regulations, whether in statute, statutory instrument, or whatever, tend to cost a great deal to administer, throw up as many anomalies as they solve and in the end do not provide a greater level of benefit to those whom they are supposed to help. At the same time they bring into being a great department of officials and staff of every kind to operate the system. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore accept the general objection to the proposals contained in this and the immediately following amendments, and, although I am happy to deploy further detailed arguments if the noble Lord wishes, he might prefer that I did not do that.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

That is a matter for consideration. I want the Government to think about this because a child in care should be treated on the same basis as a child in hospital. The parents of a child in hospital are not subjected to the particular points about which I have complained. All I ask is that the matter should be considered. Separation can be agonising even though there may be good reasons for it and the question of reuniting the child with the parent is vitally important. It is possible that visits can help in that way. I am not a social worker and I do not have the great experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], but there is something in this amendment and I hope that the Government will look into it.

Lord Trefgarne

I do not want to be unreasonable in these matters. I will certainly between now and the next stage look at the point which the noble Lord has made. I would not want to raise any undue expectations in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, because there are the difficulties which I have described. However, if the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment now, I shall not object if he wants to ask me about it again at the next stage.

Lord Banks

Before the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany. reacts to what the noble Lord the Minister has just said, may I just underline one point in relation to this amendment, which calls for a disregard of child benefit? This highlights the difference between the treatment of a child in hospital and the treatment of a child in care. With the child in hospital, child benefit continues for 20 weeks and may continue longer than that if the parents are maintaining contact with the child in hospital; whereas, with the child in care, benefit lasts for only eight weeks and then stops. Very often the benefit paid during those eight weeks is required by the local authority by means of a payment. There seems to be a considerable difference in this respect between the position of children who are not in very different situations. I wonder whether the Minister could say something about this point at this stage or at some other stage.

Lord Trefgarne

Perhaps I may take that point into consideration between now and the next stage, as I undertook to do when replying to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for stressing a point which I could have enlarged upon—but I found myself getting into the position which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, described at a previous Committee sitting when she said she felt that she was bashing her head against a brick wall. Therefore, I did not continue to speak too long on this particular point. A promise has been given to look into this matter and therefore I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 100:

Page 15, line 37, at end insert— ("(2C) Where the assessable income of the contributor, calculated in accordance with subsection (2B) above—

  1. (a) is less than an amount which is 140 per cent. of the sum specified in section 6(1)(a) of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. no contribution shall be required of the contributor;
  2. (b) exceeds the amount specified in paragraph (a) above, the amount of the contribution payable by the contributor shall not exceed 50p for every £1 of that excess, but the total amount of the contribution shall not exceed the amount specified in subsection (2) of this section.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to provide local authorities with a set formula for calculating the amount of disposable income that can be levied for contributions. At present, once local authorities have calculated the parents' disposable income they then recover contributions from the parents at varying rates. These can rise to as high as 75p in every £1. Three local authorities out of 75 surveyed used scales which finally took a near-confiscatory 100 per cent. of assessable income. It is considered that it should not follow as a matter of principle that families with children in care should be reduced to subsistence level. They should be left with enough money to provide properly for their other children and home responsibilities.

The proposals are twofold. First, they would require local authorities to exempt from contributions any parent whose disposable income was less than 140 per cent. of the long-term supplementary benefit rate. Secondly, the amendment would ensure that any excess over 140 per cent. could not be levied at a rate higher than 15p in the £1. That is the substance of the amendment. Here again, I am in some difficulty because the noble Lord the Minister has raced on and covered the whole scene. Nevertheless, I wonder what his reaction is to this amendment: I hope that he will not say this time that it has a technical defect. I beg to move.

Lord Trefgarne

I have no doubt that if I examine the amendment long enough a technical defect will occur to me. In the meantime, I should prefer to rest upon the difficulty I described during my earlier remarks about the inappropriateness of an upper ceiling to the amount of contributions which are payable. Complete exemption from liability is introduced for several categories of persons, which I believe is one of the provisions of a later amendment. As I said earlier, there is a great deal of complexity inherent in the raft of amendments which the noble Lord is now proposing. In general, I believe that these are undesirable, and that is the principal difficulty with the amendment which the noble Lord is now proposing.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

I will not prolong this argument. This is an important point and one that we should take into account; it is in line with what the Government want. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.36 p.m.

Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 101:

Page 15, line 37, at end insert— ("( ) Subject to the provisions of this Section, the Secretary of State shall make regulations further limiting which persons shall be liable to make contributions with respect to children in care, and as to the contributions which may be required of them.")

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to require the Secretary of State to limit by regulations the discretion of local authorities to charge young people in care aged over 16 for their keep. It would also allow for regulations on parent contributions. A survey of social services departments' policies carried out for the Children's Legal Centre since the Bill was presented reveals wide and illogical variations in charging policy. This is unjust, and I have made frequent reference to this point when speaking to previous amendments.

For example, the personal allowance for pocket money and clothing with which young people in care are left after contributions have been deducted from their pay at the age of 16 varies from £7.70 in Birmingham to £16 in Hounslow. Authorities also make allowances for fares to and from work, lunch, and other essential expenses connected with employment, The maximum that young working people aged 16 to 18 are required to pay towards their board and lodgings varies widely. Most authorities have a scale linking contributions to earnings. The maximum contribution required varies from £44 a week in Birmingham to £16.85 in Wakefield. It appears that a number of local authorities are still illegally requiring young people not in remunerative full-time work—that is, those in receipt of supplementary benefit or a training allowance—to contribute. In some cases, local authorities have refused to repay contributions which have been obtained illegally.

On the other hand, since the legal position was clarified earlier this year, some local authorities have ceased to require contributions from young people not in remunerative full-time work and have made arrangements to repay such contributions received. A logical policy would be one which ensures that young people will be left with, as a minimum, the present non-householder rate of supplementary benefit—that is, £15.80. This will place young people in care receiving supplementary benefit on the same basis as those living at home. The Government's policy is to treat 16-and 17-year-olds living at home as being wholly dependant on their parents, even if they have a small income.

During a debate on housing benefits and regulations in another place. Mr. Hugh Rossi said: It seems to me that 16-and 17-year-olds should be treated as dependent upon their families and not as non-dependants, whether or not they have a small income of their own.

It is important to emphasise that under the new housing benefit scheme non-householders aged under 18 will no longer receive the automatic housing addition to their supplementary benefit. If care authorities provide for young people aged 16 to 18 in such a way that they are classified as householders or joint householders for benefit purposes—for example, through independent living schemes in bed-sits—then the young people involved will be able to claim housing benefit, as can young people not in care but living independently of their parents, and they could be charged a reasonable rent et cetera if the authority was providing the accommodation.

These points underline the fact that this is a complex area, in which it is not enough simply to give local authorities maximum discretion. In order to treat young people in care equitably in relation to other young people, regulations should be issued following a proper and full consideration of current practice. May I conclude by saying that this is a most important and complex matter and is one that deserves very careful consideration indeed. Perhaps the Government will give an indication that they are prepared to consider it. I beg to move.

Lord Trefgarne

I do not wish to be unreasonable to the noble Lord, but at the same time I do not want to raise any unjustified expectations in his mind. However, if he does want to withdraw the amendment now and return to this matter at a later stage, I shall certainly be very happy for him to do that and to give the matter further consideration myself between now and then. But, as I say, I shall certainly come to this matter with the basic belief that we want to keep these things as simple and as easily understandable as possible. It may be that there is some improvement that can be made within those criteria. If the noble Lord would like to withdraw the amendment we can think about it between now and Report stage.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

That seems to be quite a good idea, because it suddenly dawned on me that the Report stage will be next year, after the Christmas recess; but please do not make it too quick because we want to consider this very carefully. The noble Lord has made a fair offer and I accept what he has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No.102:

Page 16, leave out lines 4 to 12 and insert— (" "(a) where a local authority in whose care a child is has served and not withdrawn a contribution notice specifying a contribution calculated in accordance with section 46 of this Act. the local authority shall seek to reach an agreement with the contributor on the amount of the contribution; (b) where, after a period of one month beginning on the day on which the contribution notice was given to the contributor, the local authority and the contributor have failed to agree on the amount of the contribution, or where an agreement was reached but the contributor has defaulted in making two or more of his contributions," ").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 102 standing in the names of my noble friend and myself. This amendment is quite important because its purpose is to retain the period of one month in which parents and the local authority can try to reach agreement on charges. The Bill seeks to abolish this period of one month. The change in legislation proposed is designed to allow the local authority to assess the charge far more quickly and to recover arrears with less delay. It would certainly simplify the procedure for the local authority, but such a simplification, I suggest, would be at the expense of the user rather than being of benefit to him. Parents who did not understand the demands they received or had delayed making payments, or simply could not afford to pay, could find themselves back in court within weeks of their child being committed to care.

It is thought that local authorities should be encouraged to enter into partnership with parents, and as far as possible to share the caring. This spirit is far more likely to be fostered by a co-operative attitude towards establishing parental contributions than the punitive and distant approach this change seems likely to encourage. It may also lead to less and lower arrears. I think this a quite reasonable amendment. I hesitate to wonder whether there will be a technical hitch to it. I beg to move.

Lord Trefgarne

May I make the same proposal in respect of this amendment as I did in regard to the last one, and also, if it would help the noble Lord, in respect of the next one? Thus we can dispose of this group of amendments, to which I spoke in detail earlier.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

When the noble Lord says "the next one", does he mean No. 104?

Lord Trefgarne

No, No. 103.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

Yes, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. In view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 102.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 103 not moved.)

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 [Power of local authority to limit charge for residential accommodation to minimum rate:]

4.46 p.m.

Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 104:

Page 16, line 21, at end insert— ("( ) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4) of section 22 (charges to be made for accommodation)—"(4A) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, where an authority is providing accommodation for a person who derives income from gainful employment, the authority shall disregard such proportion of his net earnings as is represented by the formula 5A/2+40/100(B-5A/2) where A is the sum specified in subsection (4) above and B is his net earnings.";").

The noble Lord said: This amendment looks terribly complicated and confusing, but it is in fact an attempt to write into legislation a practice which local authorities already recommend for other client groups. I know that on the surface it is complex and very involved. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, even went so far as to suggest—not in this Chamber but outside, some few days ago—that I should bring a blackboard and chalk into the Chamber for the benefit of your Lordships, but I have not done that.

There is a problem regarding the severely handicapped, many of them resident in homes, such as the Cheshire Homes, who, in spite of their handicap, achieve great distinction in various fields. I quote as an example, artists, one of them well known to me. These people can by their work earn quite a reasonable income, say £5,000 a year, or a little more. These earnings do not necessarily meet the full cost of their care, and in the case of a charity home the charity may need to subsidise the case. Today, with advanced technology, visions of a new world are dawning for the handicapped, and there is a likelihood of more very seriously handicapped young people who need residential care, through modern scientific advances having a potential capacity to earn substantial salaries. It is a fact that modern technology, coming forward as it has in the last few years, can offer this great advance for the handicapped. I would say, and I do not think anyone would disagree, that it is in the interests of us all to encourage them as much as we can. This amendment could help considerably. This is the incentive motive of which the Government preach so much.

As I say, I agree that the amendment appears complicated, but it is something that is carried out in practice. Its purpose is clear: to ensure a reasonable proportion of net earnings. I would say to the Minister that this is a very important issue regarding the severely disabled. It is purely a question of allowing them, if they have the incentive and ability developed through modern technology, to make a reasonably good living. We should be very concerned that we do not penalise them too much so far as the charge for their care is concerned.

I know that, on the surface, this looks a complicated formula. I say to the Minister quite sincerely that if he can provide a better, maybe simpler, but adequate answer, that would be very welcome indeed. I am, pointing out to the Committee this issue of people, such as mouth artists and others, who can earn quite a fair salary, and thank heavens! they are now in a position to do this. This is happening today. I beg to move.

Baroness Hornsby-Smith

There is another side to this issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, knows, I have been associated with several charities in my time. Many of them quite specifically raise funds in order to help people in the charities' homes. Many of these people pay the economic rent where they are capable of paying it. If they are not capable of paying it they have a subsidised rate, and the subsidy is made up by the charity money which is nationally raised. I see a danger. If we are to say that there is a level at which a person is to be subsidised, regardless of what he earns, any astute board of a charity will say: "You apply for the subsidy and we will charge you the full economic rate and not give you the rate we would have done in accord and in concert with the income you now have." It would cut across quite a number of charities who specifically raise money to subsidise people who cannot pay the economic rate. If they know that it will be made up by the Government, and if we put the level at such a height that it is worth charging them the full economic rate, then quite a lot of contributions to the charity will not be applied for the purpose for which they were raised.

Lord Trefgarne

Although the Government accept the intention of the proposed amendment, we do not think that it is appropriate for this Bill. A measure to achieve an incentive is, however, already included in that part of the package of changes agreed between DHSS Ministers and the local authority associations which will be effected in regulations to be made next year. There are also technical difficulties in the amendment which I could go into if the noble Lord wishes me to. However, I hope that with this declar-tion of the Government's intent the noble Lord will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

That is fair enough. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 105:

Page 16, line 41, at end insent— ("( ) in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 for any reference to "£1,200" shall be substituted a reference to "£2,500".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is quite simple. One of these days when I rise at the Box and say that an amendment is quite straightforward and simple, the Government will give me the shock of my life by accepting it. So far I have been unlucky.

This is a simple amendment. The change in the capital limit can, I accept, be done by regulations, but despite regular promptings from the AMA the DHSS has declined to change the figure of £1,200. The figure has remained the same since before 1976. The regular promptings have been made by the AMA, and the Government now have a glorious opportunity to meet them and to increase the figure, as suggested in the amendment.

Lord Trefgarne

The capital disregard of £1,200 is only one of the many factors taken into account in assessing a resident's ability to pay for Part III accommodation in accordance with Part III of Schedule I to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976. Those provisions also governed the supplementary benefit system itself until November 1980; but then new regulations introduced a separate capital rule for supplementary benefit. The two rules are now of quite a different character. For supplementary benefit, the rule is a complete capital cut-off: with more than £2,500 of capital, no benefit at all is payable. For residential charging purposes. £1,200 is the starting point for assessment, with a tapering arrangement—based on assuming 25p a week of income for each £50 of capital above that level—so that the assessed ability to pay rises gradually and does not reach full payment unless a very much higher level of capital is held. Although historically it was the case that the same rules were applied for both purposes, there is, in fact, no very good reason why they should have been because the two purposes are entirely different. The supplementary benefit system is designed to provide a "safety net" of financial support for people looking after themselves. The residential care charging system, by contrast, is designed to reflect people's ability to contribute to care which is being provided for them.

When the Joint Working Group on Personal Social Services Charging Policies recommended that the capital disregard be reviewed, they also suggested that the tariff should be revalued. Both factors will be taken into account in the new regulations about Part III charging to be made next year, to which I have already referred. There are also technical difficulties which, again, I can describe to the noble Lord, but perhaps I can spare him them at this moment.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

In view of what the noble Lord said, and as there is again a technical hitch—I seem to be blessed by these—at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Recovery of sums due to local authority where persons in residential accommodation have disposed of assets]:

4.56 p.m.

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 106. Page 17, line 5, after ("asset") insert ("to which this section applies").

The noble Lord said: It may be of assistance to your Lordships to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 107, 111, 112 and 115.I hope that I see the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, nodding in agreement. In any event, I see him nodding.

As part of the existing procedures for assessing a resident's ability to pay for Part III accommodation, local authorities already have powers to take into account the value of any assets of which the resident can be shown to have deliberately deprived himself with the intention of paying less than he would otherwise have been assessed to pay. But once the resident has disposed of his assets he will be unable to pay in full a charge assessed on the assumption that he still has them. In those circumstances, there is little point in taking legal proceedings against him and, in any event, local authorities who have accepted responsibility for providing care and attention for the resident are very reluctant to go to such lengths.

But authorities should have some way of recovering debts which may accrue as a consequence of a resident's failing to pay in full the assessed charge. The intention of this clause is to provide that facility and to assist an authority to recover debts arising from deliberate abandonment of assets. The clause therefore provides that the person or persons receiving the asset should be liable up to its value for any-consequential debt which the resident may incur with the authority. But it will be for the authority to decide when making the assessment of ability to pay under the charging regulations whether or not the circumstances are such that an asset which has been transferred should be taken into account as a deliberately abandoned resource. In reaching the agreement between DHSS Ministers and local authority associations, it was expressly intended that any provisions to assist recovery of debts would be used selectively and non-oppressively.

I should now like to turn to the specific amendments which the Government wish to incorporate in order more clearly to achieve the stated intentions. Amendment No. 106 is a paving amendment for the introduction of the new subsection contained in Amendment No. 111. The purpose of the new subsection is to ensure that the recovery provisions in Clause 15 apply only to those assets which are taken into account in the assessment of a resident's ability to pay for Part III accommodation. This strengthens the intention that the clause should provide a recourse for authorities only in those cases where there has been deliberate abandonment of assets by the resident with the intention to reduce the charge payable for his accommodation. Amendments Nos. 107, 112 and 115 are consequential on the other amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

Where it states "any other assets", does this mean any little love trinket given away to a grandchild, a piece of furniture, or anything of that nature? In that case the clause is totally unworkable.

Lord Trefgarne

No, I do not think it means that. I do not have the reference in front of me, but it means the assets that are specifically assessable in determining charges payable for Part III accommodation.

Lord Kilmarnock

May I ask the exact scope of the phrase "deliberate abandonment"? That seems to be very wide open. I am merely asking for information. Is there any normally held view of what that means?

Lord Trefgarne

The most obvious example I can give to the noble Lord—this may also help the noble Baroness—is where an elderly person disposes of his house, for example to a relative or a friend, so that that is not taken into account, or so he imagines, in assessing his ability to pay the charges for the accommodation. That is the type of situation that we are seeking to control: the deliberate abandonment of an asset—disposal, in other words—for the purposes of avoiding paying these charges or of avoiding paying them at the highest level. Of course, in the imaginary circumstances that I have suggested, the house would be sold for nothing or next to nothing. That is the type of situation that we are proposing to control under this provision.

Baroness Jeger

I should like to ask another question because this seems to be giving a new meaning to the phrase "asset stripping" which is not usually associated with this type of care. An old person might well have some ancient furniture or possession which, because of the state of the antique market, turn out to be quite valuable. Supposing that old person bequeaths them to a relative or wishes, in his will, to bequeath those family goods to relatives, is the Minister saying that the relatives must be penalised or that the old person had no right to give away things which he specially wanted to keep in the family and which he would not want to sell for all kinds of reasons? If that is to be included under this clause then I think that it is unworkable and totally unjust.

Baroness Phillips

I should like to support my noble friends. Sitting here and listening to the debate, it all seems incredibly and horribly cold blooded. There are pressures already on people who do not understand what it is all about, and we should not add to them again. I could not understand the Minister's explanation about a house. A house is surely only an asset when it is sold; it could not be an asset if the old person were not actually living in it. That seemed to be a rather curious example to put forward. It is very important that there should be no pressure put on people when they are already in a very difficult position. In my view, this is giving the powers far too wide a definition. Some people will apply them in a generous way, others will not do so. This is a very disturbing part of the Bill.

5.3 p.m.

Lord Trefgarne

If your Lordships will look at Amendment No. 111, which is part of this group, your Lordships will see that further details of this matter are provided, in that direct reference is made to the provisions of the National Assistance Act 1948. But what we are here proposing is some kind of control over a circumstance where an elderly person deliber- ately divests himself of assets in order to avoid paying charges and passes them, for example, to a near relative simply to avoid paying the charges or receiving the full impact of the charges. I do not think that that is an unreasonable proposal, and I hope that your Lordships will agree with me about that.

As I have said, the local authority will have to be satisfied that the assets have been disposed of deliberately to avoid paying the charges. It has nothing to do with bequests by will, for example, to which some noble Lords made reference. The object is to see fairness between those who accept their responsibilities to meet their charges and pay their debts, and those who deliberately seek to avoid meeting these obligations. Any person who is properly assessed will, of course, have nothing to fear.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

Before we go any further with these amendments. I should like to ask the Minister two questions, because I was all for supporting the leaving out of Clause 15. I am delighted to hear that we are talking only about the deliberate abandonment of assets because I was going to ask the Minister how he felt about this matter. First, in the case of proving deliberate abandonment of assets, would the onus be on the local authority to prove the deliberate abandonment of assets? Secondly, I think that the Minister said that one of these amendments limited the matter to the deliberate abandonment of assets, but from reading the amendments I cannot see which it is. I do not know whether I misunderstood the noble Lord. If I did not misunderstand him, would it not be much better to put something into the Bill saying that it is limited to the case where a person knowingly and with the express intention of avoiding payment, disposes of these assets? It is very unclear and I do not know whether I have misunderstood the position.

Lord Trefgarne

That is the effect of the group of amendments which I have moved.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

But nowhere does it actually say that, does it?

Lord Trefgarne

I cannot immediately put my finger on the words, but I will in a moment if the noble Baroness will bear with me. I want to persist with the view that what we are really proposing here is a means of restraining people who are deliberately divesting themselves of their assets in order to avoid paying the charges and are doing so in a way which, in other circumstances, might be regarded as fraudulent. That is what we are seeking to control and I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is the right thing to do.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I should like to ask the noble Lord, who is a highly intelligent person, how on earth do you prove it? If I had to go into residential care and I gave my grandchild—if I had one—a ring, how do you prove whether, I gave it deliberately or not?

Lord Lyell

Perhaps I can try to help the noble Baroness. If the ring is of value (and the noble Baroness does not need me to discuss whether or not it is of value) and if it is worth thousands of pounds or if, in the case which the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, presented, some asset turns out to be of unknown value, then if the local authority decide that the action of the elderly person seems to them to be deliberate, they may take action. However, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, to ponder on whether she is beginning to make a large hill out of a tiny ring. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but when she says "value", is she thinking of thousands of pounds, hundreds of pounds or a few pounds? I am sure that the noble Baroness and, indeed, your Lordships would understand that when we are talking of assets here we are not thinking of enormous sums. Moreover, the second hoop through which the local authority have to jump, if I can use that phrase, in seeking to recover any charges from the elderly person, is that these assets have been knowingly and deliberately given away or otherwise disposed of. So there are two hoops: first, that there is considerable value; and secondly, that the assets have been deliberately disposed of.

Lord Kilmarnock

Will the noble Lord answer just one point? I take the point he made about the ring, but let us take the case of an elderly person moving into care who has, for example, a daughter or a niece who is just setting up house. If that elderly person gives to that daughter or niece some furniture to the value of, let us say, a few hundred pounds, is that considered to be the deliberate disposal of assets?

Lord Trefgarne

That seems to me not to fall within the ambit of these provisions because the purpose of that disposal was not deliberately to avoid having to pay the requisite charges.

Baroness Jeger

This seems to become more and more confusing. When I go into an old person's home I am going to give my car, for example, to my nephew. The noble Lord referred constantly to the word "deliberate". I shall deliberately give the car to my nephew. How is the court to prove that I did not give the car away in order that my assets would be reassessed and that I was only giving he car away to get out of paying the dues that could be levied on me? I can imagine that this will be a lawyer's paradise.

Lord Lyell

I do not know the value of the noble Baroness's car, but I certainly would not imagine that her motor car would fall into this ambit. Secondly, I think that the noble Baroness is misconstruing the word "deliberately". It is not a question of the noble Baroness deliberately giving the car away, but deliberately giving the car away with the intention of reducing her assets below the level which I think she will find in Section 22 of the National Assistance Act. As the noble Baroness will see—and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, asked about this on Amendment No. 111—the whole of this section impinges.

Lord Trefgarne

Let me say at once that my noble friend is quite right. First, I want to put before your Lordships the general proposal that is contained in these measures. It is that, sadly, there are some people who find themselves wishing to go into Part III accommodation, as it is called, and who chose to do so at the maximum cost to the state and the minimum cost to themselves, despite the fact that they perhaps have at their disposal considerable assets. Therefore, at the last minute, before their assessment is to be carried out, they divest themselves of these assets for a song, or indeed for nothing, to one of their relatives or to one of their close friends in the expectation that they will then be assessed as unable to meet the charges to any substantial degree.

The local authority then has to decide whether a particular asset should be taken into account in assessing the resident. If that asset has been abandoned, the local authority must decide whether or not that abandonment has been done deliberately. If the resident or his representative disagrees, they can contest the assessment and, if need be, the matter can come before the courts. I do not suggest that that will happen very often—I hope it will not—but doubtless if a very large amount of money is at stake (for example, like the very valuable diamond solitaire ring of the noble Baroness, to which she referred a moment ago), then conceivably it will come before the courts and the courts can then decide whether it is an appropriate matter to be taken into account.

We are aiming to prevent people from deliberately defrauding—I can really use no other word—the local authority out of the proper charges which it would otherwise assess. I do not think that some of the difficulties which noble Lords and noble Baronesses have been imagining will appear in practice, and I hope they will agree that these proposals are reasonable.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

Before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, he referred to "considerable assets". However, the Bill says "any asset". I think that the Government will have to do better.

Lord Trefgarne

If the noble Baroness will again do me the honour of referring to the Marshalled List of Amendments, I would draw her attention particularly to Amendment No. 111, which gives more detail as to how the assets will be assessed.

Baroness Hornsby-Smith

Would my noble friend not agree that we would create anomalies if we were to ignore what are, in many cases, very substantial assets? It has long been an aim of many professional people to ensure that if their wife outlives them, she will have a good roof over her head. If we ignore someone who has a very fine house which he will never live in again—if we ignore that asset which may be worth a few thousand pounds or a very considerable sum—then we have an anomaly. On the other hand, there may be someone who, apart from the old-age pension, has a very modest private pension, say, a British Rail pension. That railway pension will be taken into account in assessing their ability to pay, and it may only be £4 or £5 a week. However, if we ignore assets, a woman whose house is worth £50,000 or £60,000 will not be assessed. Although I accept what the noble Baroness said, that we could perhaps do with greater definition as to the level at which assessment of assets starts, I think we should recognise that if we wipe out these hard, tangible assets, we shall create many anomalies that will be unfair to people who perhaps live in a council house, which they will give up and which is not an asset, but who have a small pension which is most certainly taken into account when assessing their ability to pay if it is on top of their old-age pension.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

Has the Minister been able to put his finger on the part of the Bill which says that we are only talking about deliberate avoidance? Is the phrase "deliberate avoidance" in the National Assistance Act? I am afraid that I have left my copy outside the Chamber.

Lord Trefgarne

In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I referred earlier to the provisions of Amendment No.111, which is one of the amendments that we are now considering, which defines the assets to be taken into account as those defined in the National Assistance Act 1948.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

But does this also refer to "deliberate avoidance"?

Lord Trefgarne

As I said earlier—and I think that I have covered this point three times—the question of deliberate avoidance falls to be assessed by the local authority.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 107: Page 17, line 9, after (" any ") insert (" such ")

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 108: Page 17, line 15, leave out (" receiving the asset ") and insert (" to whom the asset is transferred by the person availing himself of the accommodation ")

The noble Lord said: This amendment is to ensure that the provisions of Clause 15 apply only to the persons to whom the resident transferred the asset in question. If those persons subsequently transfer the asset to others, their successors in title will not have to assume the liability for the debt of the resident. That liability will rest with the original transferees. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 109. Page 17, line 15, leave out (" jointly and severally ")

The noble Lord said: It may be for your Lordships' convenience if, with this amendment, I deal also with Amendments Nos. 113 and 114. The amendment in line 15 is intended to ensure that, where assets have been transferred to more than one person, each of those persons, or donees, will be concurrently liable for a proportion of the resident's debt related to their respective share of the value of the transferred assets. It is intended that where one of several donees cannot be traced, his liability shall not be apportioned among the other donees.

The amendments to lines 28 and 31 strengthen this by referring to the "liability" of the donee rather than to "sums recoverable". But there has been no change of intention in so far as Clause 15 relates only to the recovery of sums due to a local authority. I beg to move Amendment No. 109.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 110: Page 17, line 17, leave out first (" the "(and insert (" its ")

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 111:

Page 17, line 20, at end insert— (" (1 A) This section applies to cash and any other asset which falls to be taken into account for the purpose of assessing under section 22 of the National Assistance Act 1948 the ability to pay for the accommodation of the person availing himself of it.")

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 112: Page 17, line 27, after ("asset") insert ("to which this section applies").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 113: Page 17, line 28, leave out ("sum recoverable from") and insert ("liability of).

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 114: Page 17, line 31, leave out from beginning to ("exceed") in line 32 and insert ("a person's liability under this section shall not").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 115: Page 17, line 34, at end insert ("to which this section applies, other than cash.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 116: Page 17, line 42, leave out from ("incumbrance") to ("and") in line 43 and insert ("on the asset").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is merely to ensure that there is appropriate recognition of any incumbrance on this asset, regardless of how it may be discharged by the person to whom the asset was transferred. It is fairly simple. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 15, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

5.20 p.m.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

On behalf of my noble friend Lady Jeger, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, and myself I beg to move to leave out Clause 15. Those who have been present in the Chamber and have listened to the discussion and the doubts raised on the various amendments, will realise that there is a great deal of misunderstanding and difficulty with the administration of this clause. In my opinion, so far as this clause is concerned, the Government have got themselves in a right mess. We are approaching Christmas, and we all know Charles Dickens' famous book in which Scrooge appeared. At the moment the Government—not the Minister, because he is a nice chap—appear in the guise of Scrooge. Who knows? they may repent later.

This is a mean and vicious clause. The clause itself raises the cloud of suspicion on every old person entering an old people's home. "Has the old girl, or old boy, discharged the assets? How much are the assets worth?" Often some old people's ideas of the value of their assets is more or less glorified. I once had the possibility of receiving an ostrich egg in a glass case. That asset has now been disposed of. Some people thought it would be valued at thousands of pounds. It fetched £20, less commission. If the person concerned had been put in a home and I had received such an asset, I should no doubt have had to pay something on the £20. It is silly and stupid.

In any case, if assets are disposed of in this way, it reduces the assessment made on the individual. That is the purpose of it. Obviously, the authority could assess if the asset were in the individual's possession, but at the moment authorities have no power to put a charge on the persons who receive the asset. In civil law there are only two cases known where such charges can be made: under the Bankruptcy Act 1914 with a time limit of two years prior to bankruptcy, and the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 with no time limit. Even with supplementary benefit there is no liability at the moment on other persons to whom an asset has been transferred.

What I object to very strongly indeed is the slur that it casts on all the old people entering a home, in the sense that it raises the suspicion, "Ah, what have they disposed of?" It means somebody going along and snooping into the home before the person leaves it, to find out what they have got and to value it. Just realise the ridiculous administrative problems and the injustices there will be. The noble Lord shakes his head, but this is a quite unprecedented move that the Government have taken in order to recover a few pounds from elderly persons.

Anybody would think by the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, and others spoke on the value of property, that we are a nation of millionaires. As a matter of fact the majority of people in this country are not too well off at all, and that is not their fault. Well, it is their fault; they voted for the Government that put them in that position. However, I do not want to bring in political issues at this time of Christmas. The noble Lord really and truly has brought forward in a smooth manner—which is his custom—a clause which can only be regarded as something that ought to be removed at the earliest possible moment. I beg to move the deletion of Clause 15.

Lord Trefgarne

I hope that your Lordships will not agree to the deletion of this clause. I am not inclined to brush aside quite so readily as the noble Lord is the words of my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith. The fact is that there are very many old people who go into Part III accommodation, as my noble friend pointed out, who are rightly and properly assessed in accordance, for example, with some modest pension which they receive. Is it right, therefore, that those people who perhaps had a substantial asset in the form of a house—and many old people have a house; it is no good the noble Lord suggesting that that is not so—and who chose to divest themselves of that asset immediately before they came to be assessed, deliberately to ensure that they would not be charged at what would otherwise be an appropriate level, should escape scot free, which is really what happens at present and is what we propose to contain under the provisions of the Bill? This is greater justice, not less justice. I hope your Lordships will agree that the clause should stand.

Lord Davies of Leek

Would the noble Lord try to answer this case? The dear old gentleman, or old lady, who happened to own a house is penalised. But if my father were rich enough and he said to me, "Look, I am going to give you £30,000", and he lives for another five years, I would get that £30,000 without any taxation. In other words, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is a hotchpotch. It needs looking at again. It is unfair because there are class differences here.

Baroness Phillips

I too should like to comment on this clause. Since when was the gift of something described as deliberately divesting yourself of it? It is appallingly unchristian. Listening to this, we are back in the Dickensian period, when people went in fear. "I am now going to look very carefully"—

Lord Trefgarne

I wonder whether the noble Baroness would allow me to intervene? I shall tell the noble Baroness exactly when "deliberate abandonment", as the expression is, first came into parliamentary parlance. It was in the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, paragraph 25 of Schedule 1 to that Act, passed in the time of the Government of the noble Baroness.

Lord Kilmarnock

As there seems to be considerable feeling about this in the Committee, would the noble Lord consider taking this clause away to see whether he could redraft it to take account of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith?

Lord Trefgarne

I am afraid I could not agree to do that. This clause is an important part of the proposals we bring before your Lordships in this Bill. Its intention is to apply a greater degree of justice to the people whom it will affect, not less justice. I hope your Lordships will agree to include it.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I added my name to that of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, because I felt that this was an unworkable clause. I feel that it must have been drafted by lawyers who had many out of work lawyer friends. When other people try to interpret this Bill when it becomes an Act, out in a local authority I do not think that they will approach it in the same spirit as the Minister has today. That is what we have to be sure about. Noble Lords and noble Baronesses from all over the place are worried. My noble friend sitting next to me is about to speak because she has not had her important question answered by the noble Lord the Minister. If the Minister does not understand it, how on earth can somebody in a local authority understand it? What I am very worried about—and have been ever since I saw it written down—is the phrase "any other asset" because it will not be interpreted in the way the Minister wants it interpreted. I say that because I know some people in some local authorities—not all, but some—and some are much meaner than others.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

As my noble friend Lady Masham said, I was about to speak, I had better speak now. The Minister has been saying that the clue lies in Section 22 of the National Assistance Act and, having been through all eight subsections of that provision, I can find nothing about deliberate dodging, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, put it. Subsection (5) refers to Schedule 2, which, being four pages long, I have not had an opportunity to digest, but I see no mention of deliberate avoidance. I appreciate that it may, to a certain extent, answer the point raised by Lady Masham, but as the provisions refers to ten shillings and six pence, it may be rather obsolete, anyway. If the Minister has a better grasp of Section 22 and Schedule 2 than I have, perhaps he would be prepared to explain it a little more thoroughly.

Lord Trefgarne

With respect to the noble Baroness, she is terribly confused over this. That does not surprise me because this a confusing matter. As for "deliberate abandonment", when referring to the National Assistance Act 1948 I was answering her about the type of assets that were to be taken into account.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

I think he was answering my noble friend. I asked twice about deliberate avoidance. I did not ask about assets. The Minister told me at that stage that he had already answered my question three times by reference to Section 22.

Lord Trefgarne

That was not what I said, with respect, and if she looks at the record tomorrow she will see that I said something different.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

I apologise if I am wrong and I will read Hansard tomorrow.

Lord Trefgarne

I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that there was a precise definition of "deliberate abandonment" in Schedule 1(25) to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976.

Lord Banks

When speaking earlier, the Minister referred to somebody who effected a transfer of this kind at the last minute, but of course the last minute covers the previous six months, to the date of actually going into accommodation. I believe it has become clear from our recent discussion that there is nothing in the clause—and I do not think there is anything referred to by the clause—which contains a reference to this being carried out deliberately. It seems that anybody who makes a transfer within the previous six months is caught. One may say that the local authority need not necessarily apply the provision, but they may well do so. So anybody who makes a transfer, deliberately or innocently, is, it would seem, liable.

Baroness Robson of Kiddington

I am inclined to support the amendment, but I must ask a question which arose in my mind as a result of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith. She drew a comparison between someone living in a council house and someone living in a £50,000 house and said it was not fair that their contributions should not be different, because one would be better off than the other. Not everybody lives in a £50,000 house, even though people may own the house in which they are living.

Say an elderly person is living in a council house and has members of the family living there. Say another person own a little house, which is not worth £50,000, and also has members of the family living there. Before going into Part III accommodation or into an old persons' home, ownership of the house is transferred to the family so that they will have the same security, because the local authority are likely to transfer the tenancy to other members of the family, or could do so. If that person transfers the ownership of the house to the members of the family who are living with him, then when he is assessed, having moved into the local authority accommodation, will he be assessed on the complete value of the house or on just the rent that will be payable? It is important. One could be penalising the person who has saved enough money to buy a house much more than the family of the person living in a council house.

Lord Trefgarne

The noble Baroness pose a perfectly proper question, but I would want to study what she said and consider precisely the implications of the example she gave before offering a definitive answer. I rest on the basic assertion which I have put before your Lordships several times: that we are seeking to deal here with deliberate abandonment as defined in the statutes. I now have before me the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, and from its appearance the Committee will understand why it is not my everyday bedside reading. Paragraph 28 of the provision to which I referred says: If a person has deprived himself of any resources for the purposes of securing supplementary' benefit, or increasing the amount of any such benefit, these resources may be taken into account as if they were still his". That was the reference I made to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and, indeed, for the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth).

Lord Winstanley

Is it not a fact that the Government have set up an inquiry into the working of that provision of the supplementary benefits rule which the Minister quoted because, in the view of the Government, it is not working fairly?

Lord Trefgarne

The noble Lord bowls a fast one at me and I believe he is correct. However, it does not depart from the principle enshrined in the statute. It certainly does not depart from the principle of the proposal that I put before the Committee, which, as I have said time and again in this short debate, is designed to enhance justice towards those to whom the provision applied and not to detract from it.

5.37 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 15, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Their Lordships divided: Content, 78; Not-Content, 69.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Clauses 16 to 19 agreed to.

Schedule 8 [Social security adjudications]:

5.46 p.m.

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 117:

Page 60, line 18, at end insert— ("(3A) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (3)(a) above the enactments specified in Parts II to V of this Schedule shall have effect subject to the amendments there specified.")

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 118:

Page 60, line 28, at end insert— ("Sufficient number of adjudication officers shall be appointed by the Secretary of State to ensure that claims are dealt with so far as practicable within fourteen days and where a claim is urgent forthwith.")

The noble Lord said: This amendment, which I beg to move, would place the Secretary of State under a duty to appoint sufficient numbers of staff to ensure that claims are dealt with, as currently required, within 14 days. Further, the duty would extend to there being sufficient numbers of staff to deal with urgent cases immediately. Staffing levels, in particular in relation to supplementary benefit, are giving serious cause for concern. A number of offices in Birmingham and elsewhere are shut, due to industrial action over staffing levels. In a recent case a claimant in urgent need was refused an appointment for some days. An inquirer on his behalf was told, "We can see only so many immediates". In Oxford—an office currently closed by industrial action—the numbers of claimants has risen from 16,599 in August 1981, to 19,113 in August 1982, but staffing levels have remained constant at 146.

The increasing emphasis on fraud work may mean that the numbers of staff dealing with the routine administration of claims has dropped at a time when the numbers on supplementary benefit have risen considerably, from just under 3 million in July 1979, to just under 4 million at the end of 1981—a figure that has since increased. Overall staffing levels in Department of Health and Social Security offices have dropped between June 1979 and July 1982, from 63,367 to 62,145. There could be no objection to a reduction in the numbers if it could be shown that the staff could cope, but that does not appear to be the case in the face of the very considerable increase in the numbers of people requiring supplementary benefit. I beg to move.

Lord Trefgarne

With the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak at the same time to this amendment and to Amendment No. 147, in the name of the noble Lord, which I think addresses the same point. Section 99(1) of the Social Security Act 1975, and Regulation 2(3) of the Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Questions) Regulations already require insurance officers and supplementary benefit officers respectively to dispose of claims and questions within 14 days, so far as is practicable. While there is no equivalent special provision for urgent needs payments, it is accepted that such payments should be decided as quickly as possible, and there is provision to make interim payments in certain circumstances.

I believe that these provisions are sufficient. Nearly all claims are determined within 14 days of submission to an adjudication officer, and the vast majority are determined within 14 days of the date of claim. Where delays occur in dealing with claims, this is very rarely because of delays by adjudication officers in reaching a decision. Rather, it is because of delays in obtaining evidence relevant to a claim. For example, the claimant may have to obtain additional documentation or there may be delays in arranging interviews or visits.

For these reasons, I do not believe that it is either necessary or appropriate to include these amending provisions. If there were frequent and continuing delays in deciding claims to a benefit which exceeded the statutory period, it would be for the Secretary of State to consider what remedial action to take, including, where appropriate, the appointment of additional adjudication officers.

The noble Lord has referred to certain local problems that exist at present because of industrial action within the national social security office system. Naturally, we greatly regret this industrial action. We are doing our best to mitigate its worst effects by authorising interim payments and by other means. I am not sure that passing legislation such as this would make any particular difference to the situation in the face of industrial action, but I think the noble Lord was addressing himself to what he saw as the cause of the industrial action. That is another matter, and not something which I think we could settle by way of legislation.

The Government are not satisfied, naturally, that the industrial action is properly founded, or else we would have acceded to the claims—which we do not propose to do. I think that we need to divorce the position of the local difficulties to which I have referred from the more general position to which the noble Lord addresses himself in his amendment. In the light of the general explanation that I have given, I hope he will see fit not to press his amendment.

Lord Banks

I think that possibly the noble Lord the Minister is a little complacent about staffing levels at the present time. We cannot ignore the fact that the industrial dispute in Birmingham centres round the question of whether or not they are facing an intolerable burden now that the numbers on supplementary benefit have so greatly increased. However, I would not want to press this point further this evening, and at the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 119:

Page 60, line 41, at end insert— ("The Chief Adjudication Officer shall report annually in writing to the Secretary of State on the standards of adjudication and the Secretary of State shall publish his report.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 119. There have been grave doubts expressed on the quality of adjudication, particularly in relation to supplementary benefits. This amendment recognises that by requiring that there shall be an annual report by the chief adjudication officer which will be published by the Secretary of State. The Child Poverty Action Group have been monitoring the new supplementary benefits scheme since it was introduced in November 1980, and in their preliminary findings, written after four weeks, three months and six months, as well as in their final report which is due shortly to appear, the low quality of administration has remained a major problem in the new scheme, as it was under the old. The object here is to keep that under constant review to see what the standards are, and to see how they can be improved.

Lord Trefgarne

Ministers are often criticised for commissioning too many reports and letting them gather dust in dark pigeon-holes. We should be careful before imposing upon Ministers yet another duty and burden in considering annually another substantial report. But, more seriously, I am certain that we should be careful, too, about imposing on the chief adjudicating officer the further duty of preparing an annual report.

Under the provisions of the Bill the chief adjudication officer will be required to provide advice to adjudicating officers and to keep under review the operation of the adjudication system. In the early years he will be responsible for setting up the new system of initial, unified adjudication and ensuring that it is running smoothly. His most important role will be providing clear and comprehensive guidance to adjudicating officers. He may report his findings on the adjudication system to the Secretary of State if he considers that necessary. I do not think it will be helpful to impose a further duty on him, requiring him to produce an annual report. I doubt if such a report will be either necessary or useful once the system is running smoothly. The whole point of the changes that we are making in adjudication is to ensure that the system runs smoothly.

Lord Banks

Again, I wonder whether there is not perhaps a certain element of complacency with regard to the quality of adjudication on the part of the noble Lord; but, again, I would not want to press the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 120: Page 60, line 44, leave out ("The members") and insert ("One member").

The noble Lord said: I should like to move Amendment No. 120 and, with permission, to speak also to Amendments Nos. 122 and 132. These three amendments would ensure that tribunals would still have to include one member who was a representative of employed earners. A panel would be constituted, for membership of which recommendations would come from bodies representing employed earners. No doubt the recommendations would come, among other sources, from the trade unions; and from that panel a member would be appointed to the tribunal. I think it is important that employed earners should not feel that their general interest is not represented within the membership of the tribunal. They should not feel, however erroneously, that bosses and bureaucrats were ganging up against them. I beg to move.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Banks, on this. We support all his amendments. It was a question of two great minds thinking alike; and he got there first. If the Committee accepts that explanation, good luck to them! The point I want to make is that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to a member of a trade union. In fact, the TUC are very concerned about the Government's proposals. They feel that the decision seems to mean that the trade union movement loses the right to nominate one member of the tribunal. The TUC say that, over the years, trade unions have tightened up their procedures and have produced good quality people. If the panel is to be opened up, what group are they going to be opened up to? I think that the TUC, who have provided excellent people on various committees—national health committees and many others—and who are a responsible body, should have some degree of representation. I should like to support the amendment.

Lord Trefgarne

These three amendments would restore the present position on appointment of tribunal members, under which one member of both NILTs and SBATs is drawn from a panel representing employees. The intention of the change we are proposing in the Bill is to retain existing arrangements for nomination but to broaden the base to include not only representatives of work people and employers but of other groups as well, such as the disabled and single parents. Claimants are, of course, drawn from a wide spectrum, and we consider it desirable that committees or organisations which represent them also should have an opportunity to nominate members. Trade unions will still be invited to nominate members, but they will not retain their existing monopoly on nominations of one of the members. The Council on Tribunals has welcomed the change we are proposing. I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendments.

Lord Banks

This is an important point. I appreciate what the noble Lord has said about extending the membership of a tribunal more widely so that it includes people who are not at the present moment specifically included, but I do not think that that should be done at the expense of someone who represents the employees. Otherwise, there may well be a danger that employees will think that the tribunal is loaded against them. For that reason, I should like to test the opinion of the Committee on this particular amendment.

6.1 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 120) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 80.

DIVISION NO. 4
CONTENTS
Ardwick, L. Kagan, L.
Aylestone, L. Kaldor, L.
Balogh, L. Kilmarnock, L.
Banks, L. Listowel, E.
Birk, B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Bishopston, L. [teller.] Lloyd of Hampstead, L.
Blyton, L. MacLeod of Fuinary, L.
Brimelow, L. Mayhew, L.
Brockway, L. Mishcon, L.
Caradon, L. Molloy, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Oram, L.
Collison, L. Peart, L.
Cooper of Stockton Heath, L. Phillips, B.
Davies of Leek, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L. Rhodes, L.
Diamond, L. Robson of Kiddington, B.
Elwyn-Jones, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B. Stedman, B.
Foot, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Gaitskell, B. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Gladwyn, L. Stone, L.
Gregson, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Hale, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Hampton, L. Underhill, L.
Hanworth, V. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. White, B.
Jeger, B. Wigoder, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L. Winstanley, L. [Teller.]
John-Mackie, L. Wootton of Abinger, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Airey of Abingdon, B. Lindsey and Abingdon, E.
Avon, E. Long, V.
Bellwin, L. Loudoun, C.
Beloff, L. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Boardman, L. Luke, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Lyell, L.
Cathcart, E. MacLeod of Borve, B.
Cockfield, L, Mancroft, L.
Coleraine, L. Margadale, L.
Colwyn, L. Marley, L.
Craigavon, V. Masham of Ilton, B.
Cullen of Ashnourne, L. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Daventry, V. Merrivale, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Mersey, V.
Dilhorne, V. Mottistone, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Eccles, V. Napier and Ettrick, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Newall, L.
Elton, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Erroll, E. Orkney, E.
Faithfull, B. Orr-Ewing, L.
Fortescue, E. Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Renton, L.
Gibson-Watt, L. Romney, E.
Glenarthur, L. St. Davids, V.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Saint Oswald, L.
Salisbury, M.
Hatherton, L. Sandford, L.
Holderness, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Hornsby-Smith, B. Soames, L.
Hylton-Foster, B. Somers, L.
Kinloss, Ly. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Kinnaird, L.
Lane-Fox, B. Strathspey, L.
Lauderdale, E. Sudeley, L.
Swansea, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Swinfen, L. Vickers, B.
Swinton, E. [Teller.] Vivian, L.
Terrington, L. Wakefield of Kendal, L.
Teynham, L. Wynford, L.
Trefgarne, L. Young, B.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Denham

I think it was agreed that at this time we should adjourn the Committee stage and move on to the next business. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Denham.)

House resumed.