HL Deb 15 July 1986 vol 478 cc868-93

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 61: Leave out Clause 40 and insert the following new clause:

("Death grant

. (1) A death grant shall be payable in respect of each death which occurs after the commencement of this section on receipt of an application in the prescribed form by the personal representative of the deceased.

(2) A death grant shall be of a prescribed amount intended to cover the basic costs of a funeral and the Secretary of State may prescribe different amounts for different geographical areas.

(3) An amount under subsection (1) may be recovered in its entirety out of the estate of the deceased if that exceeds £10,000.

If the aforesaid estate is less than £10,000 but greater than £5,000, a fraction of the amount may be recovered out of the estate of the deceased which is equal to the fraction by which the estate exceeds £5,000 compared with £5,000 as quotient.

(4) Cirumstances may be prescribed in which the value of a house owned by the deceased or part thereof may be disregarded in determining the value of the estate for the purposes of this section.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed this amendment in Committee in conjunction with an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, which was designed to retain and increase the death grant as a contributory benefit. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord has now put his name to this amendment, as has the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.

It will be recalled that the Government's proposal is to abolish the death grant altogether and to replace it in certain needy cases with a grant for funeral expenses under the proposed new social fund. I objected in Committee—and I still object—to what in effect is means-testing at the time of bereavement. There also seemed to me—and there still seems to me—to be powerful objections to making a grant dependent on a discretionary fund whose offices may well not be open at the time of the death and whose decision about whether or not to make an award could hardly be made at once across the counter. In the meantime, the deceased person's nearest relative or executor could be placed, at a time already of great natural stress, in the awkward and distressing situation of not being able to make suitable arrangements with an undertaker.

The amendment seeks to avoid all those complications and anxieties by specifying that a death grant shall be payable on application in respect of each death. It does not specify the amount, which will be left to the Secretary of State. However, the intention is that it should be a realistic amount for a very simple funeral. There is then a clawback provision whereby on estates of between £5,000 and £10,000 an increasing fraction is recovered and on estates of over £10,000 the full amount is repayable. In such cases a loan has, in effect, been made at a time of stress and personal difficulty which is later repaid in calmer circumstances. As the Government want to give people loans rather than grants as regards other personal difficulties, I should have thought that that principle would have appealed to them.

In Committee the noble Baroness said that both amendments—mine and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, as it then was—aimed to preserve universal assistance with funeral costs and that that could not be justified in the 1980s. On the first point, the present amendment cannot be described as "universal" as it is means-tested subsequently. On the second point, one very much wonders what is different about death in the 1980s from what it was at any previous period or from what it will be in the future. Whatever else changes, death at least is always the same, posing the same stresses and strains and demanding a decent and speedy burial.

On Monday, 30th June at col. 700 of the Official Report, the noble Baroness then went on to make some very high estimates of the cost of what she called making: interest-free loans to people who do not need help at the moment",

based on the assumption, I think, that it will be claimed for all deaths. She then made a very surprising statement. At col. 701, she said: Economics would tell us that if someone is offered a free loan of that size for the length of time it takes to settle the value of an estate, he is likely to take it. I would myself".

Whatever may be the inclinations of the noble Baroness, I think that that is a misreading of the likely behaviour of the generality of people. I really do not see the middle classes of England queuing up at benefit offices for a £300 loan whenever there is a death in the family. It is in any case likely that only some 60,000 out of the approximate 600,000 annual deaths would qualify for full relief. If, for example, the sum was £300 it would amount to £18 million, which is little more than the current cost, which the noble Baroness gave as £17 million. In net terms it will probably be little more than what the Government are proposing to do under the social fund, but it would be doing it the right way round and removing the means test at the time of bereavement. I beg to move.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, introduced an exactly similar clause at Committee stage. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that the Government still cannot accept such an amendment because of the financial and administrative consequences, and because we simply do not believe that it is needed.

This clause would provide for the full cost of a funeral to be met for anyone with an estate worth less than £5,000 excluding the value of his house, and for part of it to be met for anyone with an estate of up to £10,000. Moreover, it would mean that anyone, however well-off and able to meet the costs of a funeral, would be able to receive an interest-free loan equivalent to the funeral cost for as long as it took to settle the value of an estate. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, was surprised at my suggestion at Committee stage that this was what would happen. I have to tell him that the Government have to plan public expenditure on the basis that the worst could happen.

In our view, the amendment could lead to a gross cost to public expenditure of some £400 million, reducing to perhaps £185 million net after recovery. These figures are necessarily rather rough, but they illustrate the parameters of the increase we are talking about. The administrative cost would of course be considerable, in pursuing relatives and solicitors to check whether estates had been settled in up to—as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said—660,000 cases a year.

Under our social fund proposals, an initial sift is built in because help is directed towards people who are already assessed to have relatively low income and capital. There is no such sift in the noble Lords' amendment, and the costs I have quoted are very much a minimum. Automatic payment for funeral expenses will be payable to those in receipt of supplementary benefit, income support, housing benefit, FIS and family credit. So these people will know that, when a death occurs, help is available.

I submit that the proposed amendment is a costly and overgenerous attempt to provide help which most people do not need. It will succeed in assisting those who cannot meet funeral expenses only at the cost of channelling a great deal of money to and from people who are perfectly well able to pay the bills themselves. I sympathise very much with the noble Lords' intention in trying to target better help on poorer people—something the present universal death grant conspicuously does not do. But I do not believe their proposal does it in an effective or efficient way. Our social fund proposals will, we believe, achieve the same objective more simply, and will give help in those cases where it is needed at a much lower overall cost.

We have already debated funeral expenses in the context of the social fund, and those proposals stand part of the Bill. One further reason for my resistance to this proposed clause is that it could now duplicate provisions to which your Lordships have already expressed your agreement by passing Clause 33. For that reason, as well as the financial and administrative arguments I have set out, I urge you to reject this proposed new clause.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I should like briefly to support the Minister. The social fund will help those in the greatest need. Those who are well-off with good accountants will make certain that their estates, for taxation purposes, are at the lowest possible level. As I see it, those who are well-off will be able to claim the grant much more readily than those who just slip out of the social fund net. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will really be trying to help the wrong people.

Lord Kilmarnock

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for striving to allay my anxieties. She merely repeated the same extravagant figures—as I think I may call them—that she used in Committee. She referred to the initial sift of the social fund, but rejected the idea of a natural sift through the good sense of people who would not claim when they would not need to.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, but it is rather unlikely that even with the cleverest accountant a large number of well-off people will reduce their estates to between £5,000 and £10,000. The most important point made by the noble Baroness is that she instanced—I may be wrong, but I do not think that this emerged in our previous debates—the benefits which would act as a passport to the payment of funeral expenses. As far as I can see, that is not in the Bill. I do not think that it has been previously mentioned in our debates.

If I heard the noble Baroness aright, what she said is helpful. Before I decide what to do regarding the amendment perhaps she will confirm that supplementary benefit, family income supplementary, income support and possibly one or two other benefits that I did not catch, would act as an automatic passport to the payment of funeral expenses under the social fund. I wonder whether, with the leave of the House, she would confirm that.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, is correct.

Lord Kilmarnock

My Lords, in that case we have progressed a little. That was not clear previously. From our previous debates it appeared that a person would have to go along and make a case for the payment. There now seems to be some grounds for the case to be made automatically. I regard that as an improvement on my understanding of the situation as it was before, and on those grounds I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport)

My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?

Baroness Trumpington

No—

8.42 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 61) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 79.

DIVISION NO.5
CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Morton of Shuna, L.
Banks, L. [Teller.] Mountevans, L.
Barnett, L. Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Broadbridge, L. Nicol, B.
Buckmaster, V. Parry, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Phillips, B.
Darcy (de Knayth), B. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
David, B. Prys-Davies, L.
Dean of Beswick, L. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Donoughue, L. Seear, B.
Elwyn-Jones, L. Stallard, L.
Ennals, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Gallacher, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hanworth, V. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Howie of Troon, L. Tordoff, L.
Jeger, B. Turner of Camden, B.
Kagan, L. Underbill, L.
Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.] White, B.
Lawrence, L. Wigoder, L.
McNair, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Allerton, L. Fortescue, E.
Alport, L. Gisborough, L.
Argyll, D. Glenarthur, L.
Bathurst, E. Gray, L.
Bauer, L. Grimston of Westbury, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Hacking, L.
Belstead, L. Harvington, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Henley, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Hives, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Home of the Hirsel, L.
Butterworth, L. Hooper, B.
Caithness, E. Ingrow, L.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L. Kaberry of Adel, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Kimball, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Lane-Fox, B.
Coleraine, L. Lindsey and Abingdon, E.
Colville of Culross, V. Long, V. [Teller.]
Colwyn, L. Lothian, M.
Craigavon, V. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Davidson, V. Lyell, L.
Donegall, M. McFadzean, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Margadale, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Elphinstone, L. Merrivale, L.
Elton, L. Mersey, V.
Faithfull, B. Middleton, L.
Ferrier, L. O'Hagan, L.
Orr-Ewing, L. Teviot, L.
Polwarth, L. Torphichen, L.
Portsmouth, E. Torrington, V.
Rankeillour, L. Trefgarne, L.
Renton, L. Trenchard, V.
Ridley, V. Trumpington, B.
Rochdale, V. Ullswater, V.
Sanderson of Bowden, L. Vivian, L.
Skelmersdale, L. Waldegrave, E.
Soames, L. Whitelaw, V.
Stodart of Leaston, L. Wise, L.
Swinfen, L. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

8.50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, I have to advise your Lordships that there is a misprint on the Marshalled List in the first line of Amendment No. 61A. It should read: Page 48, line 18, leave out ("have effect") and insert, etc. Clause 41 [Abolition of reduced rate of short-term benefits.]

Lord Pitt of Hampstead moved Amendment No. 61A:

Page 48, line 18, leave out ("have effect") and insert ("apply to a person who—

(a) has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to make good any deficiency in the contributions paid by or credited to him in respect of any relevant past year within the meaning of that Act so as to enable him to fulfil the contribution conditions specified in Schedule 3, Part 1 of that Act in relation to any benefit which he (upon such fulfilment) is entitled, or

(b) has had repaid to him such contributions as were paid by or credited to him during any such year being a year in respect of which he shall have failed to fulfil the said condition.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should be moving that Clause 41 shall not stand part of the Bill. But, of course, the House has already accepted Clause 41 as part of the Bill. The amendment is what I would call a damage limitation amendment. Clause 41 abolishes the reduced rates of unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and maternity benefit. At present, benefit can be paid at 50 per cent., 75 per cent. or 100 per cent. depending on the contributions paid. Clause 41 abolishes all the rates below 100 per cent. As a consequence, many people will suffer. They will mainly be women—those who work part-time, the low paid, casual workers and people who break unemployment with low paid work for short periods. They will suffer. The lower the earnings, the less national insurance is paid and the more significant the breaks in employment unless they are covered by national insurance credits.

This is especially important for sickness benefit claimants as they can go, at present, from a reduced rate of sickness benefit after 28 weeks on to long-term invalidity benefit at the higher rate. If these changes go through, anyone with less than 100 per cent. national insurance contributions would receive no national insurance sickness benefit for 28 weeks. After that, they would be able to apply only for the lower rating, and it is very hard to qualify for the severe disablement allowance because the disability has to be 80 per cent. I remember a year or so ago speaking on this point of the disablement allowance. In addition, they will lose national insurance credits.

It is rather sad. The abolition of reduced rates of short-term benefit did not appear in the Green or White Papers, which meant that people were not prepared for it. We did not have the arguments that would normally take place concerning proposals in a Green Paper. Many people will be affected. It is estimated that 66,000 people on reduced rate unemployment benefit will be affected. The Minister, in another place, indicated that 6,500 people will be affected in terms of invalidity benefit. So we are not talking about something that will not affect many people. It will affect quite a few.

I come now to my damage limitation attempt. There is existing provision to make good a shortfall in contributions two years from the tax year in which short-term benefits were due. Of course, benefit cannot be paid for the first six weeks after payment of contributions. There are longer periods for people such as students and prisoners in whose case it is six years. I am suggesting that people in this difficult situation should be allowed to make good the contribution that they failed to make during the course of a year. This requires, of course, that the DHSS informs them there and then that they are short. They should be allowed to make good the amount and therefore qualify. That is one approach.

The other, if the first suggestion cannot be allowed, is that they should be given back the contributions that they have made. It seems to me wrong to take their contributions and then to say that, merely because they did not reach full contributions, they are to get nothing. It seems to me that the former of my two suggestions is the better. One wants to be able to say to people at the end of a year that they have fallen short by a certain amount but that if they make it good they will be entitled to sickness benefit. If, however, the Government do not wish to do that, they should give back the contributions. I hope that the Government will react to the first of my suggestions rather than the second. If they cannot act on the first, I hope that at least they will act on the second. 1 beg to move.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Pitt has rendered the House a significant service by bringing this matter to our attention. I feel very guilty in that, when originally reading through the Bill, I did not realise the implications of Clause 41. Until my noble friend put down the amendment—here I make my own confession—I did not realise what a miserable and wretched piece of work the Government are doing. I wonder whether those on the other side have recognised before now just what the Bill does to a significant group of people.

The issue concerns people who have all paid national insurance. They know that, as a result of paying national insurance, they are entitled, quite apart from the pension, to get unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and maternity benefit. That is why they pay. As regards those who are not fully paid up for various reasons—women working part-time and casual workers, for instance—they do not expect, if they have not paid full contributions, to get their full benefit. However, unless I read it wrongly, the Bill in the space of four lines, abolishes any entitlement at all. Unless the Minister can point out that this clause does not mean what I think it means and what my noble friend Lord Pitt thinks it means, it appears that however long you have contributed to national insurance, the fact that you are not fully up to date means that it is just too bad for you and that you will not get any benefit.

We recognise, as my noble friend said, that at present benefits can be paid at 50 per cent., 75 per cent. or 100 per cent. depending on contributions paid. Does the national insurance principle mean anything at all to the Government? This seems to be the issue at stake. The Government appear prepared to take a further step to erode the insurance principle of our national insurance scheme by taking enforceable national insurance contributions that will bring no benefit in return to the contributors at their time of insured need. Surely, this is immoral. Surely, it is wrong either to take contributions and not pay benefit or, having taken contributions, not to pay benefit.

How many will this affect? If the Government are going to do this extraordinarily miserable act and bring hardship on the people concerned, and force them to go on to the supplementary benefit level—as must be the consequence in many cases—how many will it affect? How much money will the Government save? Is there any other motive than sheer saving of money that has caused the Government to put in this miserable Clause 41?

Of course if the noble Lord had noticed it earlier, or if my noble friend and I had done so, we should have said, "Delete Clause 41" and I think we might have carried the House with us. I cannot think that your Lordships would want to "do the dirty"—which is what this clause is doing—to people who, for perfectly honest and reasonable reasons, have not been able to be fully up-to-date in their national insurance contributions and will therefore lose their benefit.

Can the Minister in her reply say what is the motive for doing this? How many people will suffer from it? Does she still believe in the national insurance principle and, if so, why are the Government taking this action?

Lord Banks

My Lords, I should like to say briefly that I have a great deal of sympathy with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. It seems to me that the operation of this clause needs considerable explanation to find out who will be affected, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, the extent to which they will be affected, and when this would take effect.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I think that this amendment is based on some misunderstanding of the rules governing entitlement to those short-term benefits and I suggest that the contingencies which the amendment seeks to guard against are already covered in the Social Security Act 1975 and regulations.

For example, it is only Class I contributions paid by a person's employer that count for unemployment benefit. If those contributions are not paid because of the employer's default, the contributions can be deemed to be paid. If a person becomes unemployed, he is credited with a contribution for each week he is unemployed until he finds work again. There is therefore no need for a person to make additional contributions in this situation. I could perhaps mention that a person with Class I earnings of £150 a week will have paid sufficient contributions to qualify for full unemployment benefit in three months.

If a person is self-employed, there is a legal liability to pay a Class II contribution for each week that the person is so engaged. Payment of those contributions is enforced. Class II contributions count for sickness benefit and maternity allowance and again credits are awarded for weeks when a person is drawing those benefits. Again the payment of additional contributions on a voluntary basis does not arise and is not necessary. Those who are not working either for an employer or on their own account, may pay Class III contributions. Those count for pensions and other long-term benefits but not for the short-term benefits with which Clause 41 is concerned.

Contributions paid may only be refunded where they were clearly paid in error and there is no provision for repayment of contributions credited. Perhaps I may try to reply to the questions by the noble Lords, Lord Pitt and Lord Ennals, with regard to giving back contributions if not entitled to 100 per cent. benefit. The national insurance scheme is a social insurance scheme whereby liability for national insurance contributions is based on a person's ability to pay, and not on his personal expectation of entitlement to benefit. Although a person builds up a contribution record for benefit purposes his contributions are paid into the national insurance fund to help pay for current beneficiaries. There is a general pooling of risks, and national insurance contributions can be likened to car insurance, whereby one does not get one's premium back at the end of the year if one does not have an accident, or, in this case, a need to call on the national insurance fund to provide a contingency benefit.

The invalidity benefit situation is that invalidity benefit is essentially an income replacement benefit which is payable to persons who are incapable of work for more than 28 weeks and who have had title, or underlying title, to sickness benefit, for which the contribution conditions must be satisfied. Payment of full rate sickness benefit depends on the claimant having been paid or credited with contributions on earnings of 50 times the lower earnings limit in the relevant tax year. This condition is not difficult to satisfy. For 1986–87 a person need earn only £1,900 to qualify for benefit at the full rate. It is not therefore considered to be proper to pay invalidity benefit in circumstances where entitlement to sickness benefit does not exist.

The number of people who would have qualified for invalidity benefit through entitlement to a reduced rate benefit is small—estimated at 6,500 in the first full year, 1987–88. Supplementary benefit will be available for any claimant for whom loss of benefit would cause hardship. Transitional protection will of course be given to people already receiving reduced rate benefit at the time of the change.

The Governemnt have given careful consideration to the arrangements for paying half and three-quarter rates of unemployment, sickness and maternity benefits and have concluded that they are an unjustified use of resources. Their abolition will be a useful simplification of the benefit system, which everyone agrees is too complicated, and will produce a benefit saving of about £25 million in a full year.

The numbers affected will be small. About 19,000 people at any one time are receiving reduced unemployment benefit without supplementary benefit out of some 2.6 million unemployed benefit recipients. In a full year perhaps 50,000 unemployed people will be affected. The number receiving reduced sickness or maternity benefit will be negligible, now that the statutory sick pay has been extended to 28 weeks. More than half of those who receive reduced rates—22,000 for unemployment benefit—receive supplementary benefit on top. They will not be affected. Supplementary benefit will be available for any of the losers whose resources are insufficient.

Transitional protection will be available for those drawing reduced rate benefit at the time that the change is introduced. Contributions paid may be refunded only where they were clearly paid in error, and there is no provision for repayment of contributions credited. I ask your Lordships to reject the amendment.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, the noble Baroness says that 19,000 people will be affected and that there will be a saving of £25 million. Is it really worth it, to inflict that hardship on 19,000 people?

Lord Pitt of Hampstead

My Lords, the noble Baroness began by suggesting that I was wrong and so I had to rush out to obtain a copy of the Act. It specifically states that, after the 1975 Act, there is an allowance for payment, as I said, where people have not made their full contributions. They receive a partial payment. That is what Section 33(1) of the 1975 Act states. It refers to unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, maternity benefit, maternity allowance, mother's allowance, widow's pension, Category A retirement pension, and Category B retirement pension.

Clause 41 of the Bill would abolish all that. The suggestion that I am on the wrong track is quite incorrect. Clause 41 would deprive people of their entitlement. I am sorry that I must repeat that, but I was flabbergasted when the Minister suggested that I was wrong; I had to obtain a copy of the Act to satisfy myself, because I could not believe that a Minister would stand at the Dispatch Box and suggest that I was wrong about an Act that was on the statute book for all to see.

The situation is that I was perfectly right. The Minister went on to admit that in her speech. Certain people will be deprived of their benefit. The Minister says that there will not be many of them. She began by mentioning a figure of 19,000, and she ended by saying that the figure would be 50,000. She confirmed my figure of 6,500 people in respect of sickness and invalidity benefit. Of course many people will be affected. The saving, in the context of social security expenditure, will be negligible. The Minister will save £25 million, but she will put a lot of people into real difficulty.

I suggest that my amendment would be quite helpful. If a person did not make their contribution in, for example, 1986–87, one would draw their attention to the fact that they had not paid their full contribution but that if they paid it within a certain time, they would be back in business. That seems to be sensible. If one does not do that, one ought to give them back pay.

The Minister spoke about car insurance, but when one does not claim on car insurance, although one does not receive a refund on the premium, there is a reduction on the next premium; there is such a thing as a no-claims bonus. One cannot compare a person's unemployment and sickness with car insurance. To what level are we descending? We are talking about people who have been unemployed or who have been ill, and who as a consequence need the help that is provided by the legislation in the social security system.

I do not know what to do about this amendment. One could call for a vote and then lose it, and nothing would be gained by that. However, I hope that the Government will think again. They can still introduce regulations to correct the situation. I hope that the Minister will refer this matter back to her department and ask them to examine it again and to introduce the kind of regulations that would prevent there being any deprivation. It is too petty to cause so much hardship for a saving of £25 million. I shall withdraw the amendment, but I hope that the Government will recognise that their way is not the right way to approach the problem. I hope that the Minister will return to her department and ask them to reconsider this matter. I know that they can deal with it by regulations, and so there is no real need for us to include such a provision in the Bill. I do hope that the Government will act.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness, for those of us who are now thoroughly confused by the whole thing, whether she could tell us accurately and authoritatively what Section 33( 1) of the 1975 Act says and means? I am completely lost now as to what it is all about.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I wonder whether I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, that we shall certainly look again at this from the point of view of regulations. Regulations, as the noble Lord will appreciate, are always changing, and are always liable to change. I hope that the noble Lord will rest on what I have said.

Lord Pitt of Hampstead

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]

Clause 45 [Statutory maternity pay—entitlement and liability to pay]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 63: Page 51, line 14, at end insert ("but section 23A of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982 shall have effect in relation to paragraph (a) above as it has effect in relation to section l(2)(a) of that Act but as if the reference to statutory sick pay were a reference to statutory maternity pay").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment which brings statutory maternity pay into line with existing provisions on statutory sick pay and maternity pay. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

9.15 p.m.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 64: Page 51, line 25, at end insert— ("(aa) specify circumstances in which, notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the liability to make payments of statutory maternity pay is to be a liability of his;").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 64, and at the same time discuss Amendment No. 75. During the Report stage in another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Social Security announced a change in the arrangements for statutory maternity pay where an employer fails to pay statutory maternity pay even though a DHSS adjudication officer has ruled that he is liable to pay.

As your Lordships may know—indeed, I recall the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, raising this on other occasions in this House—in the present statutory sick pay scheme where the employer fails to pay statutory sick pay the last resort is for the employee to take action in the civil courts to obtain payment. This happens very rarely indeed. We know of only four such cases in relation to statutory sick pay. Invariably the employer makes the payment once a formal decision has been received, but as the Minister made clear in the other place we accept that this is not a wholly satisfactory position.

I am sure your Lordships will be pleased, therefore, that under the powers conveyed by this amendment we intend to provide in regulation that the Secretary of State will, in certain circumstances, take over the payment of statutory maternity pay. The employee herself will thus no longer be faced with the prospect of having to take the employer to court if he fails to comply with the decision of an adjudication officer or, as the case may be, a social security appeal tribunal. Where this occurs the employer will be liable to prosecution by the department for failure to pay.

Perhaps in addition I should say that Amendment No. 75, which we are also discussing, provides for the money for payments made by the Secretary of State in these circumstances to come from the national insurance fund. I should also tell your Lordships that a later amendment will provide similarly for statutory sick pay. I hope your Lordships will welcome these amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 50 [Regulations about claims for and payments of benefit]:

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 65: Page 56, line 10, at end insert ("by such person as may be prescribed").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments No. 65 and 66 have already been spoken to. I beg to move Amendment No. 65.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5 [Adjudication]:

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 66: Page 124, line 41, leave out paragraph (c).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 54 [False representations for obtaining benefit etc.]:

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 67: Page 62, line 20, leave out from ("false") to end of line 22 and insert ("or").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 67, with which I propose to speak to Amendment No. 69. These two amendments remove the "recklessness" offences from the Bill in fulfilment of an undertaking given by the Government at Committee stage. I shall not take up your Lordships' time unduly by repeating what was said in Committee. Suffice it to say that the concern expressed about the proposed criminal recklessness offences was sufficiently compelling to warrant the removal of these provisions from the Bill. I commend these amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 68, as an amendment to Amendment No. 67, not moved.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 69: Page 62, line 26, leave out from ("particular") to end of line 28.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 62 [Annual up-rating of benefits):

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 69A: Page 71, line 13, at end insert ("specified in regulations").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 70: After Clause 66, insert the following new clause:

("Liability of Secretary of State to pay statutory sick pay in prescribed circumstances.

. The following subsections shall be added at the end of section 1 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982— "(5) Circumstances may be prescribed in which, notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the liability to make payments of statutory sick pay is to be a liability of the Secretary of State. (6) Any sums paid under regulations made by virtue of subsection (5) above shall be paid out of the National Insurance fund.".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this new clause matches the amendments we discussed earlier on statutory maternity pay. Where an employer fails to comply with the adjudicating authorities' decision that he is liable to pay SSP regulations made under this provision will enable the Secretary of State to take over payments. In view of our earlier discussion, I do not think there is any need for me to say anything to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 71: After Clause 68, insert the following new clause:

("Carers' benefit.

.—(1) The Secretary of State may, subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament, make regulations providing for the payment of a carers' benefit. (2) A person shall be eligible for the payment of carers' benefit if he is engaged in the full-time care of a relative who is either—

  1. (a) male and over sixty-five;
  2. (b) female and over sixty;
  3. (c) chronically sick and disabled; or
  4. (d) otherwise in need of continual care.
(3) Regulations may provide for the value of the benefit to be so payable.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it has always been part of our policy to extend invalid care allowance to married and cohabitating women. During the passage of this Bill the Government have been obliged to concede that extension as a result of the Drake case in the European court. That concession took the form of Amendment No. 59 today which the noble Baroness moved and which the House welcomed, particularly my noble friend Lady Seear from these Benches. I welcome that, but I see it as a first necessary step towards a more embracing carers' benefit rather than as the end of the road.

Invalid care allowance will now be extended to some 70,000 married women at a cost which I believe the Government have assessed at £55 million. But deserving though they undoubtedly are they are by no means the only carers who require help. It has been estimated that 90 per cent. of the mentally ill and 80 per cent. of the mentally handicapped are cared for full time by their families: the latter alone amounting to perhaps some 200,000 people. Without these carers the burden on the public services would be overwhelming.

If we turn back to the mentally ill, about 180,000 people a year are admitted to and discharged from mental hospitals. In many areas there are virtually no community support services for them. The number of beds for geriatric patients in hospitals has been cut by 10,000 since 1979. Many hundreds of small hospitals which could have become community resources for respite leave and short stay hospitalisation have been closed. Again without informal carers the social and health services would simply have broken down.

We believe that this basic contribution to community care must be recognised. Of course, it will not come cheap—though it will come cheaper than institutional care—and I shall not try to conceal this. The calculations made by my party on the basis of the maximum of potential claimants at 460,000, assuming 360,000 actual claimants, show that the cost would be in the region of £300 million. But before I get a "shock horror" response to this, I want to draw the attention of the House to some recent calculations.

The most recent review of research on informal care by Parker in 1985 estimated that there are at least 1.3 million people acting as principal carers to dependent elderly persons, other disabled adults and children receiving daily support. If we take the average gross hourly cost of home help services in 1984–85, which was £3.10 per hour, and then we make two different assumptions about the hours of care per week required by elderly or handicapped persons, we get the following figures. Assuming 3½ hours a day or 24½ hours a week, we get a total of 1.3 million people and a cost of £5.134 million. If we assume 5 hours a day or 35 hours a week, the figure is £7.335 million.

Turning to public expenditure, if 10 per cent. of these informal caring jobs were not done because the carer could no longer cope, and 10 per cent, of those 1.3 million dependants required residential accommodation at an average cost of £170 a week, the public cost of providing for these 130,000 dependent persons would be nearly £1,150,000.

can see that these are illustrative figures, but I think it it permissible to use them because the Government have claimed the same privilege throughout the Bill and the noble Baroness herself in an earlier amendment used what she described as rough figures. The point is that if a successful policy of community care is to be pursued and as many people as possible are to be kept out of institutions, informal carers will simply have to have more assistance. It is something which has to be faced up to. The invalid care allowance passed by your Lordships earlier this afternoon is a step, I repeat, in the right direction which we welcome. But the Government cannot simply rest on their laurels—laurels placed, it has to be said, on a reluctant brow. Sensible and humane planning for future widespread community care will require further steps. I hope the Government recognise this, and I beg to move.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, I added my name to this amendment largely because I wanted to know what the noble Baroness would say. It was not my intention that this should be an amendment on which there should be a vote. However, I think we have to recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. has said, that in our society a vast proportion of our elderly population, an increasing proportion of the mentally ill, the handicapped and the mentally handicapped are now living at home. They are cared for at home by a variety of different people who do not necessarily come under the invalid care allowance, and some of the people who are being cared for are not necessarily invalids.

It is my view that at some stage in the development of our welfare state we will need a form of benefit for those who are at present being cared for by this very large number of carers—running into millions, I should have thought—or we will need to find a way of assisting the carers. It perhaps does not make a great deal of difference which way it is done, but it is almost the basis of community care in our society. As I said at the beginning, I put my name to this amendment because I thought it was an interesting one. It is not an amendment on which I would seek a vote, but it is one on which I would be interested to know the thinking of Her Majesty's Government.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, what is proposed in this amendment is clearly vastly different in scope from the invalid allowance which is the benefit for carers of severely disabled people. The proposal seems to have some kinship with what the SDP had in mind when they launched their "Carer's Charter" in April 1984. We have now brought forward the promised legislation for the extension of invalid care allowance to married women. I hope that noble Lords opposite will give us credit for this—indeed they have. It was difficult to see exactly which groups would be eligible for the carer's benefit proposed as part of the charter and I am grateful therefore to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for giving your Lordships' House the opportunity to consider in greater detail what might be involved.

Let us examine the elements of the proposal. To be eligible, the carer has to be engaged in full-time care of a relative. "Full-time care" is not defined. Let us say, as with the qualifying condition for ICA, that the carer needs to spend at least 35 hours per week in caring, or five hours each day. Looking then at the groups listed, we can surmise that since a wife can easily spend at least five hours a day caring for her husband in tasks such as cooking, washing, ironing, bed-making and so on, retired couples looking after each other would probably qualify, since no age limit is given for carers. We have no indication as to whether the proposed carers' benefit would overlap with retirement pension or whether it could be paid in addition.

The next category consists of people who are either chronically sick and disabled or people otherwise in need of continual care. Since these two groups are given as alternatives, I can only assume that there is a distinction between the two which is not immediately apparent without some definition. It is equally uncertain whether the issue of overlapping benefit has been addressed. Would entitlement to ICA cease or would it continue along with the proposed carers' benefit?

Just to add to our already considerable diffculties with the scope of the new clause, it is not clear whether the categories are mutually exclusive or only partially so. For example, do the people of retirement age have to be chronically sick and disabled or otherwise in need of continual care for the carer to qualify? If so, the new clause curiously omits disabled people of working age for whom there appears to be no provision if the new carers' benefit would be intended to replace invalid care allowance. Similarly, ICA is payable to those caring for non-relatives, whereas the carer's benefit would be confined to relatives only.

I turn now to the question of cost. It will have become apparent that we have had some difficulty. Numbers of potential beneficiaries are thus hard to guess at. I do not argue at all with the figures of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. The figures he quoted are from the recent Family Policy Studies Centre briefing on caring costs, which put a notional hourly value on care of £3.10. So, on this basis £108.50 would be indicated for 35 hours of care a week. Applying this to the figure of 1.3 million carers of those with disabilities quoted in the briefing would give an annual cost of £1.5 billion: exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said. As I have indicated, however, it is by no means certain that only 1.3 million people would qualify. It appears to cover anyone over pension age being cared for by a relative, including a spouse, on a full-time basis and not only those who are severely disabled, although I accept that this may not have been the intended effect.

Our commitment to carers has been demonstrated by the amendments we have made to the Bill extending invalid care allowance to some 70,000 married women at a full-year cost of £55 million. The amendment put down by the noble Lords would have massive additional resource implications. I really cannot recommend to your Lordships' House an amendment which would make such an open-ended commitment on top of the substantial increases which the Government have themselves agreed to. I would therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Kilmarnock

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having given us the Government's views on a proposal of this nature. I was glad that the noble Baroness referred to the carers' charter published by the SDP, because this had very wide acclaim among a great number of groups up and down the country. It was very widely welcomed indeed.

As regards the references (a) and (b) in the amendment to retired people, obviously the qualification would not be if each member of a couple is making the other's bed. That is clearly not the case. The amendment refers to "full-time care of a relative", and that has to be read sensibly. Equally, in paragraphs (c) and (d) of the amendment, if a wider benefit were introduced it is likely that existing benefits would be subsumed into it. So I do not think that the points which the noble Baroness made against it are necessarily condemning it out of hand.

The calculation that I quoted was, I think, made for a potential take-up of 460,000 people and an actual take-up of 360,000. I gave the figure, which has been calculated by some of our experts, in the region of £300 million. I accept that it is a large sum of money. I do not know whether "massive" is the right adjective in relation to the figures that I quoted for the cost of institutional care, but I wanted to see whether the Government really grasped the enormous contribution made by carers in our society to the avoidance of these huge costs of institutional care. I am not sure whether that came through from the noble Baroness's reply.

Anyway, we are most grateful to her for having tried to grapple with this. The amendment is purely permissive. I am certainly not intending to press it to a Division, and I do not think there is any reason why the noble Baroness should force us into another Division. We have had an interesting discussion on the matter and we have heard the Government's views. On those grounds, I am quite happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I correct myself in case I made a mistake? I just want to make sure that I said that at £108.50 for 1.3 million people the cost is £7.3 billion, not £1.5 billion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 72 [National insurance contributions]:

The Deputy Speaker (Baroness White)

My Lords, I should perhaps indicate that Amendment No. 71A to Clause 72, and the following Amendment No. 71B, should have appeared in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. I believe also that there is a printing error in Amendment No. 71A, which should read: Page 78, line 26, leave out from ('following')…". I think that is the correct version.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 71A:

Page 78, line 26, leave out from ("following") to end of line 34 and insert ("subsections shall be inserted after subsection (5)—

"(5A) Without prejudice to section 122(3) and (4) above, the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, by order amend this section, in relation to any tax year beginning after the tax year 1986–87—

  1. (a) by substituting a different percentage for the percentage for the time being specified in paragraph (i) or (ii) of subsection (4) above or for each of the percentages specified in those paragraphs;
  2. (b) by directing that there shall be no appropriate employment protection allocation; or
  3. (c) by directing that there shall be an appropriate employment protection allocation only in the case of primary Class 1 contributions or only in the case of secondary Class 1 contributions.

(5B) At any time when an order under subsection (5A) above containing a direction under paragraph (b) of that subsection is in force, the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, by order direct that there shall be an appropriate employment protection allocation of such percentage in the case of primary Class 1 contributions or secondary Class 1 contributions, or both, as may be specified in the order.

(5C) At any time when an order under subsection (5A) above containing a direction under paragraph (c) of that subsection is in force, the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, by order direct that there shall be an appropriate employment protection allocation of such percentage as may be specified in the order in the case of the description of contributions in whose case there is, by virtue of the direction, no such allocation.

(5D) Any percentage specified as an allocation by an order under subsection (5B) or (5D) above shall be deemed to be inserted at the appropriate place in subsection (4) above and an order under subsection (5A)(a) above may accordingly be made in respect of it.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 72(3) allows the Secretary of State to change by order the employment protection allocation, without necessarily changing the overall national insurance contribution rate, by inserting a new subsection into Section 134 of the Social Security Act 1975. The clause is, however, deficient in that it does not allow a zero rate to be set. The proposed amendments will enable a zero rate for the employment protection allocation to be set in respect of either employers' or employees' national insurance contributions, or both. These amendments will also allow the Secretary of State to return from a zero rate for the employment protection allocation to a positive rate. I am sure that noble Lords will support these amendments. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 71B. Page 78, line 36, leave out (""or (4C)"") and insert (""(5A), (5B)or(5C)"").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 73 [Earnings factors]:

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 72: Page 79, line 4, leave out from first ("Security") to end of line 6 and insert ("Acts 1975 and the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1977 shall be amended in accordance with Schedule 8 to this Act in relation to earnings factors for the tax year in which this section comes into force and subsequent tax years.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 72, and will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 73. This amendment, and the associated technical amendment to Schedule 8, are wholly consequential upon the new provisions for earnings factors to be derived from actual earnings rather than contributions. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 8 [Earnings factors]:

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No 73: Page 132, line 39, at end insert—

("4A. In subsection (4) of section 3 (married women and widows) for the words from "contributions" to "rate" there shall be substituted the words "earnings upon which primary Class 1 contributions are paid at a reduced rate by virtue of regulations under subsection (2) above or from Class 2 contributions paid at a reduced rate by virtue of such regulations".

4B. In subsection (1) of section 5 of that Act (voluntary contributions) after the word "from" there shall be inserted the words "earnings upon which Class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as paid or from Class 2".).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 81 [Orders and regulations (general provisions)]:

Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 73A: Page 83, line 5, at end insert— ("(bb) orders under section 31(2) or (2A) above which are made before the coming into operation of those subsections;")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I may remind your Lordships of three amendments, Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48, which were moved earlier this evening by my noble friend Lady Hooper on behalf of my noble friend Lady Trumpington. The first of those amendments, No. 46, will allow benefit subsidy to be based on a notional as well as an actual benefit cost. This will facilitate the Government's objective of ensuring that local authorities have some stake in the amount of benefit paid, and at the same time it is of course an alternative to subsidising housing benefit through rate support grant. The second amendment would permit administration costs to be directly subsidised. The third amendment, No. 48, is consequential upon Amendments Nos. 46 and 47. Broadly speaking, those amendments are enabling amendments only; they do not write provisions into primary legislation.

My amendment to Clause 81 would ensure that Parliament has a chance to consider, debate and approve the first subsidy orders that are made under Clause 31. They would be subject to the much stronger affirmative resolution procedure rather than the negative resolution procedure. The amendment will be an important safeguard in the continuing negotiations after the enactment of the Bill in securing that local authorities are adequately protected. I beg to move.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lady Faithfull will not faint with amazement—I am happy to accept her amendment.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, I am almost speechless. May I thank my noble friend the Minister for accepting an amendment? It gives me great pleasure not to be voting against the Government, or indeed, in this case for the Government because they have accepted the amendment. I am most grateful.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I just want to say that I was reading to the right amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 74: Page 83. line 11, at end insert— ("( ) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions) regulations relating to income-related benefits, under section 20(1), 21(3), 21(5), 21(6), 22(1), 22(4), 22(6) or 22(7X6) of this Act, which are made before the coming into operation of those benefits, shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and both Houses by resolution approve the draft either without modification or addition or with the modifications or additions to which both Houses agree, but upon such approval being given the instrument may be made in the form in which it has been approved and on being so made shall be deemed to be valid and within the powers of this Act").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, a similar amendment was moved in Committee in another place by Mrs. Beckett, but there was no time for any discussion on it; nor was there a vote on it. The amendment is prompted by the large number of important matters which are left in the Bill to regulation. When we look at Part II of the Bill dealing with income-related benefits we find that many quite fundamental aspects of the proposals are not in the Bill and will be determined by regulation. Part II of the Bill consists largely of regulation-making powers. For example, income support rates are defined in Clause 22(1) as, such amount or the aggregate of such amounts as may be prescribed".

The three schemes themselves are to be prescribed. The premiums for particular categories are not even mentioned in the Bill; nor are the qualifying conditions for receiving them given. The capital cut-off point is to be prescribed under Clause 22(5). The prescribed part of the person's capital that may be disregarded will be in regulations. The treatment of capital below the cut-off point is to be prescribed under Clause 22(6) and disregards of earnings of other income may be prescribed under Clause 22(7)(b).

In contrast to this, in the supplementary benefit Act of 1966, the provisions were set out in detail in Schedule 2 to the Act headed: Provisions for determining the right to and amount of benefit".

That schedule set out the basic benefit rules, long-term additions to benefit, the circumstances in which such additions were payable, the amounts to be allowed for rent, the deductions for non-dependants, the treatment of capital resources, the earnings disregard and the details of other income disregards. All those were in the Bill. While the Minister was empowered to increase the benefit rates by regulation, the basic benefit rates were in the Bill and they were fully debated in Parliament.

The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has several times said in our discussions on this Bill that there will be a full debate on the regulations. We all know that regulations do not receive the same scrutiny as does a Bill. We know that there is a convention that the House does not oppose regulations to which the Commons have already agreed. We know that we cannot amend regulations. These are the factors which make discussion of regulations in this House so unsatisfactory. This amendment seeks to ensure that regulations relating to the income-related benefits established under this Bill are subject to amendment by Parliament.

This amendment covers the schemes themselves, the benefit rates, the family credit and housing benefit tapers, the calculation of income and capital, the capital cut-off point and assumed income from capital, and the income and capital disregards. It is important to stress that there is no reason at all why both Houses of Parliament should not be given the right to amend statutory instruments under a particular Act. Erskine May, on page 617 of the 20th edition, says: Power has occasioally been given to both Houses to approve a draft Order in Council or draft departmental order with modifications and in such cases the orders could only be made with such modifications as have been agreed by both Houses. If the two Houses differ in their amendments, machinery must be improvised for reconciling the differences".

Reference is then made to a particular occasion when the need for such machinery arose—under the Government of India Act 1935—and a suitable procedure was devised.

The present position that statutory instruments cannot be amended by Parliament rests not on a statutory prohibition but on the lack of statutory authority to do so. The then Reading Clerk of this House—now the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton—told the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation, in 1971–72: There is no intrinsic reason why Parliament (or a committee thereof) should not have power to amend instruments".

He listed 18 Acts where this power had been given, including five still in force at that time. The Act taken as a precedent for this amendment is the Local Government Act 1933, which was passed by a Conservative majority.

It is clear that Parliament can include in legislation the power to amend statutory instruments. In view of the fact that so many essential aspects of the income-related benefits in this Bill are to be left to regulations, it would seem highly desirable that Parliament should do so in this case as far as those benefits are concerned. I beg to move.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I rise only to support what the noble Lord said. In my many years in one place or another I have never known a Bill which has depended so much on regulations. The amendment brought forward by the noble Lord expresses the anxiety of many of us in all parts of the House about this increasing tendency by the Government to bring forward Bills in which the legislation depends on regulations. I shall not detain your Lordships. I shall say only that I strongly support what the noble Lord has said.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, this amendment concerns regulations that will bring in the income-related benefits, income support, family credit and housing benefit; set the "tapers" and appropriate maximum amounts of family credit and housing benefit (Clause 21); and, set applicable amounts and capital rules for the income-related benefits (Clause 22).

The purpose of the amendment is to allow Parliament to amend the regulations by modifying or adding to the draft laid before both Houses of Parliament by the Secretary of State. This would be contrary to current practice with most statutory instruments which, whether laid in draft or not, are not amendable but may be rejected by either House. What noble Lords are seeking is the power to modify or vary the terms of statutory instruments as well as the power to approve or reject them.

There are very few precedents for parliamentary controls of such a kind. The last such was in Section 127(2) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 and there have been occasional rare examples in various fields of legislation. Amendable orders were made under the Government of India and the Government of Burma Acts 1935, and in this House such amendable orders were referred to a specially constituted committee. However, by the time of the Joint Committee's report on delegated legislation in 1971 the only examples of this kind of parliamentary control which had survived were Section 8(3) of the Ministry of Health Act 1919 and the equivalent provision in its Scottish counter-part. They have since been repealed and now there is none.

The main reason for the decline in this form of parliamentary control and the fundamental objection to its reinstatement is the impracticability of reconciling modifications which may be moved and accepted in one House with those which may be moved and accepted in the other. It would be like introducing the same Bill into both Houses at the same time. It could lead to the very same difficulties that arise in reconciling the divergent views of the two Houses on primary legislation. What is more, it would add enormously to the work of Parliament and to the period required for making regulations.

The fact that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, had to go back to an Act of 1935 for a precedent raises the question of why it has fallen into disuse. The reason is that it is an obsolete procedure. As regards the regulation-making powers in Part II of the Bill to which he also referred, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has suggested that the clauses in Part II of the Bill which deal with income-related benefits rely more on subsequent regulations than previous legislation. This is not so. In essence there is no more left to the powers under the proposals of the Bill than exist now, and in particular as regards housing benefit the powers are a great deal clearer and more detailed than the legislation which they replace. In other words, the discretion of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is much more circumscribed.

For reasons of impracticality in terms of parliamentary procedures I must urge the House to reject this rather backward-looking amendment, which is attempting to bring back to life a vehicle that has lain unused for a long time, for the very good reason that it was found to be inconvenient to the Members of both Houses.

Lord Banks

My Lords, I think that it was Sir Edward Gray who said that the lights were going out all over Europe and as the noble Baroness spoke I could not help thinking that the dimming of the lights in the Chamber was perhaps a significant comment on what is happening to democracy in this country, because so much of what governs the everyday life of individuals is put into regulations and is not fully or properly debated by either House. That is a very serious situation.

I much appreciate the support which was given to the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said that what I proposed would be contrary to current practice. She was certainly right about that. The fact that she could find no examples of these powers in existence at present does not negate the fact, according to the former Clerk of the Parliaments in 1971–72 when he was the Reading Clerk in this House, that there is no intrinsic reason why Parliament should not have this power. That of course is fortified by the opinion which I quoted from Erskine May.

The practice may have declined but it seems to me that there is all the more need for a revival of it at present. No serious difficulty was encountered in 1935 when agreement between the two Houses had to be reached on the Government of India Bill. Although the noble Baroness says that the legislation which this particular Bill will replace relied as much on regulations as this Bill, I do not think it can be denied that the Bill which I described in 1966 certainly did not rely on regulations when dealing with supplementary benefit in the same way as this Bill does. That is a further indication of the direction in which we are going. It is an alarming direction and I am glad to have had the opportunity of making a protest about it. However, having done so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 82 [General interpretation]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 74A: Page 84, line 20, at end insert— (" "Housing Revenue Account dwelling", in relation to a local authority, means a dwelling which is within the authority's Housing Revenue Account (within the meaning of Part XIII of the Housing Act 1985) and is not—

  1. (a) a dwelling for the time being let on a long tenancy at a low rent within the meaning of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967; or
  2. (b) a dwelling no longer owned by the authority;").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 74A and at the same time I should like to speak to Amendment No. 74B. These amendments concern the definition of "Housing Revenue Account dwelling", which is a term relevant to housing benefit subsidy provisions in Clause 31. The amendments are a purely technical correction and I ask your Lordships to accept them on that basis. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 74B: Page 84, line 24, leave out ("(within the meaning of the Housing Act 1985)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 83 [Financial provision]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 75: Page 87, line 32, at end insert ("section 45(8)(aa) above or").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 10 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 75A: Page 146, line 44, at end insert ("(2) At the end of subsection (5) of that section there shall be added the words "except that, until the first such regulations come into force, a local authority shall give effect to Part III of Schedule 1 to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, as it had effect immediately before the amendments made by Schedule 2 to the Social Security Act 1980").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a technical, consequential amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 75B: Page 149, leave out lines 4 to 11.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this also is a purely consequential amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 76: Page 150, line 7, leave out paragraph 50.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I think that this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 77: Page 150, line 11, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment also has been spoken to. 1 beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No.77A:

Page 151, line 35, at end insert—

("Housing Act 1985 (c.68)

58A. In subsection (2)(b) of section 425 of the Housing Act 1985 (the local contribution differential) for the words "section 32 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982" there shall be substituted the words "section 31 of the Social Security Act 1986".

58B. In Item 4 in Part I of Schedule 14 to that Act (items to be credited to the Housing Revenue Account) for the words "Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982" there shall be substituted the words "Social Security Act 1986".

58C. In paragraph 3 of Part IV of that Schedule (rate fund contributions to the Housing Revenue Account) for the words "section 34(1) of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982" there shall be substituted the words "section 31(5) of the Social Security Act 1986".

Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 (c.00)

58 D. In section 8(6) (availability of legal advice and assistance) and section 11(2) (clients' contributions) of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986, for the words from "supplementary" to "1970" there shall be substituted the words "income support or family credit".")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a purely consequential amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 78: Page 154, line 13, at end insert—

("72 A. In subsection (4) of section 123 of that Act (payment of unpaid contributions to pension schemes) for the words "maternity pay" there shall be substituted the words "statutory sick pay, statutory maternity pay under Part V of the Social Security Act 1986, maternity pay under Part III of this Act".")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this also is a technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 79: Page 154, line 40, at end insert—

("Wages Act 1986 (c.00)

76A. In subsection (1)(f) of section 7 of the Wages Act 1986 (meaning of "wages") for the words "maternity pay under Part HI of the 1978 Act" there shall be substituted the words "statutory maternity pay under the Social Security Act 1986".").

The noble Baroness said: This is purely a drafting amendment to take account of the replacement of the present maternity pay scheme by statutory maternity pay. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 11 [Repeals]:

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 80: Page 161, line 22, column 3, at end insert

("In section 37(3), the words from "and a woman" to the end.")

The noble Baroness said: This is a drafting amendment which has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 81: Page 161, line 27, column 3, leave out ("to 60") and insert— ("and 59. Section 60.")

The noble Baroness said: This is a minor technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 82: Page 165, line 33, leave out ("reference to section 24(2)") and insert ("references to sections 24(2) and 37(3)(b) of the Social Security Act 1975,")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 83: Page 166, column 3, leave out line 40 and insert— ("In section 5, in subsection (1) the words from "and in subsection (2)", in paragraph (i), to the end of the subsection and subsections (2) to (4).")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 86 [Commencement]:

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 84: Page 90, line 28, at end insert— ("section [Invalid care allowance for women];")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos.85 to 87:

Page 90, line 33, leave out (" (2) ")

Page 90, line 40, leave out from ("paragraphs") to ("94,") in line 41 and insert ("2, 22, 23(3), 26(1) and (2), 27, 300), (c) and (d)(ii), 77,81, 89(a), 93,")

Page 91, line 1, leave out from ("relating") to ("section") in line 2 and insert—

  1. ("(a) to section 37(3) of the Social Security Act 1975 and the reference to paragraph (b) of that subsection in section 22(2) of the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1977;
  2. (b) to section 141(2) of the Social Security Act 1975;
  3. (c) to section 52D(2) and (3) of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 and paragraph 12 of Schedule 1A to that Act;
  4. (d)to section 10 of the Social Security Act 1980; and
  5. (e) to")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 85, I should like also to move Amendments Nos. 86 and 87. I hate to tell your Lordships, but Amendment No. 84 was not spoken to previously. It gives effect on Royal Assent to the Government's proposal to extend invalid care allowance to married women. Amendments Nos. 85, 86 and 87 will bring into effect other minor provisions on Royal Assent including the provision to pay child benefit for some children over 16 who are being educated at home and the revised rules for consulting advisory bodies. I commend all the amendments to the House. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 85, 86 and 87 en bloc.

On Question amendments agreed to.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at four minutes past ten o'clock.