§
Clause 19, page 24, line 8, at end insert—
(1 A) The scheme prescribed in subsection (l)(a) above shall provide for weekly payments of a community care addition to a chronically sick or disabled or elderly person, or in respect of a chronically sick or disabled child or other chronically sick or disabled elderly dependant.
(1B) Regulations shall provide that payments of community care addition made under subsection (1 A) above shall be payable at a rate that shall be determined by reference to—
§ 1C) Payments of community care addition under subsection (1A) above shall be payable in addition to any other income support payment, including any premium, and in addition to any attendance allowance or mobility allowance to which the claimant or dependant may be entitled."
§ The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof:
§
Page 27, line 37, at end insert—
(2A) In relation to income support and housing benefit the applicable amount for a severely disabled person shall include an amount in respect of his being a severely disabled person.
(2B) Regulations may specify circumstances in which persons are to be treated as being or as not being severely disabled.".
§ The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to the Commons Amendment No. 2 in lieu thereof.
As your Lordships know, I believe it to be my duty, when this House has asked another place to think again by pressing their views successfully against the Government on important aspects of a major government Bill, to report to the House the view taken in another place. Your Lordships know, too, that I am always anxious to fulfil my duty to reflect the views of this House in discussions with my colleagues in government and to ensure that they are taken into consideration to the proper extent. I hope therefore that the House will bear with me if, in speaking to Amendment No. 2 by another place in lieu of your Lordships' own amendment, No. 1, I also refer to the wider issues raised by the changes made to the Bill during its earlier stages in this House.
This Bill represents the final outcome of a fundamental review, with extremely wide-ranging consultation, of social security. Our proposals aim to put the main income-related benefits on a consistent and simpler basis. Within this framework, your Lordships' House has as it is entitled and expected to do, looked at the detail of the Bill and asked another place to look again at three broad matters.
By a large majority, your Lordships inserted in the Bill an amendment to help severely disabled people who need assistance to live in the community. For reasons which I shall explain in a moment, the Government are not able to accept the original form of the amendment, but what we have produced are proposals which I hope it will be generally agreed meet the spirit of your Lordships' concern.
The second matter was the change of the Bill at Committee stage, reversing the Government's decision that in future everybody should pay a minimum contribution to their rates. By contrast, that amendment was carried by only a very small majority.
§ Baroness JegerMy Lords, one is enough.
§ Viscount WhitelawI suggested, my Lords, that it was a very small majority. It was more than one, but not very much more.
It is, I think, fair to describe the point as one of major principle concerning the financial arrangements for housing benefit. I emphasise that. As your Lordships know, the other place has now reaffirmed its 386 original position. In those circumstances, and on a point of this kind, your Lordships will not be at all surprised to be invited now to accept the position of the other House.
The third matter concerns the arrangements for payments from the social fund. The changes made in your Lordships' House attracted considerable support from the opposition parties and Cross-Benchers. The Government, recognising their strength of feeling, have made various changes. My noble friend Lady Trumpington will shortly explain these in greater detail, but they include provision for maternity and funeral benefits to be regulated and appealable; and for more indpendent oversight of the review of adverse decisions on other applications to the social fund. I hope that your Lordships will agree that these go some way—though I readily accept that if is not the whole way—towards meeting the concerns of this House.
I firmly believe that this package represents a very fair response to the views of this House. On the three major matters, one has been substantially accepted, subject to some necessary amendment of the details; one has been somewhat modified, with a view to meeting at least some of the concern of your Lordships; and, on the third, which, as I said, concerns a major policy decision taken by the Government, the elected House has reaffirmed its position. I very much hope that your Lordships will agree that this House should now acquiesce in those changes.
I turn briefly to the detail of Amendment No. 2. What concerned your Lordships was the effect of the new income support arrangements on those severely disabled people who, with suitable assistance, are able to maintain themselves in the community. In adding Amendment No. 1 to the Bill, the House was, I believe, anxious to secure more specific reassurance about payments to be available to this group than the Government had at that stage given. But I fear that the amendment was drafted in a way that would make it difficult to operate within our social security system; and would also have gone far wider than was necessary to help the severely disabled people who were the focus of concern.
That amendment has therefore been removed. In its stead there is provision for, in effect, an additional premium to be included in the income support scheme for prescribed severely disabled claimants. It will be paid on top of the other structural improvements for disabled people in the Bill, in particular the disablement premium. In effect, it provides a two-tier disablement premium, which many commentators —including the House of Commons Select Committee on Social Services—have urged.
The additional premium will be paid directly as of right to severely disabled people who meet certain criteria. The first is that they should be in receipt of the higher rate of attendance allowance: so it will apply to those in households where there is no one capable of carrying out normal domestic duties. We think the purpose behind that rule—the need for extra support to maintain independence that cannot otherwise be provided—is a sound one. We have recently announced the extension of invalid care allowance—the benefit that is paid to those caring for disabled people. Consistent with that, we intend that the extra disablement premium will be paid directly to 387 a severely disabled person where there is no one receiving or eligible for the invalid care allowance in respect of that person's care needs. We envisage setting the rate at the same level as for invalid care allowance—currently £23 a week. It is nearly double the rate of the disablement premium in relevant cases.
Our estimate is that up to 10,000 severely disabled people could qualify for this extra premium at a cost of up to £12 million. It will go to a wider range of people than receive the domestic assistance addition now—just over 3,000 people on our latest information, for December 1984. We can therefore expect a significant increase in expenditure and numbers helped compared with now, and compared with the position under the Bill as it originally stood, and as it would be if your Lordship did not agree with this amendment.
There is a further feature of our proposals to which I should draw attention. At an earlier stage in this House we undertook to have improved transitional protection for those currently receiving the domestic assistance addition. We stand by that commitment, which is necessary to protect the position in those few existing cases where payments are made in excess of the proposed additional premium.
I am conscious of traversing complex and difficult territory here. I hope I have been able to do justice to it; but I know my noble friend Lady Trumpington will make good any deficiencies when she comes to speak. The response to your Lordships' changes to the Bill is, as I have said, an extremely fair one. And in particular our proposals for additional help for the severely disabled, which will be of real benefit to a considerable number of people, have sought to meet the concern expressed widely in your Lordships' House.
§ Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 proposed in lieu thereof.
§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)My Lords, I must now call manuscript Amendment No. 2A which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, I hope that the House will allow me to respond to the remarks which have been made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, I am sorry, I should like to have advice on this matter. I have direct advice to the effect that I must now call Amendment No. 2A; but, of course, I shall do what the House wishes. However, that is the advice that I have received.
§ Viscount WhitelawMy Lords, I am advised that it would normally be the case, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has said, that the noble Lord moving the amendment should be called now; but as I think that I could easily be accused of having transgressed some part of the rules of order—
§ Baroness JegerMy Lords—
§ Viscount WhitelawMy Lords, I am going to help the noble Baroness. I hope that she will not be too critical of me for doing something which I believe will be widely regarded as being in the best interests of the House. I hope that the House will agree that it is possible for the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, to respond in much the same way as I did in the first place. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will agree that although this may be wrong—no one will be more certain of that than he will be—nevertheless on this occasion it may be the fair way of proceeding.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount. It is no less than I should expect of him because we all know his reputation for fairness. He has explained the Government's decisions upon these important amendments, and I am sure that when the matter was raised in Cabinet or elsewhere, he did his best to explain to his right honourable friends what prompted this House to amend this important Bill, and explained that the amendments cut across party lines, as often happens in this House. It is indeed what makes ths place respected by the general public. It is because this House is not a rubber stamp that it has gained the approbation of so many people.
I must take the opportunity to protest as strongly as I can, once again, at the way the House is being treated, with crucial amendments being tabled at the last moment. Some amendments were in print only this morning. In this House we are expected far too often to swallow meekly and without protest the practice of important amendments being tabled late, and on this occasion, to enable the other place to rise a week earlier than this House.
We had of course expected that the Government would make some changes, especially on the question of rates, not because of the principle, which is a good one, but because of the cost. The changes that we are now asked to accept by the noble Viscount are on the whole far more unsatisfactory and disappointing than anything we contemplated. I should like to take the opportunity to welcome the new peers who have just taken the oath, and to express the hope that they will listen to our debates with objectivity.
I wish to deal with the noble Viscount's remarks and I will be brief because I know that many of my noble friends wish to comment in detail later. The amendment on disablement to which he referred was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, who made a most impressive speech on that occasion. Of course we noted the Government's concession mentioned by the noble Viscount; but today we must ask whether it matches up to the problem of severely disabled people described by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), who also made a remarkable speech during the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has since tabled an amendment which we, on this side, believe to be reasonable. It modifies the Government's proposals. The noble Lord has gone a long way to meet the Government's point—and I hope that the Government will treat his amendment very seriously.
The noble Viscount said that the Government had sought to act "in the spirit" of the amendment passed by this House. I put it to him that the amendment of 389 the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is far nearer the spirit of what this House intended than what the Government now propose.
The second amendment that we passed in this House sought to protect the poorest section of the community from being made to pay a large element of their rates bill. And, as the noble Viscount has just said, the Government have reversed it. They have decided that even the poorest claimants, including those on income support, must find 20 per cent. of their rates from income other than housing benefit. The Government have not even agreed to put a compensatory element into the income support scales. This means a cruel switch of resources.
We have to realise precisely what is going to happen to the least well off as a result of this part of the Bill. It will mean a switch from food, from clothing and from fuel in order to pay the rates. Anyone who believes that this is fair in Britain in 1986 with millions living on a low subsistence level is making a profound mistake. My noble friend Lady Jeger will go into this matter in greater detail when she speaks on the amendment.
As to the appeals procedure, here again the Government have produced a device that comes no where near to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in his important speech on this subject in Committee. At that time the House rejected the concept of civil servant inspectors in place of the independent tribunals that have worked well for years. I do not propose to rehearse in detail the arguments deployed most effectively in this House. But the principle of a tribunal with a lawyer and two lay members was well tested over a long period. The lay members offered local knowledge and experience. This was crucial to adjudication on social fund disputes. Inspectors, inevitably stationed at a distance, would not have this essential qualification. There would be no oral hearings and the claimants would not have the opportunity to explain their circumstances face to face.
In this country we have always laid stress on giving people a fair hearing. And this, under the Government's proposal, is what people would lose. The question that we have to ask is this. Does the Government's new proposal fulfil the requirements of local knowledge and a fair face-to-face hearing? I regret to say that the answer to the question is, no, it does not. This is regrettable. My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and others will, I feel sure, deal with this in detail in due course.
The primary duty of this House is to revise legislation. Despite our heavy workload and the strains imposed on this House, noble Lords on all sides have tried hard to perform their duty effectively. On 23rd June and 30th June, this House considered the Bill in a Committee of the Whole House. It was resolved that certain changes to the Bill would be beneficial to the less well off and to the disabled. These changes were supported in all parts of the House. They were certainly not forced upon the Government by the Opposition. The arithmetic of the House alone makes this impossible. They were the product of a 390 sympathetic initiative by noble Lords on this side of the House, on the Cross-Benches, and in some cases from the party opposite.
I appeal therefore to noble Lords to demonstrate on this occasion the same care and compassion as before. But, most of all, I appeal to the Government to think again even at this late hour about these issues. It is really not in the spirit of our constitution, following due consideration in this House by noble Lords on all sides, to seek to change legislation of this importance at this stage of the Bill in this particular way without adequate study. I hope therefore that the Government will concede the reason of our case.
§ 3.45 p.m.
§ Lord WigoderMy Lords, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, perfectly properly and quite understandably, saw fit, in nominally introducing Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, to range over a somewhat wider field, I know that he will extend to me for a moment the same courtesy that he has extended to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I want only to make one or two comments at this stage. I do not wish to become involved in the details of matters that will conic up shortly in your Lordships' House.
First, this is a Bill of crucial importance to millions of under-privileged in our society. It was therefore right that this House should revise it with care. In addition, in Part III of the Bill there were proposals that had serious constitutional implications. Those are matters that are always regarded as being of especial concern to your Lordships' House. It was therefore right that we should revise those with especial care, particularly as so much of the Committee stage in another place was guillotined. I am sure that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will agree that in the course of that revision not one unnecessary word was spoken in your Lordships' House. There has been no filibuster and no time-wasting of any sort. We have concentrated on the task.
In relation to Part III about which I am particularly concerned—the right of appeal to an independent tribunal—we carried by a substantial majority certain important amendments and sent them back to another place. What happened? They were reached last night, again under the guillotine procedure. And, in another place, precisely 47 minutes were devoted to considering not simply the proposals of your Lordships' House but also the details of what should then be sent back to your Lordships' House to consider this afternoon.
What has emerged as a result of deliberations in 47 minutes in another place is, in fact, 19 separate amendments dealing with Part III of the Bill alone. Three of them disagree with what your Lordships decided; one proposes a new clause; five are amendments to omit words; three are amendments to omit and insert other words; and seven are amendments to insert extra words. There is not only a new clause to be considered, but a whole restructuring of Part III. Neither the new clause nor the restructuring has ever been before your Lordships' House at all. This has created an almost impossible position for those of us concerned in the matter. There was the necessity either to attempt to deal with 19 amendments by way of manuscript amendments which would have been 391 totally impracticable for your Lordships' House to consider this afternoon, or, alternatively, to go into print before six o'clock last night indicating our views on 19 proposed amendments in another place before it had even started to debate them, without knowing what decisions it was going to arrive at—although one could guess, because the Whips were on—and without having the faintest idea of the arguments that would be used in support of a proposed new clause or a proposed restructuring. That, I am bound to suggest to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, is no way to legislate and no way to treat your Lordships' House.
I appreciate that if we now take action on these matters in your Lordships' House, it may cause some inconvenience to another place. So be it. I believe that your Lordships' House has a higher duty than not causing inconvenience to another place. We have a duty to ourselves. We have a duty to our parliamentary system of government. And we have a duty, too, I believe, to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to make sure that in no circumstances can it be suggested that there might be any suspicion ever attached to him (because the idea would be unthinkable) that he was seeking to dissuade your Lordships' House from doing its duty. Our duty is to examine what has gone on in this House at Committee stage and what happened in another place last night, to examine these matters quite fearlessly and, where we think it appropriate, to stand up for our convictions.
§ Lord StallardMy Lords—
§ Viscount WhitelawMy Lords, my position was, I believe, that I thought it only fair that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, as Leader of the Opposition, and a spokesman for the Alliance parties should take advantage of the fact that I had ranged rather wider than one amendment. But I think it would now be correct, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in the first instance, that we should proceed in the orderly fashion: that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, should now be called—if that is the wish of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—to move his amendment.
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, it is not exactly my wish, but I must say what I have been instructed is the position. That is that after the first speech in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, moving the amendment I am advised that I must immediately call Amendment No. 2A. I must also say that if this debate proceeds, and the Motion is put as I originally proposed it, Amendment No. 2A cannot be called at all. That is the position as I see it. I am without powers in this matter. I am not, in the sense of the House of Commons, a Speaker, but I must tell the House what I have been told.