Lords Sitting of 30 June 1986

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

Ripon: City Status
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what records they have of the granting of city status to Ripon.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the Home Office has records of the granting of city status to the parish of Ripon by Her Majesty the Queen on 1st April 1974 following the abolition of the municipal borough of Ripon under the Local Government Act 1972. This grant enabled Ripon to preserve its prerogative title of city.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. May I ask whether he will persuade the authorities to make those and other authentic historical facts more easily available to tourists? Because of the charter celebrations going on in that district, tourists are becoming increasingly interested in the area—which, as a Yorkshirewoman, I know well has a special charm.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I well appreciate my noble friend's interest in and concern for Yorkshire. I do not think it is really something in which the Home Office has much locus, but I will certainly pass on my noble friend's remarks to those who have an interest in the matter.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, in addition to what my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox has said, it is the capital of a thriving part of Yorkshire for the farming industry, with monasteries all round, and that it has been a cathedral city since the early twelfth century?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords. As I understand it, Ripon was first incorporated 1100 years ago, in 886, but it was not until 1836 that the style "city" was assumed when the collegiate church became a cathedral and Ripon the seat of a bishopric.

Dounreay and Childhood Leukaemia
2.38 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to new evidence of childhood
582
leukaemia near Dounreay and other nuclear installations, they will phase out nuclear energy and close down reactors.
Viscount Davidson: No, my Lords.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I did not expect an immediate affirmative Answer to my Question but I thought he might have vouchsafed a little more than that, and I hope he will do so now, when he considers that the Written Answer given by his Scottish colleague to Mr. John Corrie on 9th June referred to the disquieting results of a preliminary study by the Information Services Division of the Common Services Agency into the incidence of leukaemia in Scotland? Does he recall that that report stated that a further, fuller report was being prepared, or so the Written Answer said? Can he now tell us when this fuller report may be expected? Also, in the meantime, will he suggest to his right honourable friend the Energy Secretary that he controls his unbridled optimism just a little?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sorry that my first Answer was so succinct. I have a copy of my right honourable friend's statement in another place. He did not in fact use the word "disquieting", but said that results were now available of a preliminary study. That study was the subject of an announcement made by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 9th June, and it identified three specific postcode areas in Scotland where the incidence of leukaemia is higher than expected. One of these is in the vicinity of a nuclear installation, and the report recommends that further case studies should be undertaken to investigate a possible link between the incidence of leukaemia and low-level radiation. The report is to be submitted, after completion of some further work, to the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment for their information and advice.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the number of cases sampled near Dounreay was in fact very few? Is it not also the case that these indications, so-called, of leukaemia are not matched in Orkney, just across the water?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the study makes it clear that on the basis of the data examined there is no evidence that leukaemia occurs except on a purely random basis. It is well worth noting, however, that West Thurso had no cases for a decade or so before this cluster was identified, although Dounreay was in operation. If there is a link, it is a slender and elusive one which will require a lot of medical and scientific detective work to establish.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a Question of this kind must absolutely terrify the parents and do so much harm unless backed by substantial medical evidence? Is it not about time that the Government themselves saw to it that parents in this area had their fears (if they have any) which are raised by Questions like this allayed? Is it not quite a monstrous thing to say that this is happening, especially to children, in such an area when in fact there is no medical proof?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, and I am grateful to him for his remarks. There is no doubt that the Government are taking it extremely seriously; but we do not want to over-emphasise the problem.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the report of the medical officer of health for the county of Sutherland, the late Dr. Lyndsey, who over many years—long before Dounreay was ever built—had to face up to the fact that the diseases prevalent among the communities huddled along the north coast of multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, melancholia and leukaemia were always out of proportion to the rest of Scotland, and even to the county of Sutherland itself? Is he also aware of the opinion of Dr. Lyndsey that in considering this problem one has to bear in mind the historic factors of isolation, inbreeding, and imbibing? Is my noble friend further aware, as I am myself as an employer of labour quite close to Dounreay, that the general wish of the whole population of the county of Sutherland and that part of Caithness is to get a job at Dounreay? Everybody wants more opportunities to work at Dounreay, and they are very grateful for the prosperity that the Atomic Energy Authority has brought to the whole north coast.
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Kimball: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that this is a well read and well educated part of the country. People will understand the motives behind the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, but they will not understand and will resent his deductions.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my noble friend probably knows more about Dounreay than anyone else in your Lordships' House. I am grateful to him for emphasising the positive benefits which accrue to those who live in and around Dounreay.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that the investigation which produced this evidence about Dounreay also disclosed three other clusters of leukaemia in Scotland around Inverness, which were not within 100 miles of a nuclear power station?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely correct. In fact, I understand that there were two other clusters which were identified, and neither of them has any link with any nuclear establishment.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as well as the findings of the Medical Officer of Health for Caithness, the local Caithness doctors have just produced a report saying that in their view the health of Caithness is very good, as no doubt the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will confirm, and that they can trace no direct relationship between these diseases and Dounreay? But, of course, leukaemia is a very frightening matter and there is some anxiety; so will the Minister undertake that the further inquiries are speeded up as far as possible? Will he also bear in mind that, whatever may be thought in the neighbouring
584
counties, the closing of Dounreay would be an appalling blow for Caithness and, unless something was put in its place to give employment and well-being to the population, it would be a devastating affair for the whole north of Scotland?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. As I have said, the results of the inquiry are being sent to the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in various parts of the world where there is no nuclear energy whatsoever there have been surveys which show clusters of leukaemia? Would it not be rather premature to start talking about closing successful nuclear energy plants based on so much inconclusive evidence?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Viscount agree that the preliminary inquiry would not have been followed by a fuller report, which is to come, unless there were some prima facie evidence for concern? Further, is he aware that there is a substantial local debate going on in the area and that only one side of this has been heard on this side of the House? In these circumstances, does the noble Viscount agree that this matter is one of public concern and one that it is a public service to ventilate?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly bring the noble Lord's words to the attention of my right honourable and learned friend. I am sure that he will give the noble Lord's words the attention that they deserve.

British Telecom: Supercall Service
2.46 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ask Oftel, in the discharge of its duty to safeguard the interests of British Telecom consumers, to suspend its supercall service until the present defects in it are remedied.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, it is for the Director General of Telecommunications to decide whether he needs, or is empowered, to take any particular action to safeguard the interests of British Telecom consumers. I understand that he has recently drawn attention to the high cost of some telephone services, such as supercall, and expressed concern that the public may not be fully aware of these costs; and that he intends to take the matter up with British Telecom.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that reply. May I ask him whether he is aware that there is a great deal of disquiet in the country? First, there is the fact that in its new premium phone-in services the privatised British Telecom is profiting from, among other things, a wide range of pornographic phone-in call-up-a-girl services, which are ever more widely advertised in pornographic magazines? Secondly, is the Minister aware that the new phone-in services are advertised at what are called M rates? Is he aware, further, that people do not understand that M rates, which are the charge rates for these new phone-in services, mean that quite local calls are charged at the same rate as calls to the Republic of Ireland, of all places, which is 10 times the rate of a local call and which is chosen by British Telecom only because it is the most expensive rate it has? Does the noble Lord not think—
Noble Lords: No! Reading!
Lord Young of Dartington: —that British Telecom should come clean about the rates which are being charged?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, so far as the noble Lord's first supplementary question is concerned, I can tell him that there was a meeting between the Office of Fair Trading, British Telecom and my honourable friend the Minister responsible in the Department of Trade for the regulation of telephone services to deal with offensive telephone services, which I think embraces the one that the noble Lord mentioned. On 27th June, British Telecom issued a press notice saying that it was setting up a meeting with providers of these services so that a code of practice, so far as content was concerned, could be determined. As regards the noble Lord's second question about the M rate of 40p per minute, which is charged in eight second slots, the Director General of Oftel has, in his press release of 25th June, said that he intends taking up this question with British Telecom, so that the charges are better understood and realised by the users of the telephone services.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am completely innocent about call girls, etc? Will he kindly explain to innocent people like myself what is a supercall?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, a supercall is one of a number of premium products of British Telecom. For example, there is a direct line for one's fortune to be told, there is a direct line for City news, and so on. These are not regulated in terms of price; a free market obtains.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, would it not be better if British Telecom concentrated on giving us an efficient and cheap ordinary telephone service instead of going in for all these frills and pornographic ongoings?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I should not like the House to believe that British Telecom's premium product service is concerned only with pornography. A number of users require additional
586
information services, such as the City line. Basic services are regulated by the licence issued to British Telecom. All the charges are regulated to a formula of retail price index minus 3 per cent., and in real terms the basic costs have been reduced.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble Lord remember that when dealing with a certain type of service, to which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, drew attention, he used the word "embraces"? Would he care to correct the Hansard record in order to save his face?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I shall certainly check the Hansard record, but as your Lordships know, Hansard does in fact print verbatim what we say. It is very difficult to get Hansard to alter anything at all.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Government now put this matter in the balance with what has happened to the Royal Ordnance factories and what apparently is going to happen to British Airways and have a good think about going any further with privatisation?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the privatisation of British Telecom has been a great success. The company is profitable, the workpeople are largely shareholders, and the general public have benefited from it. It is an example of what this Government are intending to do to other businesses in the public sector for the benefit of the workpeople, the nation at large and the public.

EC Aid: Prevention of Disability
2.52 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take the opportunity afforded by the British presidency of the Council of the EC to ensure that projects in developing countries funded jointly by member states include measures for the prevention of disability.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who will chair the Council of Development Ministers in November, has said that reform of the European Community's food aid programme is his principal objective. We want to see it, and other EC aid programmes, become more effective instruments for improving the conditions which result in disablement, and for making a greater impact on the nutritional standards of developing countries through direct feeding projects and through aid for food production.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that very helpful and promising Answer. Is she aware that food aid is very important in

587
the prevention of protein energy malnutrition? But is it not the case that much disablement could be prevented or avoided by including in jointly funded projects not merely food aid but also medical aid, socio-economic aid and environmental aid? Is it not further the case that in some of those areas at least family planning aid could play its part in the prevention during the perinatal period of disabling conditions to both the mother and the child?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords, I agree with both the points of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. With regard to food aid, one of the major objectives of our presidency will be to improve the effectiveness of the Community food aid programme. On the noble Lord's wider point about help in preventing disablement, we support through our multilateral health assistance the World Health Organisation's special programme for research and training into tropical diseases, the expanded programme on immunisation and the action programme on essential drugs and vaccines.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—and I notice that the Question is not limited to physical disability—that the citizens of this country suffer from a major disability in the exercise of their democratic rights in voting members to the EC? Are the Government intending to use our presidency to alter and remedy this major defect in our democracy?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, would expect me to say what I am going to say—that the question of PR is wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, in view of the Minister's response to the noble Lord's supplementary question, would she be prepared to discuss with her right honourable friend in another place the importance of emphasising family planning as a vital ingredient in the prevention of disability?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am aware of the interest of the noble Baroness in this matter and I much regret that she was unable to have her debate on this important issue a short while ago. I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the point she makes.
Lord Oram: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that we on this side very much welcomed what the Minister for Overseas Development said in relation to food aid, particularly when he said:
"Europe should provide recipients with food they need, not food we want to dispose of?"
Surely that is the way to release funds for the particular causes that have been called to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. Does the noble Baroness recall that on 14th May in the debate which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, initiated, he brought forward some formidable figures about the size of the problem and also some very important figures about the small amount of funds that are needed in individual cases, perhaps to
588
transform a young persons's life? Does not that series of facts indicate that anything we can do through the EDF or in other ways to be more specific in overcoming the problem of disability will be welcome on all sides?
Baroness Young: My Lords, in preparation for this Question I of course looked again at the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in your Lordships' House last month. I accept the important point that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has repeated concernng what my right honourable friend Mr. Raison said about this matter. We believe that the best contribution the Community can make is through its food and financial aid programmes to improve the conditions which lead to disablement. My understanding is that for the Community direct help for the disabled overseas is best carried out through the bilateral aid support of each country, and that of course is how principally we shall be doing it.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that not only do we supply financial aid, but that many members of the medical profession in this country go out and help the disabled of many countries in Africa? That is to my certain knowledge, having visited those countries.
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords; my noble friend is quite right. We help through personnel; and I should add that through joint funding with voluntary organisations we have helped a number of specific schemes for the disabled.

Business
2.59 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Social Security Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and the Social Need (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 will be taken.

Great Yarmouth Outer Harbour Bill
Read a second time, and committed to the Select Committee.
Essex Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Road Traffic Regulation (Parking) Bill
Bill read a third time, and passed.
Housing (Multiple Occupation) Bill [H.L.]
Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Consumer Safety (Amendment) Bill
Bill read a third time, and passed.

Protection of Military Remains Bill
3.2. p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass, and in doing so, I thank the small number of noble Lords who have assisted in the passage of the Bill, and particularly my noble friend on the Front Bench for the amendments that he has introduced while the Bill has been in your Lordships' House. I think particularly of the concept of an advanced general licence and a code of practice, which have produced a much fairer deal for British salvage companies operating in international waters. At the same time, they have safeguarded the concerns of the relatives of men who have gone down in their ships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill
Bill read a third time, and passed.

Social Security Bill
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 32 [The social fund and social fund officers]:
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 41, line 23, leave out ("directions given") and insert ("regulations made")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I propose to speak also to Amendment No. 90, and to Amendments Nos. 101 to 104 inclusive. That has been agreed as an appropriate course because those amendments taken together seek to provide a framework within which, in the future, single or additional payments should be made out of the social fund.
The present system, as the Committee will know, is that those payments are made to persons on supplementary benefit for exceptional and pressing needs; matters such as maternity expenses, funeral expenses, essential bedding, clothing, footwear, furniture, fuel, or even visits to a sick child in hospital—matters of that nature. Those are precisely the kind of single payments that will be made out of the social fund in the future.
The reason why it is proposed that there should be a structured framework for the payment of those sums is, first, because it is the only way in which to secure consistency. Secondly, because as a matter of constitutional principle, it is right that the regulations should be those approved and passed by Parliament and not simply directions given by the Minister without debate or discussion. Thirdly—and perhaps most importantly—because there should be a right of appeal to an independent body for the aggrieved citizen.
The present system is familiar to many Members of the Committee; but perhaps they will forgive me if I go into a moment's explanation for those who may not be aware of some of the detail. At present, by Act of Parliament and by parliamentary regulation, supplementary benefit amounts are determined by adjudication officers who are appointed by the Secretary of State from among the staff of the DHSS, but who then assume an independent statutory position. They deal with the single payments that will in future come out of the social fund.
Those determinations are then subject to a right of appeal to a social security appeal tribunal. I believe that is commonly referred to as the SSAT. It is that right of appeal that the Government now propose to abolish and within which -these amendments are primarily determined. The SSAT is a totally indepen-dent tribunal. In very limited circumstances, there can be an appeal from there to social security commissioners. Indeed, in even more limited circumstances there can be an appeal to the courts by way of judicial review. The importance of the appeal tribunal is demonstrated by the figures, because we know how many appeals there have been to those tribunals over the latest four years for which figures are available in respect of single payment adjudications.
The total is large. In 1981 it was more than 21,000; in 1982, 26,000; in 1983, 29,000; and in 1984, 36,000. That means that over those four years there have been 112,000 appeals relating to single payment issues, with which we are today concerned and which are to be paid out of the social fund, to an independent appeal tribunal. It is an extraordinary fact that no fewer than 25,000 of those appeals, one-quarter of them in all, were successful. In other words, 25,000 of our fellow citizens discovered, when they appealed to the independent tribunal, that the original

591
adjudication by the adjudication officer had been inadequate to meet their needs.
Those were, of course, decisions that concerned claimants who were, by definition, poor people in need, vulnerable, and perhaps the least literary in our society. It is because there has been that number of appeals dealt with sucessfully, in that way, that there is a general feeling among those people who have the misfortune to need this assistance from the state of confidence in the appeal system.
As I say, that is the present system. Under Part III of the Bill, which we are dealing with this afternoon, all that is to go. What the Government now propose is that there should be a social fund officer who would be appointed by the Secretary of State. He would have the power to determine the amount of any single payment. He would also have the power, as he has at the moment, to review his own decisions. That is the situation that arises under Clause 33.
There was much debate in another place as to whether or not there should be a right of appeal, and in due course the Government conceded that the case had been made out for a right of appeal. That right of appeal is now enshrined in Clause 34, which says, in effect, that there can now be a right of appeal to another officer of the DHSS appointed by the Secretary of State, only this time a regional officer rather than a local officer. It is our suggestion that that is a totally inadequate substitute for the present system.
It is difficult to make out at the moment, and I do not think there has been a clear answer, whether the Minister himself will in future be accountable for any particular decisions made by either the social fund officer or the social fund inspector. I suspect that the answer is going to be "No": that it will not be possible to challenge the Minister on independent decisions and that the officers will have the same sort of status as have the present DHSS officers. If that is right, what the system now comes to under the Government's proposals is that the finding of a DHSS official should be final, except that it can be reviewed by another DHSS official.
I suppose there is a very remote prospect of judicial review through the courts in highly exceptional circumstances, but there will be no appeal in the form of an independent tribunal and there will be no direct ministerial responsibility for any decision so made. All that is in an area of great importance to the people who are involved—a large number of our people—and in an area of very great sensitivity. It is an area where the figures demonstrate beyond argument that officials, however well intentioned, can and do make a very big proportion of mistakes.
In those circumstances, I think one must compare the merits and demerits of the two alternatives: the existing system with an appeal to an independent tribunal, or the new proposal by the Government that there should be an appeal simply to a further regional DHSS official. It is a matter of balance. I would not be so naive as to suggest that the arguments are all one way and that there is not something to be said on the side of the Government. However, I suggest that when one looks at all the various issues involved the balance
592
comes down overwhelmingly in favour of retaining the right of appeal to an independent body.
Let us consider the issues. First, there is public confidence. I doubt very much whether the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will stand up in due course today and say that the public—those who have to apply for the single payment—will have just as much confidence in a regional officer of the DHSS as they have acquired over the years in the independent statutory system of appeal that has served them so well. Secondly, there is the question of local knowledge, which can be crucial on these issues of single payments. Who is going to have more knowledge? Is it going to be a DHSS official sitting in his regional office, one of a small number scattered throughout the country, or is it to be the social security tribunal which sits in hundreds of centres in this country and which is familiar in every case with local circumstances?
There will be the issue of expert knowledge. Here I concede that the DHSS official will have the requisite expert knowledge. So, indeed, will the SSACs, the tribunals whose members have been specialising in this type of work for a great many years. There is the question of consistency: which is the more likely to be consistent? Is it the tribunal system—a system developed over the years which has a precedent, regional officials, a system of communication for decisions and standards that have to be kept up and maintained, with reasons that have to be given—or is it to be a system of regional DHSS employees acting as inspectors? Again, I suggest that the balance is overwhelmingly in favour of the argument that it is the appeal tribunal system which will provide the consistency rather than that of DHSS staff who are accountable to no-one.
There is then the test of speed, and here the Government may in due course want to say something. Clearly, if people are going to appeal for money on a matter of urgent pressing need it is desperately important that they should be dealt with speedily. Is there any reason why a matter should be dealt with more speedily at a region by a DHSS employee than by a tribunal which sits locally and which can be called at a moment's notice? Indeed, a tribunal will continue to sit for a great many other functions apart from this particular function. I suggest that if the tribunal system is working efficiently, as I believe it is, a tribunal can be just as speedy in reaching a decision as any official at the department. One must not forget that we are not speaking about courts of law; we are speaking about tribunals which are informal bodies that can meet at short notice. They do not need pleadings or documents being served, or any matters of that nature. They can meet and determine matters with very great speed.
In the course of the progress of this proposal the Government have raised some other objections to the suggestion that there should be an independent tribunal to deal with these payments. They said in the Green Paper that it was taking a sledgehammer to deal with small sums. There are two answers to that. The first is that some of the sums can be very substantial, running into four figures. Secondly, there is the more important consideration that what might be a small sum to someone who has drafted a Green Paper can be

593
a very substantial sum indeed to a citizen of this country in his hour of need.
It was then suggested—I think in another place—that another objection to tribunals dealing with these matters is that because of the discretionary element involved a DHSS official is more suitable than an independent tribunal. That shows up a considerable misunderstanding of recent history. Down to 1980 the tribunals in any event dealt with an entirely discretionary system and did so, so far as I know, perfectly satisfactorily. Since 1980, and at the present time, the tribunals have dealt with a whole variety of issues which are discretionary. They have to interpret the words "reasonable", "necessary", "practicable", or whatever it may be.
I come to the final matter which the Government raised in the other place that I have been able to trace. It is the notion that a regional officer, sitting in his office, perhaps a very long distance away from where the appellant lives, in some way will personally be able to deal with the appeal more satisfactorily than a SSAT sitting in the local town or the local large village, with the appellant before it and able to talk to him, and so do justice in that way. One has only to put forward the proposition to realise that there is very little in the contention that the system proposed by the Government will be satisfactory.
I ought perhaps to deal with one other matter in case it is put forward by the Government today, and that is the question of on-going appeals. Clearly it is desirable that there should be finality in this matter and that if possible one appeal should suffice. I suggest that there is very little to choose between the two systems in that way. The Government's proposal allows for an appeal to a regional officer; the alternative that we are putting forward allows for an appeal to a tribunal. In theory it is possible to go on to the Social Security Commissioners. In theory it is possible; but one could very easily amend Schedule 5 to the Bill to ensure that such a thing would happen only where there was a matter of law, and on the whole matters of law do not arise where single payments are concerned. It would at once rule out some 99 per cent. of any possible further appeals.
As regards judicial review, that will take place, if it takes place, either under the Government's system or under the tribunal system, because it is quite clear from the wording of Clauses 33 and 34 of this Bill that judicial review may lie in certain circumstances, just as it may lie in certain circumstances from the Social Security Commissioners. However, that is a very improbable situation. For all practical purposes there is really one appeal whichever course is taken, the Government's or that contained in the amendment.
In those circumstances the amendments to which I am now speaking, comprising Amendment No. 88, Amendment No. 90, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and Amendment No. 101, in a sense are paving amendments. They simply seek to ensure that in Clauses 32 and 33 there is a legal framework, so that it is not a matter of the Minister making directions at his own whim without any control by Parliament and which, for all one knows, are not published and not open to criticism; instead, there must be regulations which are approved
594
by Parliament in the usual way. I doubt whether that would make very much difference to the content of the directions or the regulations, but I think it is desirable that Parliament should have the last word and should have control over them.
Amendment No. 102 is really the principal amendment with which the Committee is concerned at this moment. It restores the right of appeal to the SSAT—the tribunal. It restores the right of appeal, but limits the powers of the tribunal, as the Committee will see from Amendment No. 102, to doing whatever it is and only whatever it is that the social fund officer could have done in dealing with the application. That is perhaps a restraint on the complete independence of the social security appeal tribunal. It differentiates the proposal in Clause 102 from that in Clauses 103 and 104. It may perhaps be marginally more acceptable to the Government for that reason and I think that it would meet the case if there were tribunals which had that power.
The last matter that I want to raise concerns the constitutional implications of the Government's proposal. The fact is that there has been a right of appeal on payments of this nature for something over 50 years—since 1934 in fact. I suggest that clearly it is therefore a matter of constitutional importance when a government come forward and say, "A right of appeal sanctified by time, approved by thousands of people who have had to use it, is now to be abolished". I do not say that it is impossible for a government to take that view, but I suggest that very cogent reasons are needed before it can properly be supported.
I think it was with this primarily in mind that the Council on Tribunals considered this whole issue. I know that the Committee will be aware that the council is an independent body appointed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I had the pleasure of sitting on it at the material time, though I am happy to say that I have now "expired".
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Wigoder: The Council on Tribunals considered this matter with very great care and issued the special report which I know that most Members of the Committee have seen. It is only the second time in the history of the council that it has issued a special report, and the first occasion concerned a largely internal matter. I do not propose to read very much of the report to the Committee, but I do not think I can better end my observations than by reading the concluding observation that the council made in paragraph 12 and asking the Committee to agree with it. The council said:
"The people most affected by this proposal are among the most vulnerable in our society. Very good reasons are needed before the abolition of the right to an independent appeal in such circumstances, an appeal which has existed for over 50 years. It would probably be the most substantial abolition of a right of appeal to an independent tribunal since the Council on Tribunals was set up by Parliament in 1958 following the Franks Report. It is for these reasons that we are so critical of the proposal. In our last Annual Report we described it as highly retrograde".
I invite the Committee to agree with that sentiment and I beg to move the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I rise to support the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. It is indeed a happy circumstance that it is only his term of service with the Council on Tribunals that has expired and not the noble Lord himself. He has thrown light on a very serious issue which the Committee must decide today, arising out of the operations of the social fund, which in itself makes a major change in the administration of social security to those in the community who are most in need.
He has emphasised two vital matters: namely, as the Committee will see from Clause 32, that the fund out of which payments will be made may make payments,
"in accordance with this Part of this Act and with any directions given or guidance issued by the Secretary of State".
In our view—and this is the proposal in some of our amendments—there should be a requirement that in place of mere "directions" there should be a statutory duty and statutory regulations, first of all giving a right to the parties concerned to be able to rely upon them and, secondly, above all giving Parliament the opportunity of examining both the regulations and the proposals to see that justice is done.
But the main thrust of the amendments lies in regard to the abolition of the right of appeal. Ever since the social security system started, way back in the days of unemployment assistance in 1935, and continuing through the national assistance scheme, there has always been the right of appeal given to the applicant who is refused or denied. It is a vital part of the system which has been relied upon in thousands of cases. The statistics which are given in the special report of the Council on Tribunals, to which the noble Lord has referred, show that during the four years from 1981 to 1984 a total of over 25,000 decisions about single payments were changed by the tribunals on appeal. Never has there been a more dramatic illustration of the need for an appellate system and of the value of the appellate system being by way of appeal tribunals.
We had considerable discussion about the Council on Tribunals during the time I was in another place. I am glad to say that we extended its field of activity very considerably indeed. It is now a vital part of the administration of the welfare state. A great deal of decision making has been taken out of the hands of civil servants and of the courts and a great deal of dependence has been placed upon the council. In my time in office we had a thorough review of the functioning and operation of the council. The report that emerged produced significant changes and brought the tribunals to a position where they are respected and where their services to the state are great.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has perhaps shyly not given enough attention, if he will permit me to say so, to the remarkable special report passed by the council upon the Government White Paper setting out what is now proposed by way of withdrawal of the right of appeal. The council begins by saying that it believes the proposal to be misconceived. It goes on to say, as the noble Lord said, that it would abolish a right of independent appeal which has existed for over 50 years—as I said, from the days of unemployment benefit onwards. Over 50 years of history are behind
596
this, and the purpose is to help and to protect the most needy people in the community.
What has somewhat shocked me recently has been the insensitivity of the Government about those most vulnerable people. We had a taste of it with a change in the legal aid regulations, which made it more difficult for a family with a large number of children to have legal aid than a family with rather fewer children. That insensitivity is marked in this Bill and in the proposals. It is identified by a council of great distinction under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt.
Having pointed out that the proposal would be highly retrograde, the report examines in detail the matters of discontent. It states:
"The Council consider that the proposed arrangement for reviewing decisions lacks independence".
Since then there has been an attempt by the Government in another place to make provision for a review of the decision by a DHSS inspector, whose obligations and commitments are inevitably, putting it as carefully as I can, influenced by his position within the system which is to apply the schemes. In our view, that is a wholly inadequate substitute for an independent council on tribunals.
The council also emphasises that the matter goes further than depriving claimants of the right to independent appeal. The accountability of social fund officers is also very much in question on the basis of the proposals. No indication has been given that there will be ministerial accountability for decisions or actions of social fund officers or that they will be independent of the DHSS, in complete contrast with the present position of the right of appeal to a tribunal.
Here, then, is a constitutional change in the highly sensitive field of social security (which is in any event difficult to deal with) of a grievous character. The findings of DHSS officials would finalise the matter, even though experience has shown that the need for appeal is, if anything, greater than it has ever been. What is proposed to Parliament in the measure is retrograde, oppressive and a staightforward denial of a well-established civil right. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will throw it out, and will throw it out with vigour.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: The noble and learned Lord said that 25,000 appeals had been heard in a certain number of years. Does he by any chance have figures for how long each appeal took? That would be helpful to the Committee.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: That is not stated in terms, but these things take a little time, as would the Government's proposal of a review by inspectors. The time taken in order to have the right to appeal is not too high a price to pay. What is more important, it is a price that those affected would be willing to pay to be sure that they had justice, not just in a few cases but in the vast majority.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for so ably and sensitively moving the amendment, and I thank the noble and learned Lord for his comments. I am puzzled about the position of

597
the social fund. Can my noble friend the Minister clarify three points? Although the social fund as a piece of administrative machinery is not unacceptable, does she not consider that we are entering a political minefield in connection with the fund if the procedure is to be dealt with by inspectors who are part of the DHSS staff and not by external tribunals?
What is meant by the statement that the social fund is finite? If there is a proven need, the fund has run out and the claimant appeals, what is the position of the inspector? Will the inspectors be looking in two directions throughout the year—at the justice of the claimant's appeal and at the same time at the money available in the social fund? Are they in part to safeguard the interests of claimants, or are they to control the expenditure of the social fund? If as a matter of policy the social fund is to be kept within certain limits, I can understand that appeals should be kept clear of judicial procedure. If it is the intention that inspectors should temper their judgments to the availability of money—and we admit that viable needs must be met—local social service departments and voluntary organisations will feel compelled to make good the shortfall. Neither of those two sectors could carry that financial burden.
My second question therefore is: are the inspectors in post to control DHSS expenditure or are they there to safeguard claimants' well being? Secondly, why are internal inspectors a better mechanism to deal with claimants' appeals than external tribunals? What will the administrative structure of the inspectors be? I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that they will be based regionally. If so, will they deal with appeals on paper or will they take oral evidence from the claimants? I am not sure about that point.
The report issued in January 1986, to which both the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, referred, outlined the improved service given by the tribunals. I admit that the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, was a good one because when tribunals were first set up, the procedure was slow. I think that I am right in saying that that procedure has improved greatly. Furthermore, all hearings are oral. Many claimants do not turn up to them. Claimants rarely appeal for small items, but they do appeal for £50 which is a large sum to those drawing supplementary benefit. What are the advantages of inspectors over tribunals?
I should be most grateful for the help of the Minister on my third point. Does she not agree that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done?
Claimants, by the very reason of their position, are vulnerable. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. Some claims are only on the rim of reasonableness. If their applications are dealt with by internal DHSS staff who are far away and whom they do not see claimants will feel, reasonably or unreason-ably, unjustly treated. Is Her Majesty's Government at ease over claimants' possible attitudes that they will experience a sense of injustice? Such injustice can lead to anti-social behaviour.
Lord Kilmarnock: The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in his eloquent and convincing speech, referred also to Amendment No. 104 in the names of my noble friend
598
Lord Banks and myself, and therefore I thought that I should say that we accept the slightly greater limitation on the powers of inquiry of the tribunals embodied in the main amendment, Amendment No. 102, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, which would restrict their functions merely to decisions which could have been made by a social fund officer, and would not go outside that. We accept that, and are happy to add our full support to the series of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder.
Most of the discussions so far have been of a legal nature and have had to do with rights and natural justice. However, the consumer councils—the National Consumer Council and the consumer councils for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—are extremely worried by the provisions in the Bill as it stands. The DHSS makes mistakes. The 1984–85 report of the chief adjudications officer found that about a quarter of supplementary benefit decisions were wrong. An independent appeal system is obviously vital to secure fair and equitable treatment. An internal review alone, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder said, will not command the confidence of claimants. A review by regional officers will be seen as biased, whether it is or not. Inspectors may well become case hardened and remote from local need. A point which has not so far been mentioned is that they will be held personally responsible for their decisions and may well become the subject of resentment and abuse. The amendments would protect the position of the claimants and those who administer the system.
Social security appeal tribunals have shown themselves capable of dealing with a range of decisions. Some social fund decisions will involve discretion within a framework of rules and guidance. Social security appeal tribunals have been greatly improved in the past few years. It seems a great pity not to build upon that body of expertise.
In the absence of an appeals system, complaints will not just go away. A failure to provide a proper mechanism will lead to a greater use of judicial review and more formal reference to the ombudsman, procedures which are slow, expensive and unsuitable. Social security staff will be held personally responsible. The proposed amendment will go a long way towards protecting them as well as the claimant.
It is not the best way to gain acceptance for a new and untried system not to provide a proper appeal procedure. On those grounds, it is vital the amendments should be accepted.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: I was extremely disappointed to hear the words of my noble friend Lady Faithfull because I welcome the introduction of this inspector. If ever there is a time for spot-on decisions, it is in situations of daily need. For that reason I welcome this new idea. From my experience with evacuees in the last war, I know that immediate attention to such daily difficulties can greatly alleviate a situation and add to flexibility. It seems to me that this proposal could be a much simpler method for dealing with the kind of small problems which at the moment often have to come before tribunals. Those problems could thereby

599
receive quick attention. A claimant would not then have to cope with a tribunal and the delays involved.
Lady Gardner of Parkes: I oppose the amendments. I think that the system proposed in the Bill will be a much quicker way of deciding the cases, which I think is important.
Baroness Jeger: May I ask why?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: At the moment, all appeal procedures take a long time. I know that the noble and learned Lord said that that was not too high a price to pay for the right of appeal. If one is in urgent need, it is far better to have that need met then and there.
A point made was that in 25 per cent. of cases the decisions had been proved to be wrong. I take issue with that. I should say that 25 per cent. of the appeals were upheld. That means that the tribunal came down in favour of the applicant. It does not necessarily mean that the first decision was totally wrong. There is often a fine balance. I have sat on many appeals, not social security but others. A lay tribunal often gives someone the benefit of the doubt. It is rather too sweeping to say that 25 per cent. of the decisions were wrong in the first instance. It would be much more accurate to say that 25 per cent. of the appeals were upheld.
This is a new system which should be tried. If it is then proved to be wrong, there is no reason why it cannot be changed. The department brings some type of Bill to the House every year. After the system has been implemented and tried we should then know more accurately whether it is an improvement, as I believe it may well be.
Lord Ennals: Before the noble Baroness sits down, what advantage is there if, as the new system proposes, officials act as reviewers and the claims are turned down? Claimants will only go to such a review if they have been turned down by another official. What conceivable advantage can there be for them?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: If I understand the proposal contained in the Bill, the first decision will be made by one special officer. There will be a rapid appeal procedure to another and higher officer. He will be a regional instead of a local officer. Am I wrong in that?
Lord Ennals: Not at all. He is merely another official. There is no independent appeal. There is a great deal of difference between another official, who is obviously operating under some sort of guidelines from the Secretary of State and looking at what one official has done, and an independent tribunal. Over many years, indepedent tribunals have proved their independence by the judgments that they have made.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I would like to respond to that point, if I may. I think I have a greater faith in the independence of these inspectors than the noble Lord opposite seems to have, in that I do believe in the independence of the Civil Service and I do not believe
600
that one inspector would automatically support another inspector. I think it is a rather cynical view to say that this would happen. I also believe—and I hope to hear confirmation from my noble friend—that there is to be special training for these officers, who are meant to be set apart from the department so that they are no longer in the position where one looks upon the other as a colleague, but where each is independent. I will wait to hear what the Minister says on this, but that is as I understand the position.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I should like to contribute to this debate. I have Amendment No. 90 standing in my name. I have very little to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said on the issues of principle, because I think those principles are irrefutable; but I should like to tell the Committee that for many years I was a member of a social security tribunal, which are tripartite bodies with a legally qualified chairman. The people who came before us were, in the main, unrepresented. Nearly all of them were very vulnerable and extremely poor people. We did our job as an independent tribunal. We put them at their ease. The whole environment was a very relaxed one. I felt that at the end of the hearing the people who came before us felt that they had had a fair hearing and a fair deal. Sometimes we found for them and sometimes we did not, but we were at least able to persuade them that they had put their case before an independent body and the insurance officer, who was the official concerned, had to justify his decision to an independent body.
I think this is a very necessary element in our social security legislation, and I think it is invaluable. I would strongly urge the Committee not to do away with it in relation to this new legislation. I support absolutely what Lord Wigoder has said. I shall therefore not be moving my amendment, because it seems to me that the series of amendments which he and his colleagues have moved amply covers the situation. Based upon my own experience I can tell the Committee that we were able to deal with the people coming in before us in a sympathetic and entirely humane way. It was a speedy procedure in that there were no long delays before cases came before us—unlike the ordinary court system, which is incredibly lengthy. We were able to deal with the issues speedily, and I commend the procedures to this Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): To reply to the overlord of BUPA, to an ex-Lord Chancellor and to other distinguished noble Lords is a daunting prospect. I am not daunted—nervous, but not daunted!
The noble Lords have made clear in moving this amendment that they are in effect opposed to social fund decisions being made flexibly on a judgmental basis. They are seeking, through this amendment, the uneasy mixture of a social fund governed by regulations. It is obvious that I cannot agree with noble Lords on this issue, so fundamental to our proposals for a social fund. This amendment seeks to retain the regulated basis of the present system. I simply cannot believe that that is right, and I also cannot forbear from pointing out that many of those now defending

601
the present system have previously criticised it for complexity and inflexibility.
We now have a system which seeks to deal with special one-off needs by setting them all out in detail in regulations. This creates rigidity. Let me remind the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that if a need is not listed in regulations, if we have not anticipated it or it has not been possible to interpret the legal drafting in a way to allow a payment to meet it, then no help can be given. This means that help is available only if someone is able to match precisely a set of circumstances and a particular need against a list and criteria set out in regulations. This cannot be the correct way to handle the special and individual difficulties of claimants. Exceptional personal needs do not fit into neat categories. The social fund will tackle the needs expressed by people seeking help in a more sensible way. It will enable us to tackle the need in the context of the wider individual circumstances rather than simply matching a request for help against a detailed check-list.
There is one claim often made for a regulated scheme which I also find dubious. This is that it ensures that claimants know exactly where they stand. I am not sure that this claim bears much examination. A person may know that in certain circumstances he can receive a single payment for a certain item, but what is involved in determining these circumstances? The local officer must decide that there is a need for the item. He must be sure the person does not already possess it, does not have available a suitable alternative, has not unreasonably disposed of it, or has failed to avail himself of the item, and so on. We are only half-way to a decision. It is misleading to suggest that a regulated system makes everything clearcut. Tension results when judgments on individual and widely varying circumstances have to be handled within an adjudicated approach which can make only broad distinctions between circumstances and considerations to be taken into account.
The Committee must recall that under the social fund decisions will not be taken in a vacuum; nor will they be taken on the basis of secret instructions. My right honourable friend will issue directions and guidance, and these will be published. Social fund officers will make their decisions within the scope of these directions and guidance. My noble friend Lady Faithfull has asked whether people would get oral hearings at reviews. We intend that where the social fund officer cannot satisfy the applicant's objections by looking at the papers, then the applicant will be invited to an interview where the whole case can be talked through in detail and any new information brought to light. The social fund officer's manager will then decide the case, taking into account all the information so far gathered. Where the individual is still dissatisfied, he will have a right to a review by a social fund inspector.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull also asked about reviews and whether inspectors would look at the budget. The question really relates to the principle of having a fixed budget for the social fund. We have discussed this before and will no doubt come back to it later, but inspectors will be expected to check that reasonable decisions have been taken in the light of all the circumstances of the case, including the budget.
602
However, I would stress, as we have done before, that spending will be monitored and the budget will be handled flexibly so that the money will not simply run out before the end of the year.
The noble Baroness asked whether the inspector's job is to safeguard the interests of the applicant, and the answer is, "Yes, of course" That is why we have added this provision to the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, asked about the position of the DHSS staff, and I must resist the notion that our staff will somehow be ciphers in the way they discharge their duties. That does not occur now, when they are appointed as adjudication officers, and I feel that it is doing less than justice to DHSS staff to imply that they will not take their responsibilities to claimants properly.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked whether claimants would feel justly treated. It was because of the concerns expressed that reviews confined to local office management might not seem sufficiently impartial, and because of fears that there might appear to be local bias, that we introduced at Report stage in another place the proposal for social fund inspectors. They will be independent of the people who took the original decision. They will be trained to take a careful and dispassionate look at the way the decision was taken. Their conclusions will be explained to the applicant. This is the safeguard that we are proposing.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said that this was the most significant reduction in appeal rights since the establishment of the Council on Tribunals and that it involved the abolition of a 50-year-old appeal right. Of course, we believe that claimants who are dissatisfied with the decision should have a right to have it reconsidered, but the form of that review must fit the nature of the benefit. The appeal system represented by the Council on Tribunals has been developed over the last 50 or so years in a different context to meet different requirements. The social fund is not like other benefits; nor will it be administered in the same way. It would not be right for it to take over an appeal system designed for other needs just because it is familiar, nor to set up a new independent appeals system that is different in name only from the present one.
What we are proposing for the social fund is normal practice outside the world of social security. In banks, for example, when a client is dissatisfied with a decision, he complains first to the person who took the decision. If he is still dissatisfied, he asks for the manager to deal with it. That is what will happen in the social fund. Our guidance will ensure that dissatisfied claimants know that they have a right to a review and that their objections will be properly considered. In addition, we are now proposing a further tier of reviews by inspectors outside the local office to check that decisions are properly taken and to ensure against any actual or perceived local bias.
The regulated system in this area has been shown to be complex and confusing. Few people would argue that there should be discretion in the system. Our proposals are a recognition that the type of issue appropriate to the social fund does not lend itself to the rigidity of a regulated system. It has led to situations that should be left in the imagination of Lewis Carroll,

603
such as a social security commissioner, the highest tier of adjudicating authority, deliberating over whether a 78-year-old woman should receive a payment for a screwdriver or a ladder, or whether to increase a one-off award by 49 pence. I ask the Committee not to accept the amendment.
I now turn to the second group of amendments in this part of the debate. These three all deal with the way in which a social fund decision may be reconsidered if the person concerned is unhappy with it. The amendments provide for an appeal to tribunals. It is important, I believe, not to overlook the safeguards that are now written into the Bill. The Government introduced at Report stage in another place a new clause, Clause 34. This introduces to the Bill two things. First, it gives people a statutory right to have their cases reviewed. Secondly, it establishes a further review by a new group, the social fund inspectors. There is a statutory right to request a further review of a case if a person remains dissatisfied following the first review.
What this means—I address these remarks particularly to my noble friend Lady Faithfull—is that if someone is unhappy with a social fund decision, he will exercise his legal right and apply to the local office for it to be reviewed. In the first instance, this means that the social fund officer will reconsider the case. He will check the facts of the case and the directions and guidance of the Secretary of State. He may need to take account of any new information provided by the person concerned. This re-examination of a case is what happens now when an appeal is introduced. If this does not lead immediately to the application being granted, then the case will be examined, still within the local office by the social fund officer's manager. He, too, will check the facts and ensure that the social fund officer took proper account of them and of the guidelines. I should also make clear that, at this stage of the review, the individual will be able to put his case in person at the local office.
However, if, after this thorough reconsideration at local office level, the decision remains unchanged and the person remains unhappy, he can exercise his right to a further review. This case will then be considered by a social fund inspector. I stress that the inspector will be outside the local office and independent of its management chain. He will be appointed by the Secretary of State and will be accountable to him for the way he carries out his duties, not to local offices or regional management. His task will be to ensure that a reasonable decision has been taken in the light of the full facts and of the Secretary of State's guidance and directions. He will have powers to confirm a social fund officer's decision, substitute his own decision, or send the case back to the social fund officer to investigate further and reconsider.
We should not get the number of single payment appeals out of proportion. There were indeed some 37,000 single payment appeals heard in 1984; but this compares with almost 3 million single payments that year. The tribunal found in favour of about 8,000 cases. That means that appeal tribunals were responsible for about a quarter of 1 per cent. of the single payments that were made that year. Further-more, as my noble friend Lady Macleod pointed out,
604
the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, did not say how long these appeals took to resolve the matter. Time does count when the need is urgent. That is the reason for the social fund.
With regard to accountability, the Secretary of State will not be accountable for individual decisions any more than he is accountable for adjudication officer decisions now. But he will be accountable for the way the system works. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, talked about the rights before 1980 on discretionary decisions. I would reply that it is indeed the case that appeal tribunals reviewed discretionary decisions before 1980; but the Government do not regard that experience as wholly satisfactory. The tribunals were not bound by the Supplementary Benefits Commission's policy of guidance. The effect was that discretion could operate on two levels. It was not a guarantee of consistency and accountability.
Again with regard to the tribunal, what we are proposing for the social fund is normal practice outside the world of social security, as I have said. I resent any suggestion that this Government have not been sensitive to the needs of the poor. What have the Government done to help the poor? Social security spending has gone up by 35 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79. Nearly one half of this represents a real increase in the average amount of benefit paid. Only one-third is due to extra unemployed people. Supplementary rates have gone up by 6 per cent. ahead of prices, and there have been larger increases for people with children.
We have been particularly anxious to help people on low wages. The family income supplement rates have gone up in real terms by between 13 and 25 per cent., depending on the size of family. These families will also have been helped by the reduction in national insurance contributions for the low paid and increases in personal tax allowances. So do not say to me that we are not sensitive to the needs of the least well off.
There is now, I submit, an adequate means of redress for people dissatisfied with social fund decisions. It has been reinforced by the introduction of the new clause by the Government in response to concern. But more importantly it recognises the different nature of the social fund and its decision making.
Our clear view is that one cannot apply the appeal system which is designed for an adjudicated regulated scheme to a system operating on a different discretionary basis. We need to have consistency in approach between the way decisions are made and the way they are challenged. At the moment vast sums of money are being spent, not always reaching the most deserving cases. I believe passionately that the Government's approach to this matter is right. Flexibility, speed of decision, fairness and compassion will result, and I believe people will have confidence in the Government.
I realise that those who want to retain inflexibility, narrow outlook, and endless waits for an urgent need may not have been swayed by my arguments. But I do not think that the new clause and amendments which are being put forward are necessary and I cannot commend them to Members of the Committee.
The Countess of Mar: Before the noble Baroness sits down may I ask whether or not she agrees with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that not only should justice be done, but it should be seen to be done? To this end is she not aware that the banks to which she has referred have recently appointed an independent ombudsman?
Baroness Trumpington: I entirely agree that justice should be seen to be done, and I have explained the public nature of this whole process.
Lord Blease: May I ask a question along similar lines? Is it intended that the social fund with its inspectors—and I assume that there will be a number of them—should publish a report of the cases coming under its review procedure, as happens under the appeal tribunals? In other words, will there be reported cases which would give guidance and help public understanding of the way in which an inspector had exercised his discretion?
Baroness Trumpington: To be perfectly honest, I do not know.
Lord Wigoder: I rise with reluctance in order to wind up this discussion. The reluctance stems primarily from the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, was going to undertake this task. Unhappily he has been detained by very urgent personal reasons and he asks me to present his apologies to Members of the Committee.
Points have been made on behalf of the Government's proposals. I always expected that they would. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, as to the length of the hearings, the answer is that we do not know. We do not know how long the social fund inspectors will take to dispose of a case. What we do know is that through the way the social security appeal tribunals have developed, with sympathetic chairmen, and through their being well organised they can now deal with these matters a great deal more rapidly in terms of each hearing than they used to.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Can the noble Lord, as an expert, give us any idea at all of how many days, weeks, or months it takes from the initiation of the appeal to the hearing and the appellant being satisfied?
Lord Wigoder: The answer is, no I cannot, any more than I can give any estimate of what will happen under the new proceedings. All I am venturing to suggest is that we have no grounds for thinking that one will be any better than the other; that is all.
The other point that was raised was, how long it might take matters to reach a hearing. That is the point that the noble Baroness has just mentioned. I was dealing with her original point as to the length of each hearing on which I thought that she was commenting; I misunderstood the noble Baroness.
The question of the speed of the hearing is a factor, but it is a factor that fades into insignificance beside the importance of consistency and public confidence which are issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has hardly mentioned. What she
606
mentioned repeatedly was that this would be a discretionary system as it has been in the past and that for some reason tribunals were incompetent to deal with it. The thousands of our fellow citizens who serve on tribunals—
Baroness Trumpington: I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for disturbing his peroration, but I never said that tribunals were incompetent. I said merely that under the new system they will not be suitable.
Lord Wigoder: I thought that in her closing comments the noble Baroness made certain observations about the membership of tribunals to which they will not take kindly when they read in Hansard tomorrow what she said.
I come, finally, to the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, raised. Are we going to have a fixed budget each year, determined almost whimsically by civil servants? Are we going to have a situation where there is not a regulation but a direction? For some reason the noble Baroness does not want a regulation approved by Parliament. Consider the case of a woman in conditions of extreme poverty who might be entitled to a small grant to pay her train fare to see her child who has been involved in a serious accident 50 miles away. But at the end of the year the social fund runs out and the inspector says, "I am terribly sorry, if only you had come last week". What is the meaning of a finite fund in those circumstances?
I would venture to submit that on the balance of the argument—and there is a balance to be struck—the case for these amendments has been fully established by what the Committee has been told. In those circumstances I press Amendment No. 88.
4.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 88) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 131: Not-Contents, 115.

DIVISION NO.1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Amherst, E.

Cudlipp, L.

Annan, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ardwick, L.

Darwen, L.

Attlee, E.

David, B.

Aylestone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Banks, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Barnett, L.

Diamond, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Birk, B.

Donoughue, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Blease, L.

Ennals, L.

Blyton, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Boothby, L.

Faithfull, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Falkender, B.

Brockway, L.

Falkland, V.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Buckmaster, V.

Fitt, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Flowers, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Foot, L.

Chitnis, L.

Gallacher, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Gladwyn, L.

607

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Mulley, L.

Grimond, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Halsbury, E.

Nicol, B.

Hampton, L.

Northfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ogmore, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Oram, L.

Hayter, L.

Phillips, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Plant, L.

Heycock, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hirshfield, L.

[Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hunt, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Reilly, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Richardson, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jacques, L.

Rochester, L.

Jeger, B.

Seear, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Seebohm, L.

Kaldor, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kearton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kennet, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Somers, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Lauderdale, E.

Stallard, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stamp, L.

Listowel, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

McCarthy, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Underhill, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McNair, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Mar, C.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

White, B.

Meston, L.

Wigoder, L.

Milford, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mishcon, L.

Willis, L.

Molloy, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Ampthill, L.

Elton, L.

Arran, E.

Fortescue, E.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Bauer, L.

Gainford, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Beloff, L.

Glanusk, L.

Belstead, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Blake, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gridley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marylebone, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Henley, L.

Caithness, E.

Hives, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hood, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hooper, B.

Carnock, L.

Kemsley, V.

Cathcart. E.

Killearn, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kimball, L.

Cowley, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Layton, L.

Davidson, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

De Freyne, L.

Long, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Denning, L.

Lyell, L.

Derwent, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

McFadzean, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Dundee, E.

Mancroft, L.

Eccles, V.

Manton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Merrivale, L.

Elles, B.

Mersey, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Molson, L.

608

Morris, L.

Sandford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sandys, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Shannon, E.

Norfolk, D.

Shaughnessy, L.

Norrie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Onslow, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Teviot, L.

Pender, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Tranmire, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone,

Trumpington, B.

L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Polwarth, L.

Vickers, B.

Porrit, L.

Vivian, L.

Portland, D.

Watkinson, V.

Portsmouth, E.

Westbury, L.

Quinton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Wise, L.

Reay, L.

Wynford, L.

Reigate, L.

Young, B.

Romney, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 88ZA:
Page 41, line 24, after ("State,") insert ("which will normally be in the form of grants rather than loans").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 88ZA. The object of the amendment is to ensure that in the normality of cases payments from the social fund will be made in the form of grants. We are very concerned at the intention to deal with special needs by means of loans. To put struggling people on income support into debt seems to us to be the height of governmental folly. In view of their limited resources, many claimants may well be in debt already, and to add to it will only compound the problem.
Grants made today under the single payment regulations are required for such matters as a fuel debt arising out of exceptional circumstances; the replacement of an essential item of household equipment; or meeting an exceptional clothing need—for example, if a coat or a pair of shoes is accidentally lost or damaged. In most such cases loans are now to be provided instead of grants and they are to be repaid through automatic deductions of 10 per cent. from income support. If a family has more than one debt then the deductions will not exceed 15 per cent. of income support.
Income support is subsistence support. It is designed to provide a subsistence benefit. What, then, is likely to be the effect of knocking 10 to 15 per cent. off it? Some idea of the scale of indebtedness likely to be created can be obtained when it is appreciated that 300,000 claimants have fuel debt repayments at the present time and there are approximately 1 million single payments each year. If only two-thirds of single payments were replaced by loans, the number of families forced into debt and to living on an income 10 to 15 per cent. below the poverty level would be between half a million and three-quarters of a million.
If single payments are replaced by loans, then more children are likely to be received into care on a voluntary basis because parents will feel unable to cope with the added financial pressure. That will mean

609
extra residential care costs, court costs and costs of social services' time. We believe it is essential to establish that loans will be the exception to the rule and that payments will normally be in the form of grants. To increase the indebtedness of the poorest of the poor would indeed be a crime. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, comments on the amendment, I should like to clarify with the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that he is speaking also to Amendments Nos. 90, 93 and 94.
Lord Banks: Of the four amendments to which the noble Baroness has referred, the only one which is mine is No. 88ZA.
Lord Ennals: I support absolutely everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. In my view most people hate to be in debt, and that applies especially to elderly people who are not even prepared to get into debt—as they call it—by hire purchase. They believe in being paid-up at the end of the week. There are very many people who suffer hardship. Again, I am thinking particularly of the elderly, because most of those who will be receiving loans or grants will be elderly. Such people will find it unacceptable to be in debt at the end of the week because that was not the way in which they were brought up.
This amendment does not say that there are no circumstances in which there should be loans, and that when those loans are paid there should be an agreement that there should be a loan and that the person receiving the money understands the nature of the loan and accepts that it will be deducted from their pay. Though I must say I find rather horrible the thought that a loan or a grant would be refused to someone—and 1 am looking at Clause 33 at the top of page 43 of the Bill—if there was money from perhaps some other source, from some other member of the family, or the possibility that some other person or body might partly meet it, are people going to say, "Is there perhaps a charity that might bear this instead of the grant being made?" Those who feel that they have to turn to charity are going to find, from what the charities say to me, that they are simply not going to be able to meet the needs.
One of the fascinating things about this Bill is the way in which ancient charities—what they call "quiet charities"; and I think of people like the Family Welfare Association, the Church Army, the Children's Care Association, and the National Institute for the Blind—have all gathered together to express (and I had a meeting with them last week) their desperate concern. That includes their concern that a normal method of payment would be by loans.
One has to ask, unless there is someone who has funds that they can see they will be able to draw upon in order to repay the loan week by week, how are people living on the breadline going to pay? If it is said that it is going to be taken week by week out of their regular allowances, what will go? No one is suggesting that the regular allowances are going to be above the needs of that individual. What will go? Will it be food? Will they not have adequate meals? During the winter
610
will it be that they will not have adequate heating? Will it be that clothing or shoes will go? I do not know how this will happen.
We are in a difficult situation. The Joint Consumer Councils Social Security Committee said:
"The explosion of lending has brought benefits for the many, but has led to severe problems for the minority unable to pay their bills. Consumer debt, housing, fuel, water and rates arrears have all risen sharply. Money and debt problems now top the list of all consumer problems. The figures tell a story of human misery, as families struggle with mounting bills, demands, summonses and court orders, and experience the fear of disconnection, eviction and loss of household possessions.
"Most debtors are neither feckless nor wilful".
If the social fund were, under most circumstances, to make a loan, it would be to someone who is so poor that they need to go to the social fund—and they are going to need to be poor to do that. I fear that it will drive people into debt. Driving people and families into debt is a severe thing to do to honest British people. Perhaps more than in most other countries of the world, British people—and I think again of the elderly—despise being in debt. Our hope in this amendment is not to say that there are no circumstances in which loans should be made, but in the generality of cases that it should be a grant as to which there is no expectation of repayment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am doubtful, first of all, about the form of this amendment:
"which will normally be in the form of grants rather than loans".
That gives no guidance to those who have to administer the benefit as to the circumstances in which loans would be appropriate. It merely says that "normally" it will be grants. If the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, would put himself in the position that he used to hold as the Minister responsible—a position in which I also was involved for some years—one would not know what Parliament was trying to say if you merely used the word "normally". If the amendment spelt out even roughly the circumstances in which loans would be permissible, that would at least give some guidance to those responsible, but simply to say "normally" seems to me to be building up real difficulty for those who have to administer the scheme.
Nor do I wholly share the view of the noble Lords opposite that loans ought normally to be ruled out. There are quite a number of circumstances in which loans are perfectly appropriate. One set of circumstances is where you have a man of considerable potential earning capacity who has had a run of bad luck—perhaps the sickness of himself or his family, or an accident—and temporarily has to come to the fund, but whose outlook for the future is quite a reasonable one. Indeed, he may be going to have substantial earnings again in a few months' time. There is no reason at all why such a man should not be helped by a loan. Therefore, both on the form of the amendment and to some extent on its substance I am against it.
Lord Broxbourne: Before my noble friend sits down, could he, drawing on his distinguished experience in this particular department, recall to the Committee whether he knows of any precedent for the use of this generalisation "normally" as a statutory term without

611
any definition? I do not think that any has been volunteered by the noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Ennals.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Broxbourne. I have no knowledge of any precedent in any statute, but I have not sufficiently examined the mass of legislation which exists on this subject for me to be able to say with any great confidence that there is no such precedent. I have often found—as I am sure has my noble friend—that when one says confidently that there is no precedent for this, almost always some noble Lord finds one and one's argument is therefore invalidated. But for my part I have not. If my noble friend, whose experience of the law is considerable, has not seen it, that strengthens my doubts.
Lord Blease: Speaking in support of this amendment I would wish to indicate that this clause, Clause 32, and indeed Part III of the Bill, are viewed with much concern by representative organisations in Northern Ireland, and particularly those bodies with direct responsibilities for the sick, the unemployed, and the under-privileged. At this Committee stage of the Bill it is not my intention to make a Second Reading speech. The detrimental effects of the changes proposed by this legislation on the Northern Ireland community were ably and forthrightly expressed by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs in her speech during the Second Reading debate on 3rd June.
The introduction of the proposed loan system, in place of the existing grant arrangements as exist under the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Regulations, will create greater hardship, not only for those in Northern Ireland but for those in need throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. My noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord Ennals, has already mentioned that the widening cycle of poverty and the forcing of needy people into further debt will, without doubt, acutely exacerbate preventable human misery for large numbers of families throughout the United Kingdom.
The realities of this situation are well borne out in the Written Reply on 23rd April in another place by Mr. Needham, Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to a Parliamentary Question by Mr. Peter Archer, Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland affairs. The Question asked for details of "single social security payments" made during 1985. The reply is contained in the House of Commons Hansard, Volume 96, No. 1380, at columns 155 to 158 on 23rd April last, and goes into considerable detail. I propose to quote only what I consider to be the relevant details—the extent of the range of single payments
"Single payments awarded [in Northern Ireland] during 1985
Pensioners 36,400
Unemployed 148,900
Others 91,500",
a total of 276,800 single payments at an average of £114. It has been estimated that about one-third of the total families in the whole of Northern Ireland will be affected by the proposed Bill.
The range of single payment awards under the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Regulations
612
(Northern Ireland) are important. They give an understanding of the type of payments that are required. I quote the round figures rather than the detailed figures given in the Parliamentary Question: maternity needs, 10,000 awards of an average of £112; funeral expenses, 1,600 individual awards of an average of £296; purchase, repair and installation of essential furniture and household equipment, 100,000 awards in one year averaging £140; bedclothing, 38,000 awards at an average payment of £71; removal expenses, 2,000 awards at £64 average; draughtproofing, 6,000 awards at £54 average; redecoration, 20,000 awards at £51 average; fuel cost, 1,000 awards with £139 average; clothing and footwear, 30,000 awards at £77 average; other types of payment for people in need, 10,000 awards averaging £85.
The significance of these figures will be readily understood and assessed. I believe the figures raise sharply the question: if the Government are really serious about redirecting resources to those people in most need, can the Minister state how the conditions for those types of families will not be worsened under the proposed changes?
While I do not have the relevant statistics for other regions of the United Kingdom, by noting that Northern Ireland has about one-fortieth of the total population of the United Kingdom it is not difficult to relate the extent and the range of the present single payments to other regions. I am sure it will be readily admitted that there are many regions in Great Britain where poverty, bad housing and human need are as manifest, sadly, as they are in Northern Ireland. Indeed, throughout the United Kingdom the notion of two nations is very real. Social statistics and unemployment figures reveal a nation divided into wealth and poverty, into the "haves" and the "have nots"; a nation where a measure of health and human happiness can be acquired by cash, while preventable human suffering and misery are subject to rigorous Scrooge-like policies.
As has already been indicated, the present single payments regulations provide for one-off payments for a range of items of expenditure for the needy which cannot be foreseen or which cannot be met out of basic benefits. The kind of social fund help required is a sensitivity of approach and an understanding of what it really means to a family or an individual to undertake additional financial commitments by way of a social fund loan when already many such people are in penury, as has already been mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones.
Does not this proposed loan arrangement portray a Shylock mentality, demanding the pound of flesh when one is already under straitened circumstances at a time of critical need of urgent financial help? On behalf of many representative organisations in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, I support this amendment for the principle of grants rather than the proposed "loan office" system, and that the principle should be written into the Bill rather than determined by ministerial direction.
4.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked whether the word

613
"normally" was appropriate for legislation. I do not know the answer to that, but I think I know what most people mean by it. If blame is to be placed anywhere it should be placed on the draft legislation which we have here, the measure, which studiously avoids giving us any indication of what the balance might be between loans and direct payments. I have looked carefully at Clause 33, and it gives no indication of that point. The word "normally" for most of us means "in the majority of cases". That is what we would expect, though I daresay it may be important to find a more precise word for it. In the Second Reading debate on this Bill I made the point that I had had a number of letters, as I am sure many other Members of the Committee have had, from people who are deeply concerned about the implications of putting many people into the position of having further debts which they will find very difficult to repay.
My other point is that the amendment we have just passed changed the words "directions given" to "regulations made". I would have assumed that one of the regulations to be made should indicate fairly clearly which categories of need would be met by direct payments rather than by loans. The onus of the matter would be on indicating where social fund officers—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope the right reverend Prelate will allow me to intervene. If he is right on that point, then this amendment is wholly unnecessary.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: I do not think I agree with that because we need to spell it out quite clearly, but I see the point.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: In his wisdom the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, thought that the majority of people would be elderly. I want to put forward another section of our community that I know a tiny bit about, though perhaps not as much as the noble Lord—those people now coming out from psychiatric hospitals. To my knowledge they do not always have homes to go to and they are allowed out because they are able to make their own homes. But as they do not have homes they need to borrow. They do not necessarily need grants, but they need to borrow money to pay for the necessities in their new homes.
I believe I am right in my answer, but I should like the Minister's reassurance that when somebody applies for a grant or a loan that person can stipulate which he or she would prefer, because the people I have in mind I am sure would prefer to have a loan, bearing in mind that the majority of these people are allowed out of psychiatric hospitals because they are able to work again and on the whole have been found jobs. That is the point I wished to make.
Baroness Faithfull: I believe the Committee are in some difficulty over this amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that, as drafted, it is difficult to see how the amendment can be administered. What this ties up with is the question of discretionary payments or regulations. If it were laid down by regulation, for example, that in certain circumstances loans were to be given and in other circumstances grants were to be made, this would
614
meet the point of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. If somebody found a job at a later stage, then by regulation he could pay back. But we should not say that a number of people should have loans rather than grants. It is distressing in our country at the moment to see how many people are in debt.
I have here the figures from the Citizens Advice Bureaux. Last year the bureaux dealt with £500 million-worth of debts. Seven per cent. of all citizens advice bureaux inquiries were debt problems: that is, half a million inquiries. One-quarter of all debt is concerned with local authority housing. In 1984 the Audit Commission found that about one in four of all council tenants was in arrears. Twenty per cent. are concerned with fuel and telephone costs, and 30 to 50 per cent. are housing area problems such as second mortgages and so on. I am afraid that in this country we are in many cases, in all sectors of society, living in debt. I would wish it were otherwise, but I do not think the way to put it right is to make loans rather than grants in this area which we are dealing with today. I believe it could be put right if we had regulations laid down rather than the making of discretionary payments.
Lord Ennals: I wonder whether, before the noble Baroness replies, I may make three points clear. First, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that there are circumstances in which loans are appropriate. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod that some people may actually opt for a loan as opposed to a payment. I find that totally acceptable. I would not agree for one moment that those coming out of a psychiatric hospital would want loans—and I say this as chairman of MIND—because the chances of their getting a job in the next few months or even in the next few years are not too great; and even accommodation could be a great problem for them. So I would put them down as people who, if they were to inherit a loan on coming out of a psychiatric hospital, would be adding another burden to the burdens they already bear. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked what the word "normally" means. He will know that we are debating with this amendment Amendment No. 90. That amendment reads:
"and the Secretary of State shall make regulations stating the circumstances in which an award shall be made to meet the expenses and needs specified in section 32(1) and the amount that shall be paid".
It is clear that the Secretary of State makes regulations which make quite clear in what circumstances a social fund officer would make a grant and in what circumstances he would make loans. This amendment has been taken before the other ones and the amendment I have just quoted, which stands in my name and in the names of my noble friends. It makes it quite clear that first, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, says, this is not the time to put more people in debt. Therefore the regulations, when being drawn up, should make it clear, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said, that "normally" means more of one thing than another; so that the normal thing would be to make a grant and in other circumstances, as defined by regulation, a loan would be made. I do not think there is any difficulty at all in terminology because the Secretary of State would

615
himself draw up regulations which would inevitably come before your Lordships.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: May I say to the noble Lord opposite that I understand his argument perfectly well, but surely it is contradictory? If the regulations are to define, as I think he is suggesting, the circumstances in which there should be grants or there should be loans, they should do so. Therefore, it is surely wholly unnecessary, confusing and misleading to put in before that an amendment saying that "normally" it shall not mean by loan.
Lord Ennals: It is exactly the opposite, if I may say so.—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: No.
Lord Ennals: The purpose is to say to the Secretary of State what Parliament thinks he should do. If this amendment were carried, Parliament would be saying that we think the Secretary of State should say that normally it should be grants, as opposed to loans. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the word is "normally" then we are back to the original point that I made which has not been answered, that the officials handling this are given no guidance whatsoever. If the regulations were not to use the word "normally" but to define the circumstances, then at least that difficulty would be overcome; but simply to say "normally" is to leave the Secretary of State or his officials, or probably both, in a state of confusion.
Lord Kilmarnock: I wonder whether I may ask the noble Baroness to clear up something for me and to enlighten me as to what system of repayment of loans is envisaged under the social fund. Would the social fund become in effect a preferential creditor with the right to take payments at source out of benefit each week? Am I right in reading the Government's intention in that way?
As the noble Baroness knows, under the Consumer Credit Act, borrowers who cannot meet their commitments can go to the county court and ask for time to pay. Presumably, no such right exists in regard to the social fund, and I imagine that the social fund officer can only be asked by a claimant to exercise discretion. If that discretion is not favourable, are not a number of people going to find themselves in great difficulty? It seems to me that there must be a minimum level of weekly support and a limit to the amount that claimants can afford to have deducted from their benefits. If the noble Baroness could help us by saying a word or two about that, it would help us a great deal and increase our confidence in the proposed loan system.
Baroness Lane-Fox: Surely, what we want to do is to improve things for people in need. There can be few noble Lords present who would not love to give endless grants, in the same way as many of us would love to be Father Christmas. But how could any responsible government give open-ended grants ad
616
nauseam? Interest-free loans, on the other hand, could help enormously in cases where some people could not get grants; and for that reason I welcome the introduction.
Baroness Trumpington: As we consider this important group of amendments, I hope that noble Lords opposite will not mind my saying that the effect of Amendment No. 94, which I am taking in the grouping as agreed, if taken in isolation, would be that maternity payments, which are at present non-recoverable, would become recoverable. I cannot believe that that was the intention of the mover of this amendment.
Your Lordships will see that the power to direct that a payment is recoverable can apply only to payments for funeral expenses or other needs, by virtue of the inclusion of "(b) or (c)". However, I do realise that the thrust of this group of amendments is against recoverability and I will address my remarks to that in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said that people will look to charities for help. He is referring to the circumstances set out in Clause 33, which is the subject of Amendment No. 98, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I am sure he will forgive me if I do not comment further on this point at this stage.
With regard to the question of regulations and discretion, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, clearly we shall want to consider the implications of the amendment which has just been agreed to by your Lordships. I hope your Lordships will recognise that I cannot go further than that at this stage.
Let me now return to the main discussion. From the outset we have made quite clear our proposal that some social fund payments should be recoverable. I would ask your Lordships to put yourselves in the place of the low-paid worker or pensioner, whose income is just above the supplementary benefit level—as low as 50p or £1 above.
You have an urgent need for something. What do you do in such a position? I suggest that you have three options. First, you buy on credit or hire purchase, which can mean heavy interest when you pay it back; secondly, you approach a moneylender, which may mean even heavier interest, and, thirdly, you do without. Let us now compare your plight with the position of persons on a fairly similar income but getting supplementary benefit. For those people the options are rather more straightforward. They can apply for a single payment from the social fund and, provided that they satisfy the rules, they will get a grant and such grants can often—and do—run into hundreds of pounds.
I suggest to your Lordships that these arrangements raise considerable questions of fairness. The social fund proposals will redress this balance. The person in receipt of income support will continue to receive grants in certain circumstances, such as for maternity and funeral expenses. That is in answer to my noble friend Lady Macleod. In other cases, such as a person leaving a long-stay hospital to be resettled in the community, we will also help by way of a grant. But in

617
other cases help will be in the form of a loan, although without any interest at all. I wish to make that clear. This seems to me to be more equitable. Why should the out-of-work person be given grants for every need, for every replacement of household items, when his counterpart in low-paid work, with an income just 50p or £1 above income support level, is given no help at all? This underlines our proposals for recovery.
Some mention has been made of the levels of rates of help and that they will be too low to allow recovery. Of course, it is sensible that the system of extra payments for particular difficulties should be set in the context of the general help with weekly needs. The direct link can be overstated. We must remember that the present system of single payments is rather haphazard. In any one year, only a minority of claimants would receive a payment. By far and away the most significant help for claimants is their regular weekly support.
If we look at the wider context of scale rates, we see an interesting picture. It is slightly at odds with some of the claims we have heard. We have already spoken of the explosion of single payments which took place in the early 1980s. They have risen from 1 million payments, totally some £45 million in 1981, to over 4 million payments, totalling over £300 million in 1985. This development has taken place at the same time as we have seen significant improvements in the supplementary benefit scale rates.
I remind the Committee that since this Government took office the real value of scale rates has risen by 6 per cent. We have presided over a real increase in the rate for a pensioner couple of £3.80 a week, and for a non-pensioner couple on the ordinary rate of £2.90 a week. Because of structural changes, there have been improvements in the rates of children, particularly those aged under 5 and 11 and 12, whose rates were levelled up in 1980. Let me give two examples. For an unemployed couple with two children aged four and six, the value of support has gone up by over £5.80 a week—over £300 a year. For a lone parent on the long-term rate with a child under five, it has gone up by over £4.30—over £220 a year.
We can argue about the level of support that we should be arriving at, but there have been significant improvements and our proposal shows that we are aiming to improve the support further. Noble Lords greeted with pleasure my announcement last week of a family premium. But the priority must be put in regular weekly income, not in the retention of the sort of single payment system that we now have.
If I may just turn briefly to Amendment No. 88ZA, the decision on whether a grant or a loan will be made will depend upon the individual circumstances. It will undermine that intention if we write restrictive provisions into the Bill. This is especially true, I fear, of such vague terms in this context as "normally". We could end up in constant discussion over whether a particular set of circumstances was exceptional or normal. What has become clear is that this amendment is technically a horror. On that ground alone, I must resist it. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is arguing the case for a discretionary system governed by regulations and there is confusion of thought here. I believe that this amendment would stop the social fund from working properly.
618
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked about the rates of recovery and whether there would be a maximum. The full scheme would not come into effect until 1988, which is nearly two years away. The maximum rate of recovery has not yet been decided, but from this the Committee will see that we intend to have one. The purpose of this will be to ensure that people who are having social fund payments recovered do not have an amount deducted which is too large, or that deductions should go on for too long a period.
Of course, there are rules at the moment governing the amounts which can be deducted from benefit for various purposes; for example, if a person has a housing debt then the maximum deduction is 5 per cent. of the single householder rate. There are rules governing other deductions and rules governing the priority for debts when there is more than one deduction. So it is yet another area where we can examine the way in which similar rules have operated in the scheme so far and build on that experience. We all have enormous sympathy for those who are. alas, out of work and living on income support. My compassion, and the Government's compassion, lies equally with a chap struggling on a low-paid job to support his family and whose resources put him just outside the scope of automatic state aid.
To conclude on the general principle of recovery, the Government believe there must be provision for the one-off exceptional expense which anyone can face from time to time. But, equally, it is not right to retain the present open-ended commitment to assist one group of low-income families when others do not have the choice. The social fund is a sensible balance between these two considerations and I ask the Committee to resist these amendments.
Lord Auckland: My noble friend the Minister has given a generally very informative reply to this amendment, but I wonder whether she can qualify paragraph (c) of Clause 32(1). Does this mean payment for the long-term mentally or physically disabled in the form of grants or loans? Just what categories are covered by paragraph (c)?
Baroness Trumpington: One of the areas where we envisage that help will be available, and indeed where grants may be made to further community care, is in this field, in order to enable people leaving long-stay hospitals to set up homes in the community.
Lord Banks: It has been widely understood that the Government's intention operating through this new Bill will be to substitute loans in a great many cases where there would now be grants. It is understood to be the Government's intention to move towards a system in which loans will be the norm rather than grants, although as the noble Baroness has made clear, grants are not ruled out. It is a fact that this understanding of the Government's intention has caused a great deal of apprehension and concern among people who have to deal all the time with those who are unfortunate enough to require supplementary benefit. As I said in my opening remarks, the feeling is that if you switch over to a system which is mainly of loans and deduct the repayments from the income support, you will be putting people on to an income

619
which is below subsistence level; that they will suffer deprivation as a consequence and that you will put them into debt, and perhaps greater debt than they may well be in already. It is this feeling which so many people have that lies behind the amendment.
The amendment makes it clear that the intention of the Bill would not be what at the moment is understood to be the Government's policy; but that as the general rule the officials would be seeking to provide, as now, grants, whereas there might well be cases where loans were appropriate or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said, even requested. This would make clear the general principle and the general line in which it was anticipated that the DHSS and its officials would go. It is argued that that is not guidance of sufficient strength. But it is guidance of very much greater strength than is in the Bill at the present time. There is no proper guidance in the Bill at the present time but it is understood that the Government intend to go in a particular direction—hence the alarm. The inclusion of this amendment would, as the right reverend Prelate said, establish the principle.
That is what we on these Benches and those who support the amendment want to do today. We want to establish the principle that the main emphasis of the administration of the social fund will be to provide grants, while it is not ruled out that there could be circumstances in which loans might be appropriate. I beg to move.
5.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 88ZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 120; Not-Contents, 134.

DIVISION NO.2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Falkender, B.

Amherst, E.

Falkland, V.

Ardwick, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Attlee, E.

Fitt, L.

Aylestone, L.

Flowers, L.

Banks, L.

Foot, L.

Barnett, L.

Gallacher, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Birk, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

Hampton, L.

Blease, L.

Hanworth, V.

Blyton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Brockway, L.

Hayter, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Heycock, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Chitnis, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hunt, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Jacques, L.

Darwen, L.

Jeger, B.

David, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Kaldor, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kearton, L.

Diamond, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ennals, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Listowel, E.

620

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Lockwood, B.

Seear, B.

Longford, E.

Seebohm, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Shepherd, L.

McNair, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Mar, C.

Southwark, Bp.

Meston, L.

Stallard, L.

Milford, L.

Stamp, L.

Mishcon, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Molloy, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mulley, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Northfield, L.

Underhill, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Walston, L.

Oram, L.

Warnock, B.

Phillips, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

White, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wigoder, L.

[Teller.]

Willis, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Winstanley, L.

Rea. L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ypres, E.

Rochester, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Gridley, L.

Arran, E.

Hailsham of Saint

Auckland, L.

Marylebone, L.

Bauer, L.

Henley, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hives, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Beloff, L.

Hood, V.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Bessborough, E.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Blake, L.

Kemsley, V.

Blakenham, V.

Killearn, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kimball, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Brentford, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Layton, L.

Caithness, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lyell, L.

Carnock, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Cathcart, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Coleraine, L.

McFadzean, L.

Cowley, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Craigavon, V.

Mancroft, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Manton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Marchwood, V.

Davidson, V.

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Mersey, V.

Derwent, L.

Middleton, L.

Dilhorae, V.

Monson, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Morris, L.

Dundee, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eccles, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Newall, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Norfolk, D.

Elles, B.

Nome, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Onslow, E.

Elton, L.

Orkney, E.

Fortescue, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pender, L.

Gainford, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Glanusk, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone,

Glenarthur, L.

L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Polwarth, L.

621

Porrit, L.

Teviot, L.

Portland, D.

Teynham, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Quinton, L.

Torrington, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Tranmire, L.

Reay, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Reigate, L.

Trumpington, B.

Richardson, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Romney, E.

Vickers, B.

St. Davids, V.

Vivian, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Watkinson, V.

Sandford, L.

Westbury, L.

Sandys, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Wise, L.

Shannon, E.

Wolfson, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wynford, L.

Somers, L.

Yarborough, E.

Sudeley, L.

Young, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Young of Graffham, L.

Terrington, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.21 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 88A:
Page 41, line 25, at end insert ("in relation to a mother of any age;")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to restore to mothers who are under 16 years of age their entitlement to maternity benefit, which they at present hold in their own right. Under the provisions of the Bill, those schoolgirl mothers would only qualify for social fund payments as dependants of their own parents. Their parents will only be eligible for payment of the grant for their daughter if they are themselves either on income support or family credit. For those potential grandparents who rise just above the threshold for income support or family credit there would be no other source of help available.
Fortunately, we are dealing here with only a very small group. In 1983, the number of births to mothers aged under 16 was no more than 1,226. On the other hand, I am sure it would be generally agreed that, although those young mothers are a very small group, they are a very vulnerable one. Statistics show that the risk of stillbirth or of early death to babies born to mothers as young as that is two and a half times that for the population as a whole. The high incidence of illness and early death among babies born to such very young mothers would seem to indicate that they do need more support, and that one should not take away the little support that they have at present.
In the debate in the other place on this particular issue, two arguments were put up to justify the removal of maternity grant to schoolgirl mothers. The Minister responsible first struggled with the concept of a parental responsibility if the parent was a girl under the age of 16. However, if one accepts the fact that at present we recognise and support young mothers' family responsibilities by paying them child benefit, and one parent benefit if appropriate in their own right, then surely it is illogical not to accept that they have a parental responsibility if they are under the age of 16. Therefore, their entitlement to help with their maternity costs should be considered in the same light.
Secondly, there was the argument that giving benefits to mothers under the age of 16 might
622
encourage under-age pregnancies. However, a payment of £75 could hardly be considered an adequate inducement to a girl of 14 or 15 to take the enormous step into motherhood. Indeed, the figures show that since the Government made a maternity grant available to those under 16 in 1982, together with other mothers who were entitled to it, there has been a small reduction in the number of pregnant schoolgirls who actually had their babies.
The amendment does not ask for any new or additional benefit for those very young and vulnerable mothers. It simply seeks to restore that which the Bill will take away from them. It would give them direct help when they need extra support very much, one would have thought, to be better parents. I hope that the Minister will look favourably upon this amendment. As I have said, it is entirely logical and rational. However, if the Minister does not agree, she will have to explain on what grounds that most needy group is to be deprived of the little help to which its members are currently entitled. We are all critical of the girl of 14 or 15 who has a baby, and of course it is entirely to be deplored. But it is the interest of the baby that must be considered. It is that interest we have in mind and which this amendment would in some small measure safeguard.
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Baroness. Lady Ewart-Biggs, has drawn attention to the position of young mothers under the age of 16 in relation to the social fund. I congratulate her on raising this important subject but must say at the outset that I cannot agree to the proposal. The noble Baroness asked me for an explanation, and I would have thought that that was what I was going to give her when I rose to my feet.
When considering this issue we should remember one simple fact. Young people aged under 16 are still legally children. Consequently they will normally be in full-time education and living at home in the care of their parents or with a guardian. If circumstances prevent that, then they will not be able to take up a tenancy and establish their own household. In those circumstances, they would probably be in care—especially so in the case of a young child who has had a baby. It remains my view that it would not be sensible to treat young persons under 16 as having become independent adults, with independent title to benefit, simply because they have had a child.
I remind the Committee that that approach does not represent a change in government policy but rather one that has been adopted by successive governments. It has always been the case, for instance, that young girls in that position would be excluded from supplementary benefit. Their needs and that of their children continue to be aggregated with the young mothers' parents. We do not propose any change in the principle for income support. To allow access to payments from the social fund would, quite rightly, lead to accusations of inconsistency on our part.
It is our intention with the social fund that we should adopt the same approach to the problem as we do now in the supplementary benefit scheme. Supplementary benefit single payments are not payable to young mothers under 16 in their own right. But if the young parent's father or mother—the

623
grandparent—is in receipt of supplementary benefit, he or she will be entitled to claim a single payment for maternity expenses. We believe that that is the best way to direct help to households most in need. I remind the Committee that help from the social fund will be available to young mothers living with parents who are receiving family credit as well as those receiving income support. I hope that the noble Baroness, having heard that explanation, will withdraw her amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: Earlier, the noble Minister was pleading the cause of families who were just above the social security level and saying how sorry she was for these poorly paid families. Now she does not seem to have the same sympathy towards a poorly paid family just above the supplementary benefit level whose daughter is found to be pregnant. What will happen in families in that situation, where often there is a great deal of discord?
I feel that my noble friend made out the case very well. There will be considerable expenditure which the parents will have to meet. I know that in the other place the Minister emphasised that the plight of these young girls is the responsibility of their parents, and I wish that real life was like that. I can see difficulties in the fact that extra financial burdens are placed on parents who may not be very sympathetic, who may be separated and who may have their own debts and money troubles as well as their emotional difficulties in accepting the situation. However, to have further money difficulties cannot add to the harmony in any family which finds itself in this situation.
I share my noble friend's concern about the baby. There must be all sorts of difficulties for a baby born in such circumstances. There are higher rates of illness and neonatal mortality among them. I should have thought we would all agree that this was an area where we could do something to help. Fortunately, it is not a frequent problem but there are too many schoolgirl mothers in difficulties and too many of them belong to families who are already deprived and, as I said, poor but not poor enough to benefit from social security payments.
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Baroness must forgive me if I return to the debate. She obviously did not listen to me, because I said that help was available to the families of children. We believe that the best way to direct help to households most in need is to give the family help for a child of theirs who has borne a child.
The numbers of births we are talking about were 1,263 in 1983 and 1,328 in 1984. We are indeed compassionate about those on very low incomes, which is why we are supporting the families of children who give birth to babies and who are living with them.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: When I asked the Minister for an explanation I merely meant a justification for the change, and it is indeed a change from the present system, where a young schoolgirl mother gets maternity benefit in her own right. When my noble friend said that the families need this benefit she meant
624
those families who are above the threshold for income support and family benefit but who are still very poor and who will lose out on this benefit altogether because their daughter will not receive benefit in her own right. I think it is inconsistent to pay them child benefit and one-parent family benefit and yet say they are not independent and that they are a member of the family. As I said, this is a completely inconsistent change, whereas at the moment there is a consistency in which these schoolgirl mothers receive benefits—all three of them—in their own right.
It is a pity that the Minister has been unable to give a satisfactory answer. However, I will look at what she said and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 41, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) Within the scheme prescribed in subsection (l)(c) above, regulations shall make provision for entitlement in prescribed circumstances to grants in respect of essential items of furniture and household equipment and other essential items for which periodic payments of income support do not provide.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
This amendment is at least precise; unlike Amendment No. 88ZA, to which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, took exception for its imprecision. This amendment is, incidentally, also about grants or loans, but there can be no question about the precision of its wording. It states that within the subsection (l)(c)—that is, not maternity and not death grants—
Baroness Trumpington: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening but may I ask a question? In the grouping of amendments that I have, the noble Lord is moving Amendment No. 89 and speaking to Amendment No. 95. Am I correct?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: That is what has been arranged and I am quite happy that it should be so, although I was not exactly consulted.
The amendment is as precise as it can be made because it refers only to an entitlement—and no one can quarrel with the word "entitlement"—that in prescribed circumstances grants (grants, not loans) shall be made in respect of essential items of furniture, household equipment and so on for which periodic payments of income support do not provide.
The present position is that single payments, by regulations, shall provide for one-off grants for families with children, and others living on the poverty line, for a range of bulky items of expenditure which either cannot be foreseen or cannot be met out of the basic rate of benefit. These include basic items such as bedding, furniture, and household equipment without which families could not live in their own homes but would have to live in institutional care.
The Bill proposes that grants would be limited to a few very closely defined situations, and these are so closely defined and so few that a large number of those

625
people who, in existing circumstances, are in receipt of the payments which I am saying should be an entitlement would no longer receive those payments. One way of putting it is that this amendment seeks to provide for the maintenance of the status quo; and that is exactly so. I do not wish to say anything against the concept of the fund but I think that one should not be so rigid as to say that it shall be the fund and only the fund without one or two essential entitlements. I maintain that this amendment is concerned solely with those whose entitlement should be justified on the ground of essential need.
I illustrate what would happen if, for example, those who are on income support had a loan but not a grant. I understand that the DHSS proposes that 10 per cent. of the claimant's income support would be deducted at source for the repayment of a loan. The claimant would then be existing at 10 per cent. below the poverty line. However, a great number of these claimants already are in debt for fuel, which may be another 5 per cent; so there would be poor people living at 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. below the poverty line if they receive, by way of loan rather than grant, what I suggest should be an entitlement.
This is a large number of people. I am told that if only two-thirds of single payments were replaced by loans, the number of families that were forced into debt and had to live from an income of between 10 and 15 per cent. below the poverty line during the period of the repayments would be between half a million and three quarters of a million. It is of those people alone that I am speaking.
Perhaps I may add that the effects of a loan system on the 8,000 or so young people who are released from care each year would be very considerable. Is it really right that such vulnerable young people should begin their adult life in debt? It can only have adverse consequences. I believe that Mr. Tony Newton in a note to the Standing Committee dealing with this Bill in another place said that work on this part of the social fund (that is, grants or loans for one-off expenses or community care needs) is at an earlier stage of development than arrangements for maternity payments and funeral payments, and that there is a certain amount of time—two years or so—for these needs to be formulated. I think that two years is really a long time to wait for the formulation of this important category of need. Also, I should have thought that the decision should be made by Parliament rather than by the Minister. It is on those grounds that I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Banks: I should like to support the amendment which the noble Lord has just moved and also to speak to Amendment No. 95, which has a very similar purpose. As I understand it, under the amendment that is now before the Committee grants will be available for furniture and household necessities, whereas under Amendment No. 95 payments for removal expenses and essential furniture and essential household repairs will not be repayable.
Scottish Women's Aid, which is a registered charity that gives advice, support and refuge to battered women and their children, has drawn my attention to a particular situation. Mrs. T and her three children came into the Women's Aid Refuge because of her
626
husband's violent behaviour toward her. Mrs. T was given a tenancy of her own by the local authority. As is often the case for women fleeing from violence, she had to leave her furniture behind in the marital home and her husband refused to give her anything from the house. Under the current legislation Mrs. T would be entitled to a grant from the DHSS for essential furniture and household items. As we understand it, under the proposed legislation the money obtained by Mrs. T to set up home could take the form of a loan from the social fund. Given her situation as a single parent, who is in poorly paid full-time work and has all the attendant child care problems, it would be totally unrealistic to expect her to repay the money, since any repayment would reduce her income to below the poverty line. I think that that particular example helps to illustrate the importance of this amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to support this amendment. In particular I have in mind the homeless who are living in bed and breakfast accommodation and, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, young people who are coming out of care. As it stands at the moment, the law under the Children and Young Persons Acts cannot help any child who comes out of care at the age of 18. Even if they find one unfurnished room, which is what these young people usually find, they have no means of purchasing a bed or any furniture whatsoever. Moreover, if they are to be given a loan, they will never be able to repay it. I regret to have to say that various misfortunes stem from this situation and the young people get deeper into debt or into trouble. Therefore, in the light of such cases I support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in this amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Ennals: I want to be very brief in supporting both the amendments—the one that is proposed and the one that has been spoken to. I have added my name to both amendments. The group of persons upon which I should like to touch is a group that has been mentioned earlier, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod; namely, those who have been discharged from psychiatric hospitals, having in many cases been there for a long time, and who are either moving into group homes or into some other form of community accommodation. Certainly they will come out of hospital without furniture or household effects and in some cases there may be need for essential household repairs.
Both the amendments before the Committee relate to a large number of people. I think it is good that we— the Government and the country—are managing to proceed as fast as circumstances and the funds permit to ensure the discharge of patients who do not need to be in a psychiatric hospital. They should be in the community, but we cannot expect them to come back into the community and settle down unless they can obtain the necessary furniture and other items that are essential to enable them to set up home. If the first thing that they are asked to do is to start repaying a loan, they will be in very great difficulty.
Viscount Buckmaster: I, too, should like to support this amendment and I do so particularly in the context

627
of refugees. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will know, there are a number of refugees who come to this country from warm climates in the colder months of the year and their need for warm clothes is absolutely vital. They need warm clothing, footwear and various other essential items. I myself have seen refugees who have come to this country with the scantiest of clothing and I feel that in that context this amendment is very helpful.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Viscount who has just spoken has to some considerable extent undermined the case for this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was on a very strong point when he mentioned the person who is discharged from a psychiatric hospital, because it is quite obvious that if help of this sort is to be given, it is required to be given by grant. It would be absurd to do it by loan.
Of course, the trouble is that the terms of the amendment that the noble Lord is supporting go far wider than that and when read with Amendment No. 95, or even independently of it, they appear to imply that in all cases grants shall be made for this purpose and in no cases shall loans be made. That seems to me to be going too far. It is perfectly possible that there could be circumstances in which loans were the appropriate method of financing these particular needs. The obvious example is that of someone who has had a series of misfortunes but who has considerable earning capacity. When he has been helped, and properly helped, by the social fund through those troubles, he will be able to earn on a substantial scale, and can be expected to do so. Thus he would be in a position to repay the social fund. Indeed, he might even wish to opt for a loan for reasons of self-respect.
The example that has been quoted by the noble Viscount who has just spoken of the refugee coming to our cold climate in winter is a case in point. Many such refugees are people of very considerable ability and considerable earning capacity. They come here as refugees and, as the noble Viscount has quite rightly said, they need warm clothing at once. However, in a matter of months they might be earning extremely well and it is really quite absurd in those circumstances to exclude such cases from being dealt with by way of loan.
Therefore it seems to me that the amendment goes too far. Otherwise, it is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, says, that probably the great majority of these are cases for grant. I think that my noble friend would be quite wrong to accept an amendment which makes it grant in all cases and excludes the possibility of loan in any case whatever.
Viscount Buckmaster: With great respect to the noble Lord, it is extremely unlikely that such refugees would be in a position to earn quickly. Indeed, it may take a year or more before their position in the country is legalised.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Illegal immigrants are another matter. I am not sure that an amendment designed to benefit illegal immigrants is particularly attractive to the Committee. But many legal
628
immigrants—which is what I am talking about—have great earning capacity. The noble Viscount has only to bear in mind the Pakistanis, who arrive here and almost invariably set up a highly successful shop—which generally, I am glad to say, provides sales on Sundays and follows therefore the view of this House as to the propriety of Sunday shopping. They are earning excellently. It is quite wrong to say that it must be presumed that any refugee will be in poverty for years. I am glad to say that many of them are not.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: On the last occasion that the Committee met we heard from my noble friend Lady Faithfull about the refugees she helped in Oxfordshire, who bought, I think five houses, and paid back every penny of a loan.
Lord Ennals: As chairman of the Ockenden Venture, which has been responsible for the resettlement of half the quota of Vietnamese refugees settled here, I happen to be deeply involved.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Very successfully.
Lord Ennals: Very successfully, yes, but not in terms of employment. That was the point that I was going to make to the noble Lord. They arrive here without linguistic abilities and often with skills which are not immediately needed, and they may often need retraining. For many, employment possibilities in their first two years or so are slight. Otherwise, I agree absolutely with everything that the noble Lord said. He recognised that there were certain circumstances when loans would be appropriate and other circumstances when grants would be appropriate. If the noble Baroness agreed about that, I should be happy.
Lord Kaldor: Would the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, support Amendment No. 89 if there were inserted after the words,
"in prescribed circumstances to grants",
the words,
"or loans, as may be appropriate"?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I agree with the noble Lord that that would be an immense improvement to the amendment, but whether it is necessary at all to legislate on the point is a matter on which I should like to hear my noble friend the Minister.
Lord Banks: Is the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, correct in saying that Amendment No. 89 excludes loans? It seems to me that Amendment No. 95 does, but Amendment No. 89 says:
"for entitlement in prescribed circumstances to grants".
That seems to qualify it, and I think perhaps that meets his point.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the noble Lord will look at Amendment No. 89, he will see that it refers to grants only.
Baroness Trumpington: As Amendment No. 88 has already been carried, there is now written into the Bill a provision for payments from the social fund to be

629
governed by regulations. The Committee has already provided for a measure of entitlement; we must consider that. I note the noble Lord's further comments on this amendment.
Let me say a few words specifically on Amendment No. 95. It provides for a sharp distinction among items of help. That is not the approach that we intend. Indeed, it takes us back to the drawbacks of the current regulations. It would quickly become a matter of contention as to which items of furniture or household equipment were essential. There would tend to be endless arguments as to where lines should be drawn. We are proposing that decisions on whether a payment should be a grant or a loan will depend more on the surrounding circumstances of the need and the individual rather than the fact of whether it is on a checklist of items.
We have always made it clear that certain payments from the social fund, including those to support community care needs, will be in the form of grants and not loans. As my honourable friend the Minister of State indicated in another place, we would consider help in the circumstances where a woman was leaving home as a result of domestic violence. Similarly, we would consider a grant for essential furniture and household equipment to a lone parent setting up home after a marital breakdown or domestic violence.
On the question of refugees, we shall ensure that asylum-seekers get help with living expenses much as we do now. As we have previously indicated, we are considering making the help available through income support rather than the social fund, and we shall also consider sympathetically what help might be given to asylum-seekers with, for example, immediate clothing needs.
With regard to young people leaving care, I am glad to say that that is one of the vulnerable groups for whom we shall be considering grants to set up home in the community. I submit to the Committee that the amendment is unnecessary and I ask the mover not to press it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: That is an emollient reply, if I may say so. I should like to respond in the same way. First, I apologise to the noble Baroness for not sitting down when she rose to interrupt my opening speech. I suppose that I more than most should have known better.
Secondly, let me say a brief word about what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, although I know that it is dangerous to do so because he comes back on the riposte. He again brought forward the example of the man who is down on his luck, who has to resort to income support, but in due course may earn a great deal. He is right to draw attention to that rare case. I wish that it was frequent, and I hope that it will be more and more so. But that man will still be the exception, even if there are many more, as I hope there will be. But I think that he would be quite happy to repay the loan voluntarily. If he did not do so, perhaps he would be happy to repay it through the tax system. I regard it as a good but not very important point, and not one that destroys the purpose of the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I anticipated a riposte!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: As always, the noble Lord is most courteous. Given what he said—that there will be cases in which a loan would be a perfectly sensible provision and that indeed the man might voluntarily repay it—why in his amendment does he limit the provision to grants? Why not have grants or loans, as appropriate?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: If the amendment was to be agreed subject to that amendment, no one would be happier than I. Perhaps the noble Lord would care to put down that amendment and I should be happy to agree with it.
In her reply I thought that the noble Baroness made a promising reference to the fact that the Committee has accepted Amendment No. 88, which was to leave out "directions given" and insert "regulations made". I am very keen indeed on that amendment. After all, there are two parts to the amendments which were taken together. One was that there should be regulations laid before Parliament and the other was the independent appeal; there are two elements. Taking the regulations argument, the noble Baroness has given almost a hint that that might be, if not accepted, at least considered sympathetically.
Baroness Trumpington: I am sorry for jumping up. Lord Henderson of Brompton: I sit down at once.
Baroness Trumpington: No hints; it was a mere statement of fact.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: No more than that; no hint that it may be sympathetically considered. If that amendment were to stay, I should perhaps be happier that this amendment could be withdrawn. That puts me in something of a difficulty. Before 1 do one thing or the other, I should perhaps say to the noble Baroness that I sympathise very much with the kind of person she has in mind. She asks us to remember the man or the family whose income from employment is marginally above income support and how unfair it would be if those below income support were to receive benefits which that man or family could not obtain. I sympathise with that, but I ask her to sympathise with the case that I put forward, which is of those who are on income support and who therefore live below the income suport level, if from the start they have to pay 10 per cent. of the loan and perhaps 5 per cent. of a fuel bill. They may well have to pay 5 per cent. for late payments for fuel in addition to 10 per cent. for the loan from the DHSS. They will therefore be living 15 per cent. below the poverty line.
The noble Baroness has given us one kind of person or family to wring the heart, and I give another. They should both be considered. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the few exceptions who could repay a loan are so few that I should prefer to

631
leave my amendment drafted precisely as it is now, for grants and not for loans.
I am in the hands of the Committee as to whether or not to press the amendment. I should quite like to withdraw it at this stage, pending a decision by the Government as to whether they will accept Amendment No. 88. If I have the feeling of the Committee, and without prejudice to bringing this matter back at a later stage, that for that reason it is desirable to withdraw, I shall do so. May I have the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved. ]
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 90A:
Page 41, line 31, at end insert—
(" ( ) It shall be a direction in calculating social fund payments to registered blind persons that the existing separate blind addition shall be maintained.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment provides for the continuation of the special allowances for the blind. There has been a long tradition in this country of recognising the special needs of blind people. Preferential treatment for them was incorporated in the national assistance scheme as a continuation of local authority practices under the Blind Persons Acts of 1920 and 1938. There is nothing revolutionary, therefore, in what I have suggested.
Between 1948 and 1980 there were separate blind scale rates. The adult rate exceeded the ordinary scale rate by 15s, as it used to be, in 1948. The extra allowance for blind people was set at its present level of £1·25 in November 1969. It has not been increased since. If it had been increased in line with the movement of the retail price index, it would be well over £8. I understand that the Government have no plans to review the allowance.
I have also to ask the noble Baroness if she knows whether the Inland Revenue will continue to allow a personal allowance of £360 a year against income tax for blind persons. That was introduced because blind persons who have earnings that bring them within the tax limit usually have higher expenses. They often have a blind dog or escorts to take them to work. If they type, they need a Braille typewriter, which is more expensive than an ordinary one. In many ways, blind people who try to earn their living earn it at considerable cost, and that is why there has been this arrangement with the Treasury.
I know that the Minister will say that what the Treasury does has nothing to do with her in her present capacity. That only underlines a fact that has been stated again and again in these debates. Until we have some communion between the Treasury and the DHSS, we shall not have this whole subject of benefits and taxation right. I do not apologise for raising the matter today. I hope that the noble Baroness can at least assure us that the Government do not intend to alter that arrangement, for the time being anyhow.
There is an old principle in industrial negotiations that I have often found in social security regulations: that when one makes changes one tries to stick by custom and practice as far as practicable, and to
632
establish a "no detriment" provision. I do not think it would be the Committee's wish to make blind people worse off and to take away something that they already have.
When I raised this matter on Second Reading I was told—and I have been into the matter since—that blind people would be treated as the disabled and would receive disability help. However, I have received no undertaking that there would be any extra help by virtue of their blindness. I know that not everyone agrees that there should be, but if the result of the change means that blind people are to be worse off after the Bill comes into effect than they are now, that would be regrettable.
The question was raised on 22nd February 1984 in this Chamber, and the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said:
"Although we are sympathetic to the case for the introduction of a special cash allowance for all blind people, it would be wrong for me to suggest that the necessary resources are likely to become available in the foreseeable future."
—[Official Report, 22/2/84; col. 840.]
It seemed to me that the then Minister was not opposing the matter on principle because he said he was sympathetic to it, and it was a question of whether he could find the money to introduce it.
A great deal of anxiety is being caused to a great many blind people because the Bill is unclear as to the basis of the calculations of the amounts which they are to receive. It would put at rest the minds of everybody who is concerned about blind people for them to know that there would be no detriment and that a fact of life will be that their income support, whether from tax or social security, will be maintained. I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: I support the noble Baroness. However, I should like to make a slight correction to what she said about the period during which the blind addition has not been changed. In fact, it goes back to 1962, apart from a 2½p rise on the introduction of decimalisation in 1969. We have not moved on that figure for nearly a quarter of a century. As the noble Baroness said, had the amount moved in relation to the retail price index, it would now have been about £8.
Setting aside the question of the amount, the real argument is that the Government proposal, as I understand it, is that in fact all the additions which many blind people receive at the moment should be subsumed in the new disablement premium, which is a sum of £12.25. The trouble with that is that in the past blind people have been entitled to a considerable number of additions which, taken together, in many cases work out at more than the disablement premium. Many of them are likely to find themselves worse off under the Government's proposals.
Let us take, for example, a single blind person currently receiving the following supplementary benefit payments: the long-term rate of £37.50; the blindness addition of £1.25; the heating addition of £5.45; the diet addition for a slimming diet of £1.60; water rates of £1.35, and maintenance and insurance £1.85. That adds up to £49. If we deduct the available scale margin, that comes out at £48. Under the Government's proposals, as I understand them, that

633
person would now receive £42.85 a week from income support—that is to say, £30.60 plus the £12.25 disablement premium—and the net loss would be £5.15. Now the additions that I have mentioned in that case are very usual in the case of blind people. The heating addition is certainly greatly needed by people who are confined by blindness to the home and who therefore consume more fuel.
There is another case which I shall not go into in detail except to note that it includes a diabetic addition. This Committee will be aware that diabetes is frequently associated with blindness and in this case there is an addition of £3.70 on that specific account. There is also a heating addition of £3.70 and a laundry addition of £3.25. In this second case the net loss under the Government's proposals is £4.05.
I have given these instances but I could give many more examples, some of which involve larger losses. However, I have tried to choose cases which are representative and therefore more likely to affect a larger number of people. It does seem to me that in these circumstances it is an absolutely minimal requirement that, apart from the net losses that they may suffer from the transfer from the additions under the supplementary benefit system to the new disablement premium, blind people should not also suffer the loss of the £1.25 which has not been changed in 25 years. That seems to be adding insult to injury for people who are among the most disadvantaged in the whole of our society.
I, along with the noble Baroness, very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will say that is not the Government's intention, and that the Bill as drafted is not intended to make blind people worse off. In so far as it does have this unfortunate effect, I hope she will say that at least there will be the amelioration of preserving the blind persons' addition. This certainly ought to be put up. We are not, however, moving that in this amendment but merely seeking the preservation of what exists. I hope very much that the noble Baroness will give us good news on this.
Lord Wolfson: I should like to support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness. In human terms it is morally right, and this is one of those occasions when both the heart and the head can work in unison. I hope the Government will agree.
Baroness Trumpington: Perhaps I may start by saying that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, are addressing the wrong part of the Bill. Their concerns are to do with the arrangements for regular weekly benefit covered in Part II, dealing with income support, and not the social fund.
If I may say at the outset of my reply to the noble Baroness that I cannot recommend the amendment to the Committee, perhaps I can explain the reasons why and hope to take the noble Baroness with me. She is quite right to highlight the fact that blind people receive recognition in the supplementary benefit scheme. This takes the shape of a weekly addition of £1·25 which is payable automatically to blind people. There is also an addition which can be paid by blind non-householders; but I think that when we refer to the blind addition we generally mean the weekly
634
addition of £1·25. This additional help is the only help given solely because of blindness.
When we introduce income support we shall be replacing the system of weekly additions, including that for blindness, with a better system of premiums. These will also be paid weekly and will go to particular groups. One of the premiums, as the Committee will know, is for disabled people and an entitlement for this will be blindness. Therefore blind people will automatically receive this additional help through weekly income support, and I hope the Committee will agree that the new scheme helps to carry forward the help which is currently available to blind people. I am sure that this is right. However, I am not convinced that it is for the social fund to give an extra weekly payment to blind people if that is the intention of the amendment. We have made it clear that the social fund is intended normally to deal with one-off payments to meet unexpected or particularly expensive needs. The Committee will realise that this is different from weekly income support. Indeed, the main thrust of our proposals is to split the two forms of support. There is no provision for additions to be made to single payments in the current scheme, and I am sure the Commitee will agree that if a payment is intended to meet the cost of an item, then that should be the determining factor rather than that of a characteristic of a person.
I realise that the noble Baroness is concerned to maintain the position of blind people and believes that this amendment might be the best means of achieving that goal; but I think this still confuses the roles of the two schemes. If a blind person has his underlying entitlement in some way reduced by the switch from supplementary benefit to income support, then transitional arrangements will ensure that there is no drop in cash income. But this will be achieved by an addition to weekly benefit and not by additions to one-off payments. Therefore I hope it will be seen that we must leave the special provisions for weekly help to income support and not to the social fund. Otherwise we lose the gains from our proposals for structural reform.
The noble Baroness mentioned Inland Revenue. This is not a matter for this Bill, as she acknowledged; but I shall draw her concern and her remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend, the Chancel-lor of the Exchequer. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that as blindness is a qualification for the disablement premium there is no need to make a separate provision as she suggests.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply and I hope that I heard her rightly when she said that she could state that there would be no cash loss for blind people. That will give them some reassurance.
Baroness Trumpington: Yes.
Baroness Jeger: I appreciate that it is not for the noble Baroness to talk about income tax, but I think it is very important for that allowance to be maintained because it is expensive for blind people to get to work; it is expensive for them to keep a guide dog; and it is

635
expensive for them to have escorts. I think the blind are very brave. I often see them getting on buses and I admire them very much. I hope the blind will be protected. I understand that this part of the Bill will not come into force in any case until April of 1988, and I am sure that by then we shall have a different government and we can look at this again. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 41, line 33, after ("amounts") insert ("as are necessary to meet fully all social fund payments, and there shall be no other determining factor as regards the amount of payments into the fund, and he shall make payments").
The noble Baroness said: The aim of the amendment is to prevent the fixing of cash limits for the social fund. Clearly cash limits would be inappropriate and a demand-led area like the social fund. In particular, there could be extra unexpected claims due to factors like very bad weather and floods, successful take-up campaigns, and higher and longer unemployment than has been estimated.
Recent experience in the growth in single payments shows how difficult it is to give exact predictions. For example, I gather that the figures were under £1 million in 1981 and over £4 million in 1985.I believe that reference has already been made to these differing amounts. If social fund officers are overwhelmed by demands for help, if there are no rules of entitlement, and if officers have to function within a cash ceiling, it must be concluded that many needs will remain unmet while others will be met only in part. Claimants who call upon the fund at the beginning of the financial year may well have a better chance of success than those whose need arises eight or 10 months later. Claimants in different parts of the country could well come out with different amounts or different treatment.
The level of deprivation is difficult to anticipate. But social services departments may well find themselves full of desperate claimants whose needs are purely financial. The government have argued that claims for single payments are limited and that many claimants receive little help from single payments. It is probably true that claimants in touch with a social services department or advice agency will be more likely to apply for single payments than others. As with all means-tested benefits, it is likely to be the case that the most deprived and vulnerable claimants will be the least likely to claim payments unless supported by an agency. This, however, is not an argument for imposing a cash ceiling to limit the benefits available for those who do come forward to claim. It is an argument for improving communication about benefits and for improving advice services.
If this amendment is not carried and if the Government do not change their mind, it can be foreseen that charities will be snowed under with applications for assistance and forced to ration their money. Already, it is said that some charities are imposing arbitrary limits on sums allocated to clients in order to spread their help as widely as possible in the face of an every growing volume of genuine need.
636
Social fund officers reaching the limit of funds available could well be beseiged in their offices by desperate claimants. We have had some discussion in the Chamber about the problems that already face social security officers with shortages of staff and the number of people who now have to have recourse to social benefits.
A cash ceiling on the social fund may meet the short-term needs of the Treasury, but it will cost more in the longer run and will cause chaos and considerable hardship at grass-roots level. Since we have agreed this afternoon to adopt an amendment providing for a method of appeal, this will clearly have an effect on the original concept of a fund that was cash limited. I ask whether the noble Baroness can make a statement in that regard this afternoon. I believe that the passage of the amendment has an impact on the concept of a cash limited social fund. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: I should like to support the amendment. The idea that special needs—needs that are admitted by the Government to be special—should depend on a fund that is cash limited must give rise to considerable concern. It would certainly appear to mean that whether an award, however justified, is made or not, this must depend on how much cash is in the fund at any time. It would seem to be true, as the noble Baroness said, that those who claim early in the financial year would appear to be better placed to make sure of getting their award than those who come later in the year. If some are not to be in danger of not getting their special needs met, it is difficult to see what the cash limitation means.
Baroness Trumpington: In responding to this amendment—I take up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner—I must preface my remarks by saying that in the light of the debate that has just taken place we shall need to consider the issues of regulations versus discretion and appeals versus reviews following this afternoon's vote. Clearly, the outcome could affect the status of the budget that we envisage for the social fund. Nevertheless, it is right that I should explain the thinking behind the proposals that the Government have put forward. I shall make my remarks on that basis.
This amendment seeks to constrain the role of the Secretary of State in making payments into the social fund. We have always made clear that there should be a limit to the role of the social fund. This limit is set by Ministers in two ways. First, the proposal is that the scope of the payments will be set out in published guidance and, secondly, the amount of money allocated to it will be in the form of a budget. Both of these will be open and public knowledge. It will be possible for us to discuss and agree—and disagree, I imagine—the limits set and the scope it allows the social fund. That is a matter of legitimate and sensible political debate.
There is nothing novel about this in some respects. There are many aspects of government spending which are governed by a budget. It provides a clear indication of the role of the government and, of course, it introduces an element of financial control. This introduction of financial control is the hall-mark, I submit, of responsible government. Expenditure on

637
single payments is mushrooming. We have seen it rise from £45 million in 1981 and £88 million in 1982 to a current level of over £300 million. This may be relatively small in terms of social security expenditure, but it would be foolish of any government to ignore this rise. The Committee will already be aware that we have referred proposals on the current single payments package to the Social Security Advisory Committee. But that cannot be a regular event and, of course, it is done on the basis of the current scheme.
As we move to the future, we choose to exert financial control by the means which are used elsewhere in government spending—that is, an annual budget. The question of proper financial control and planning of expenditure is inescapable, whatever the legal structure. Of course, having a budget means emphasis on monitoring of expenditure. It is not sensible to have one without the other. We shall need to watch our allocations carefully and react if they look wrong. Was our estimate unrealistic? Has the ground shifted suddenly since we made it? Is our guidance unclear? Any number of indications may be called into question. But this method of operating is responsible budget management and something I hope the Committee would welcome.
I must take the opportunity to comment on some of the criticisms of this approach. I am afraid that some of them have been far from sensible. There have been claims that, if a budget is set, some local offices will close down half-way through the year because their money has run out. One lurid picture was painted of groups of people going from office to office looking for one with money. And yet our White Paper responded specifically to this point. I can do no better than to quote from it:
"The purpose of a budget for the fund is to establish a system where there is effective monitoring and control of expenditure. But the Government recognise that it will take time for people to become accustomed to such a system, and that the system should be flexible enough to ensure that payments should not cease because a local office had run out of money before the end of the financial year".
We realise that in its early stages the system must be operated flexibly. But I do not see why the system cannot be accommodated. Such events do not happen in local authorities where social services departments have budgets. And so I hope that the Committee will understand why, given the whole nature of the fund and its intended effect, I cannot recommend acceptance of this amendment. It makes a nonsense of the whole idea if we establish a fund and then provide in the Bill that there can be only one determining factor as to the level of that fund.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask one or two questions as to how this will operate? First, can she tell me, since this is clearly a demand-led service, what is the difference between this and the family practitioner service? Would it not be inconceivable for a doctor to say to someone, "I am very sorry, we have finished. I have done my ration for the month", or the week, or the quarter, or whatever it was? Because it is a demand-led service it is the only part of the health service that is not cash limited. Cash limits apply to all the rest.
638
Can the noble Baroness explain to me how one can cash limit this type of demand-led service? Surely, one will not know in advance what the weather will be like, whether one will have a very cold winter, or what will happen to prices. All these factors which affect whether one needs to have a one-off payment seem to me to be issues on which it would be almost impossible to forecast.
How does a local manager operate, having been given his cash limit for a year; or is he given it for a month, three months, or six months? Does he divide it equally week by week? How does he do the job when clients come before him and say, "Please may I have this piece of furniture, this piece of clothing", or what have you? Can the noble Baroness explain to me how it can be cash limited?
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the noble Baroness replies, may I add something which is germane to what the noble Lord said? On an earlier amendment I made a note that the noble Baroness said that the budget will be handled flexibly so that it does not run out before the end of the year. Can she expand a little on what she means by that flexibility? Will that be done by scaling down means, for example, so that if someone has a specific need, one can meet only 50 per cent., 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of it according to the time of the year? Can the noble Baroness expand on that a little?
Baroness Trumpington: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I would say that the budget would operate in exactly the same way as hospital services which are cash limited now. That is my answer to him.
From the flexibility point of view, it is not likely that there will be the same quantity of demand in each part of the country. Therefore, there will be flexibility to move money around. But it is precisely because of just these kind of factors that we have made clear that there will be flexibility. All people who provide services over a year have to plan the way they provide them—and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, knows that.
Lord Wigoder: May I ask the noble Baroness a question, so as to make sure that I have understood correctly what she has just said about the social fund? Does it imply that a responsibly budgeted social fund, which she has been indicating will be the case, would not be in any fundamental conflict with a responsibly operated appeal system?
Baroness Trumpington: I have already said that we would have to look at the way it operated and see whether we have the balance exactly right in every kind of way. Of course we want the whole scheme to be utterly successful. It would be rather stupid in our part if we did not. Therefore, when it comes to the time to put it into operation we shall have examined all those possibilities, always with the proviso that we can make changes if we find there is any trouble of any kind.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: Does the Minister realise that she has given the game away by saying that the social fund will be cash limited in the way that the

639
hospital service is? Because the hospital service is cash limited we often have to close wards in order to save cash.
Lord Banks: I am not quite clear about this. The Bill seems to say that in making an award an officer must take into account any relevant allocation under Clause 32(4). That is stated in line 7 on page 43. Then, when one looks at Clause 32(4), one sees that it says:
"The Secretary of State may allocate an amount, or allocate different amounts for different purposes, for awards by a particular social fund officer or group of officers in a financial year".
It would appear, in dealing with a particular award, that an officer has to take into account what is in the fund. That seems to run rather contrary to what the noble Baroness has been telling the Committee.
Baroness Trumpington: I can only suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, reads what I have said.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: Will the noble Baroness inform us whether her definition of "flexibility" would include provision for bringing forward supplementary estimates if the fund itself was clearly in danger of being exhausted?
Baroness Trumpington: I cannot possibly anticipate what my right honourable friend would wish to do, but I can certainly bring the remarks of the noble Lord to his attention.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I find the response of the noble Baroness a little disappointing. It seems to me that she has not dealt with the questions that have been raised regarding what happens when one is dealing with social need where people are in desperate straits and a limit has been reached. As my noble friends on this side of the Committee have said, if one relates this to the hospital service, does this mean waiting lists? One would hope not. On the other hand, the situation has been slightly changed this afternoon because the amendment in relation to provision for appeal has been passed by the Committee. That plainly means that the social fund and regulations in connection therewith may have to be looked at.
I do not propose to press my amendment. I shall look very carefully through Hansard at what the noble Baroness has said and consider the matter again on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: Before the noble Baroness sits down I must come back, if I may, and say this. The matter of waiting lists is a totally different question. It is a red herring which has been introduced into the debate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 49, line 9, at end insert ("save that a social fund officer shall be under a duty not to disclose information relating to the personal circumstances of the applicant, other than to the applicant or his representative, without the prior consent of the applicant").
The noble Baroness said: Before moving Amendment No. 92 which is in my name and the
640
names of my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I should point out that there is an error in the amendment as printed on the Third Marshalled List. The "special fund officer" should of course read the "social fund officer".
The purpose of this amendment is pretty clear. It is to prevent the social fund officer passing on to other people detailed personal information about an applicant without his prior consent. The Disablement Income Group, the British Council of Disabled People, the Spastics Society, RNIB, RADAR and the Disability Alliance all feel that this amendment is necessary. I feel that they are not being unduly sensitive. DIG has details of many instances where local authorities have distributed very personal details about disabled people to others, either directly, or indirectly through a third party, without asking for the client's consent.
It is very important that this should not happen with social fund officers who will be deeply involved in making inquiries about applicants and in relaying details about them. Indeed, the White Paper envisaged in paragraph 4.45 that the social fund officer,
"will be the focal point for liaison with outside agencies".
and a glance at Clause 33(9) will give an indication of just how deeply the social fund officer will have to delve.
The matter of confidentiality was discussed at a meeting that the disability organisations which I mentioned earlier had with the Minister for the disabled and the Secretary of State for Social Services. I understand that neither Minister would expect the social fund officer to act at variance with the spirit of this amendment, and so it is not out of line with Government thinking.
If we look at Clause 33, we see on page 43 at line 8 that subsection (10) provides for the Secretary of State to issue guidelines about the manner in which the social fund officer shall determine questions referred to in this clause. It may be that the Minister will consider that disclosure of information on a client could be covered by those guidelines, or she may even like my amendment. In that case, it is possible that it ought to be to Clause 33, not Clause 32; I am not sure about that. I look forward with a good deal of hope to hearing what the Minister has to say.
I should like to make one final point. It is important that the social fund officer should tell the applicant to whom he will disclose the personal information; he should not just receive blanket permission to disclose. I beg to move.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I am not quite certain that the amendment is necessary. I understand that in this day and age everything is put on computers. Therefore, practically anyone can know anything that is put on a computer. Although I agree with the principle behind what the noble Baroness has said, I do not think it is a viable proposition.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the amendment. I take the point which was made by my noble friend Lady Macleod. I have been out of social work too long to know whether or not all the information is put on

641
computers, but I rather think that it is not. For instance, it is the most natural thing in the world for the social services department to telephone the supplementary benefit department and for the supplementary benefit department to telephone the social services department.
I should also point out that in this country there are a number of co-ordinating committees within local authorities which discuss various different cases and how best they can be helped. There is the procedure by which case conferences are held. Sometimes by using these mechanisms of co-operation we have rather slipped into discussing people and their circumstances without their permission and without their knowledge.
Speaking for myself, I always found, as the noble Baroness has said, that it was important to ask the permission of anyone whose case was to be discussed whether it could be discussed and whether it could be discussed with the particular people concerned. In 99 per cent. of cases approval was given, and if approval was not given there was very often very good reason. However, it is most important that people do not feel that their cases and their personal circumstances are bandied about without their approval and without their permission.
I wonder whether your Lordships will forgive me for raising an additional matter. On Second Reading I took the opportunity to say that many of these problems would be overcome if the supplementary benefit offices were run in a different way. I paid tribute, as did my noble friend Lady Trumpington, to the staff in the supplementary benefit offices. I do not know how any of them manage to live from day to day, week to week and year to year doing what they have to do. I pay tribute to them.
However, I hope that when the Bill has completed its passage we may look at the way in which supplementary benefit offices are used and run. I submit that many of the problems about which we have had to talk today, particularly with regard to appeals and confidentiality, could be cut down to a considerable extent if the offices were run in a different way. I am sorry if I have overstepped the scope of the amendment. However, I support the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should like briefly to support the amendment. I do not believe that there is much between the Government and those who have put their name to the amendment. In view of what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has said as a result of her experience, it is very difficult to resist the amendment. I only say to the Government that I should have thought that it would be good public relations for the Government to accept this amendment, or something like it. If the social fund is to work and is to be run by social fund officers, it is of prime importance that the confidence of the public should be attracted, especially the confidence of those who will be on that level of support and who will be, as it were, the customers of the social fund officers. For that reason alone I think that the amendment is well worth considering.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: I am quite surprised at the words of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, because I
642
totally understand the concern which underlies the motives of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), in moving the amendment. However, the confidentiality of information given to officials in the Department of Health and Social Security is a matter which we take very seriously, and, so do the officials themselves. I do not think that it would be a PR jot)—as the noble Lord suggested—from their point of view. I hope that my reassurance about the seriousness with which those working in local offices view the matter of confidentiality will be sufficiently good for the public.
I very much welcomed the remarks of my noble friend Lady Faithfull who echoed what I said the other day about the excellence of those who work in those offices. The Committee may find it reassuring to know that social fund officers will be bound by the same rules which govern any other member of the DHSS about the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information. That information includes any which comes to their notice in the course of their official duty and would, therefore, embrace any details which may be furnished to the social fund officer by the person seeking help. If that information were disclosed it would constitute a breach of staff rules, which would make the offender liable to disciplinary procedures.
I hope that the Committee will be content with that assurance, because I must suggest that it would not be advisable to press the amendment. I do not think it necessary to write this provision into Part III of the Bill any more than it is written into Part II for the purposes of income support, or, indeed, in the supplementary benefit Act at present. Moreover, we should be very careful not to circumscribe too closely in legislation the social fund officer's ability to respond to difficult circumstances.
I very much share the concern that my noble friend Lady Faithfull expressed about ensuring that any discussion is handled with due sensitivity. We must, at all costs, avoid people feeling that their personal details are being bandied about. However, occasionally a social fund officer will be dealing with a particularly difficult case and will have to establish contact with someone in the social services department, a hospital or a health authority. I could give the committee an example, but time is against me. It may be necessary in such circumstances, in the best interests of the person or his family, to speak confidentially to those professionals. However, I expect that to be very much the exception and that it would occur only in extremely special cases.
Officers of the department are bound by the staff rules on official secrecy and the disclosure of information. Those rules draw attention to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, which covers the actions of all civil servants. In addition, the rules emphasise that information relating to a claimant for benefits, pensions, allowance, etc., is to be regarded as held strictly in confidence. A breach of staff rules is not to be taken lightly. Staff are warned that disciplinary action will be taken in cases of unauthorised disclosure. We think that the matter can be covered in staff instructions.
Having heard what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Lord Ennals: It will be for the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), to decide whether or not to press her amendment to a vote. However, I was very disappointed in the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. Certainly in my day—and I am certain that it applies now—the question of confidentiality was taken very seriously by the department. I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, that in my view—and the facts may prove me wrong—a computer is a safer measure of keeping information secret than a collection of papers in a file. I think effectively-run computers, with people not having natural access to them, are a much safer measure.
The noble Baroness said that it was not necessary to put this in because of the serious way in which the department took confidentiality and the Official Secrets Act, and that the social fund officers would undoubtedly do this. What she did not say in her answer was why it should not be put in. There are a number of reasons why it should be put in, even though the noble Baroness gives us an assurance that everything is right and that no one is going to pass on information. I am not casting any aspersions at all at those social fund officers who will be fulfilling their duty, but it is necessary to satisfy the applicants.
The people who will be worried about whether information they have given will be shared with someone else are the applicants. It may be that the applicants, unless they have an assurance—and they will have an assurance if it is written into the Bill—that information is not going to be disclosed, may be more reluctant to give information that they may be asked to give. Whereas if it is clearly known that there is no danger that that information will be disclosed, then they will feel satisfied and give such information as the social fund officer will need in order to make a fair and proper judgment.
I look at the wording.
"save that a social fund officer shall be under a duty not to disclose information relating to the personal circumstances of the applicant, other than to the applicant or his representative, without the prior consent of the applicant".
I cannot see what, in those words, the noble Baroness can disagree with.
If I may say so on a more general point—and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, took us slightly away from the central issue of the amendment—the purpose of a Committee stage is not for the Government automatically to defend everything that is in the Bill if the arguments go the other way, and yet the noble Baroness has resisted everything. I should have thought that this was in a sense completely inoffensive, utterly inexpensive, absolutely principled, and totally right. With all those considerations, and particularly bearing in mind the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, who said that it would be nice to give this and rather nice to make a gesture, I think it would be rather nice for the noble Baroness to make a gesture before the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), makes her decision.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: The noble Baroness referred especially to what I said about the public relations exercise. I have no wish to speak against the social fund officers or to cast any aspersions on their goodwill and intentions. What I wished to
644
convey—and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, did convey—was the public concern at the social fund in particular because of the element of discretion associated with it.
It is this element of discretion which makes the task of social fund officers that much more delicate than that of other officers of the department who now administer funds, which they have to do more or less by rule of thumb. It is this particularly delicate function that they are performing that requires that the public should have absolutely unmistakable confidence in them. For that reason, I believe that the argument I advanced has a special reference to this particular part of the Bill.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My own doubts about this amendment were rather brought to a focus by the talk of making a gesture. It might well be that a gesture of this sort would have a rather less favourable effect on the staff of supplementary benefit offices and so on who, if consulted, might ask, "Why is it necessary? What have we been doing wrong?" I doubt whether the effect on them would be as salubrious or as salutary as has been suggested.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked why this should not be accepted. There are two circumstances, neither very frequent, which would make for difficulty if this were enacted and put into the law. One is if investigation into the personal circumstances of an applicant were required for the purposes of a ministerial reply in this House or in another place if the case were raised, for example, by the local Member of Parliament of the person concerned. In those circumstances it would be necessary for the local officer to supply upwards the material required for briefing the Minister.
The other instance is of course if the personal circumstances of the applicant were relevant to the commission of a crime, and it became the duty, as I would see it, of the social fund officer to report the matter to the police. Both of those passings on of information would apparently be stopped if this were put into the Bill.
Baroness Phillips: May I take up the point that this would be implied to be some criticism of the social fund officer. If that were so. why was it necessary for us to have the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which wrote into law that certain facts could not be revealed. There has never been any evidence that the police, or the people concerned with handling these people, revealed any information, and yet we had an Act of Parliament which made it clear to everyone that these facts would not be revealed. I cannot see any objection to having this written into an Act of Parliament under similar circumstances.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the noble Baroness misunderstood the point that I was trying to make, and I am sure that it was my fault. What might be revealed in the personal circumstances of an applicant could be plans for the commission of a criminal offence. In an extreme case it might be people associated with terrorists in Ireland. All these things might be revealed. It would not be frequent, but it

645
would be quite wrong to say, and to enact by Act of Parliament, that that information should not be passed on without the consent of the person concerned, particularly if that consent in those circumstances would plainly not be given.
Baroness Trumpington: As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, confidentiality rules are exactly on the same basis now as when he was Secretary of State. Therefore he is really undermining his own case in pleading for something different. This is not a matter that is appropriate for main legislation. What matters is how we discharge our responsibilities. My assurance on the way we shall discharge this duty should be enough.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will know that we do not cover staff rules in main legislation, including, in relation to other sensitive matters, administration of attendance allowance, for instance. It does not make sense to separate out this element.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like first to thank all noble Lords who have supported this amendment, and indeed all noble Lords who have spoken for or against it. I am rather surprised that such a small, innocuous amendment should stir up such a lot of talk. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who from her great experience said what she said about asking permission of a person about their personal details being bandied about, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for his well-argued support.
I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, that I tried to explain that the social fund officer will have to delve deeply into the lives of these clients, and as my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton said I think they should have some protection. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is really talking about something quite different. When I talk about intimate personal details, I am talking much more about people's toilet arrangements, or their situation with their wives, more than whether they are planning to rob the Bank of England, which one probably could disclose.
I am glad to hear what the noble Baroness said about breaching the rules of confidentiality. But I am disappointed. I thought she would say it could be covered in the guidelines to Clause 3(10)) and this could be written into the guidelines. I am more worried about what she said about certain instances when it might be in the interests of the client—
Baroness Trumpington: Before the noble Baroness sits down—
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I am sitting down!
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Baroness must tell me! Perhaps I may give an example of what we are thinking about: it was given by an honourable friend in another place. A visiting officer may notice evidence of possible cruelty to a child and would probably refer the matter to the social services department so that it could determine whether the child was being maltreated. It is only within such narrow confines that staff would generally breach the strict rules on confidentiality. If the amendment were accepted it
646
would inhibit that useful and desirable practice of visiting officers and perhaps others in the department.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. This amendment may not be the answer, but I still think one could write into guidelines some way in which the social fund officer should behave. However I shall not divide the Committee. I shall read what she has said very carefully, go away and have a little think and I hope that perhaps the noble Baroness may have a little think as well. I reserve my right to come back at the next stage with something slightly different. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper: This may be a convenient moment to break our proceedings. In moving that the House resumes may I suggest that we do not reconvene the Committee stage before 8 o'clock? I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986
7.3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords. I beg to move that the Draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 laid before your Lordships' House on 7th May be approved. The order is being made under Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
The order provides the balance of the money necessary this financial year for the services provided by Northern Ireland departments and certain other public bodies. On 20th March this year your Lordships approved a total sum on account of £1.365 million. This evening I am seeking the balance of £1,840 million making up a total estimate for 1986–87 of £3,205 million. The Estimates Volume, which gives full details of projected expenditure, is available from the Printed Paper Office and your Lordships who have been studying these matters will have it before you.
In addition to the total I have just mentioned the draft order also appropriates the sum of £104,154.01. This sum is to cover excess expenditure in the 1984–85 financial year by the Department of Economic Development in Class II Vote 6, which we call "Administration and Miscellaneous Services". The Committee of Public Accounts has examined this excess vote and it raised no objection to it being voted. Details of the excess expenditure are set out in the "Statement of Excess " pamphlet which has also been placed in the Printed Paper Office, for your Lordship's convenience.
We see that recent developments in the general economic situation in Northern Ireland include elements of good and bad news. On the positive side the level of inflation, at around 3 per cent. per annum,

647
for the United Kingdom as a whole is at its lowest level for many years. In addition, interest rates continue to decline.
On the other hand, unemployment in the Province remains unacceptably high at approximately 21.5 per cent. This remains the worst figure for any region of the United Kingdom. While the news of the closure of the Rothmans factory at Carrickfergus was a further blow, the success of the Harland and Wolff-led consortium in winning the Ministry of Defence contract for the first auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel, was most welcome news. I shall say more about this when I come to the appropriate estimate.
Unemployment does however remain the paramount economic problem in Northern Ireland. The estimates before your Lordships reflect increases in public expenditure as part of Government's commitment both to the creation of viable jobs, and to the support of those who are unemployed. The Government continue to spend more per head of the population in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Public expenditure alone, however, is not necessarily the answer; rather, our aim is to create an environment in which private enterprise and initiative can thrive in order to encourage the creation of self-sustaining, long-term employment. Your Lordships will be aware that there have been encouraging results in this area from the small business development unit, what we call LEDU, in Northern Ireland.
In the order we find that Class I of the main estimates covers agriculture, which is particularly dear to my heart. Your Lordships are being asked to approve a total provision of some £75 million. This is made up of £16 million for agricultural education, research and development; some £12 million for direct agricultural support mainly through the continuation of the programme of special aids for Northern Ireland; £28 million for administration and miscellaneous services, which cover among other things advisory and veterinary services; £13 million for drainage, and finally £5 million for forestry. The year 1985 was—I put it tactfully—horrendous for our farming community and the Government's ability to retain Northern Ireland's programmes of special aids such as the milk consumer subsidy; the aid to pig and poultry meat plants and egg packing stations and the schemes for grassland improvement and beef development are therefore all the more important to this sector and the province itself.
The Northern Ireland Agricultural Development Programme, which is a European Community measure of great significance in improving the viability of certain farms, is presently under review. I hope that the European Commission will come forward shortly with a revised scheme.
Class II Votes 1 and 2 cover the estimates of the Industrial Development Board with a total provision of some £112 million. Of that amount some £25 million in Vote 1 is for industrial support and regeneration and £87 million in Vote 2 for general support to industry. Ninety five per cent. of this general support is earmarked for industrial development loans and grants to help firms expand, diversify or generally improve their competitiveness.
648
In Vote 3, miscellaneous support services, some £17 million of the £77.3 million is sought for the Local Enterprise Development Unit, to which I referred earlier—the very successful small business agency for Northern Ireland. LEDU has recently formulated its corporate plan for 1986–89, which aims to ensure the agency builds on its past success and offers an even greater comprehensive 'one stop shop' facility for the small business sector in Northern Ireland.
Noble Lords will also note the provision of £37 million for Belfast Shipbuilders, Harland and Wolff. None of this provision, of course, is for the AOR order which the company recently won from the MoD on a wholly unsubsidised basis. The provision, instead, reflects not only the seemingly unending difficulties of merchant shipbuilding worldwide but also the Government's recognition of the importance of the company to the Province's economy as the second largest manufacturing employer. I should like to congratulate Harland and Wolff for having won the MoD contract for the design and building of the first auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel. Your Lordships may be aware that Harland and Wolff, which was the lead firm in a consortium which includes Yarrow Shipbuilders and YARD, won the competition on commercial and technical merit. The company chairman, Mr. John Parker, is to be highly commended for his skill and determination in putting together the successful consortium bid, but of course he would be the first to admit that he is the leader of a large and very successful team. The company's move into unsubsidised naval work represents a real challenge to all at Harland and Wolff. It is now up to the workforce to justify the Government's confidence in placing this important contract in Belfast.
Moving to Vote 5 (functioning of the labour market), of the £96 million sought, £31 million is required for the youth training programme, £27 million for industrial training and some £34.5 million for employment services and community projects. As I stressed in my opening remarks, unemployment remains the paramount economic problem in the Province. Evidence of the Government's determination to tackle this issue is provided by some new measures designed to help the long-term unemployed. These will be introduced from 1st July 1986—and that is as near as tomorrow. In Northern Ireland there are some 60,000 people who have been unemployed for more than one year. Each one of these will be invited to attend an in-depth counselling interview.
These interviews will provide a positive contract with the local job market. They will give the unemployed an opportunity to consider the full range of the Government's employment services and also to discuss the scope for self-employment, voluntary work and other possibilities. One of the options on offer will be a place on a restart course. Many people who have been unemployed for a considerable time may have lost the will, the motivation or indeed the capacity to seek work. With this in mind, we are introducing a new one-week restart course. The aim of this course will be to help long-term unemployed people to assess their potential and aptitudes, to learn more about opportunities open to them and to review their basic working skills and their confidence, and to help them

649
With the techniques of finding and applying for a job. I hope that everyone invited for interview at the job market will make the most of the opportunities and that the measures will be welcomed as a very positive and genuine attempt to help those who have been out of work for a considerable period of time.
In the final vote in Class II, which is Vote 6, £26.8 million is sought to cover the running costs of the Department of Economic Development, including the trading standards service and grant to the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland.
The two votes in Class III provide for the Government's assistance to the gas industry and subsidies to the Northern Ireland electricity service. The total provision amounts to some £75 million, of which £30 million has been allocated to the gas industry and £45 million to the electricity subsidy. The latter figure was calculated prior to the recent substantial fall in oil prices. If current levels prevail through-out 1986–87 the requirement for subsidy would be significantly reduced, but, given the volatility of oil prices, we think it would have been premature to anticipate this outcome.
Work on the conversion of Kilroot power station from oil to dual coal/oil firing is now under way. The Northern Ireland electricty service is also continuing with the preliminary planning of a possible new power station required in the 1990s and fuelled by indigenous lignite. In parallel with this work, the Government are examining the scope for private sector involvement in the ownership and operation of a lignite power station. A decision on who will build any new power station will not be taken until later this year.
Class IV makes provision for the Province's roads and transport. Of the £123.7 million being appropriated for these services, £97.5 million has been allocated to the roads programme and the balance of £26.2 million to transport.
Class V covers housing; and this has benefited from year-on-year increases in public expenditure in recent years. This is one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and that is a point I shall be reiterating later. These increases have enabled much improvement to be made in the supply and condition of housing in Northern Ireland. The results of the 1984 Northern Ireland house condition survey, published during 1985, confirmed the progress made since 1979. This process has been facilitated by capital receipts from sales of houses to sitting tenants and indirectly by aid from the European Community under the urban renewal regulation. The increases in housing expenditure have, moreover, also involved deliberate decisions to divert public expenditure resources away from other programmes in Northern Ireland. A combination of factors has, however, affected the overall level of resources that will be available to the housing programme in this financial year.
First, the Housing Executive's capital receipts from its very successful house sales scheme have begun to decline. Total capital receipts in 1986–87 are now projected to be some £14 million below the level we previously estimated. Secondly, the additional resources provided from the European Community peaked in 1985–86 and will eventually disappear in 1988–89. Thirdly, pressures have built up in other
650
programmes which have been squeezed in recent years to support the housing programme: some of these pressures have now had to be accommodated. As a result, it has not been possible to maintain gross spending on housing at the levels of recent years. Total expenditure on housing should gross around £530 million, of which about £487 million will be spent by the Housing Executive. This figure will include over £64 million on new house building, £64 million on improving the public sector housing stock and over £58 million on maintenance. Provision is also sought for expenditure of £54 million on renovation grants for private dwellings.
The provision for housing associations will facilitate gross expenditure this year of some £41 million, of which £27 million has been allocated to general housing association work to fund the completion of work on the ground and an annual programme of about 900 new starts. The remaining £14 million will finance the co-ownership scheme, which continues to play a decisive role in encouraging new private housebuilding and facilitating those aspiring to owner-occupation. Two million pounds of this allocation has been earmarked for the pilot extension of the scheme into the second-hand housing market which was announced last summer following a review of the scheme. The provision being made for housing in Northern Ireland will enable a substantial programme to be mounted, and demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to tackling the housing problems, which we acknowledge still exist in Northern Ireland.
Clause VI, Vote 1, provides £78· million for the Province's water and sewerage services. Of that amount approximately £24·5 million will be on new works, and particular emphasis is being given to four large sewerage schemes, three in Belfast and one in North Antrim.
Expenditure on education, libraries and arts is contained in Class VIII of the Estimates and totals over £680 million. The bulk of this expenditure (£528 million) is detailed in Votes 1 and 4 and covers expenditure on, among other things, teachers' salaries and the grants to the education and library boards. The recurrent grants to the boards in Vote 4, out of which are met the running costs of controlled and maintained schools, represent an increase of over 4 per cent. compared to 1985–86.
In Vote 2, £115.6 million is sought for higher and further education and teacher training. This allows for the continued funding of the two Northern Ireland universities on the principle of parity with comparable institutions in Great Britain. The funds requested reflect the targeted improvements in cost-effectiveness which the Government believe are necessary, but specific additional resources are being made available to enhance provision in the science and technology field, particularly in relation to computing which is an area where both the local universities have considerable strengths.
The balance of education expenditure, £33.1 million, is sought under Vote 3 to maintain public support for the arts, museums, and youth and sports bodies at broadly the same level as in 1985–86 and to permit initiatives to enhance Northern Ireland's

651
cultural profile, particularly in the United States of America.
Class IX provides for health and personal social services, and a net total of £673 million is sought to maintain and further develop the existing services. The largest single element within this total is the revenue expenditure of the Health and Social Services Boards, estimated at £550 million. This represents an increase of 6 per cent. in cash terms over last year. From this provision the boards will be expected, through programmes of cost improvement and efficiency savings, to meet all pay and price increases and to make some urgent and essential improvements in services.
Under Class X a total of some £794 million is sought for social security expenditure. Vote 1 provides a supplement of £52.3 million from the Consolidated Fund to the National Insurance Fund. Votes 2 and 3 provide a total of £685 million to cover non-contributory and family benefits, comprising 53 per cent. of total social security benefit expenditure, the remainder of which is met from the National Insurance Fund. In Vote 4, £56.2 million is sought for departmental administration and miscellaneous services.
And, finally, in Class XI a total provision of some £31 million is sought, £26 million of which is for the Department of Finance and Personnel for the services it provides for all government departments. The balance is to meet the running costs of the Exchequer and Audit Department, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and Administration. This estimate was prepared before the Government took the decision to dissolve the Northern Ireland Assembly, which is why I mentioned that body in this group.
I have in these opening remarks tried to mention the main features of the Estimates covered by the draft order before us. I shall listen with great interest to the debate and try to respond to as many points as possible. I am very grateful to those of your Lordships who have been kind enough to warn me of the topics you intend to raise. I hope to deal with them satisfactorily later. With that, I commend the order to the House, My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th May be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, a third of the time allotted for the discussion of these three orders has already been taken up and I shall not follow the precedent established by the Minister of commenting in detail on all the votes in the appropriation order. Within a few minutes of starting his speech the Minister reminded the House once again that the Government continue to spend more government money per head of population in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Of course that is correct, but it begs the question: what should be Northern Ireland's fair share of expenditure in comparison with expenditure by the Government on other parts of the United Kingdom, bearing in mind that they all start from a different base level? I am sure that what the people would say, and say correctly, to
652
the Government is that the differential in expenditure for which the Government take credit comes nowhere near the greater differential in need.
Our task in replying to the Government's request for the supply of funds is made easier by the recent publication of the Northern Ireland Economic Council's assessment for the 12 months ahead and, regrettably, it is a sad assessment. The council is dismayed by the evidence of a worsening of the economic situation which it claims could lead to a spiral of further economic depression and to further violence. If that assessment is true, it far outweighs the good news which the Minister has brought to the House this evening. We wish to know whether the Government accept the assessment of the economic council or do they challenge it? At Question Time about six weeks ago it appeared to me that the Minister was inclined to dismiss the report far too easily, but it may well be that we took him by surprise on that occasion.
It is well worth reminding ourselves that the economic council calls not only for more vigorous action by the Government, but for the spending of money in a number of specific sectors. It presses for the restoration of money for the housing programme; and I shall return to that. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton will also refer to it. It calls for more expenditure on major works of school buildings, for the reduction of the cost of electricity in Northern Ireland to the United Kingdom average, for guarantees to inward investors that they will not lose out financially from unrest in the Province, and for the stepping up of marketing help for industry.
Listening to the noble Lord the Minister, it appeared to me that the Government have no intention of responding favourably to any of these recommendations, but if I am wrong, I shall be very happy to be corrected. It is worrying that, notwithstanding the efforts of the industrial development board, new inward investment is at a low level. Do the Government propose to review the inducements which the board can offer to inward investments, or does the board itself have plans of its own for making more effective its capacity to capture a greater share of overseas investment?
We welcome the proposed increased expenditure on industrial and employment training schemes, which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, this evening, because they offer at least the hope of employment one day in the distant future. But whether in work or out of work, people require homes. That is the basis of the good life. We on these Benches are highly critical that the income of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is to be so substantially reduced during the current year. Of course there has been progress on the housing front since 1979, and we acknowledge that progress. But the Government seem to have failed to appreciate that so much remains to be done in the housing sector. Housing unfitness is still twice as high in Northern Ireland as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. There are 50,000 homes unfit for human habitation in the Province and 100,000 in need of serious repair. Meanwhile, the waiting list continues to grow, and today there are 24,500 on it.

653
But possibly the most damaging indictment of the Government's decision to reduce the housing executive's budget by £44 million is that, having agreed in December 1983 to a new housing strategy, having agreed targets with the housing executive, and having encouraged the industry to gear up to meet the agreed strategy, the Government now slam on the brakes. It may well be, as the Minister has told the House, that the continuing expenditure is still substantial, but that is a relative term, and the fact remains that it is reduced expenditure. I think that my noble friend Lord Graham will reinforce the criticism which I have levelled at the Government's approach to the budget of the housing executive. There will be many repercussions, and it is estimated that at least 5,000 of the 24,000 jobs in the construction industry will now be put at risk. In a Province where unemployment is among the highest in Europe, what do the Government hope to achieve by this reduction? The Minister justified the reduction on the basis that the Government require the money to spend more on law and order and on economic development. There are grounds for believing that poor housing conditions can also contribute to the problems of law and order.
We say very simply that the Government's case for reducing the housing budget is not accepted on these Benches. We invite the Government to come clean and recognise that they have made a huge mistake in reducing the housing executive's budget.
Having given a high priority to the requirements of the housing executive, I must now move on. There is in the Province one industry which is as old as the Province itself. I refer to agriculture. Agriculture in Northern Ireland is the industry which still employs the largest number of people, accounting for 11 per cent. of the total working population. But there is also concern about this, the oldest of its industries. It is a concern which does not spring merely from the consequences of the bad weather of 1985, although obviously those consequences are very worrying, as the Minister has acknowledged this evening. No, the major anxiety arises not out of the misfortunes of a single year in the calendar but from the transformation of agricultural production from dearth to surplus.
Can the Minister give the House an indication of what he thinks will be the conditions five years from now under which the Ulster farmer will be tilling his soil? How much land now under cultivation in Northern Ireland will go out of cultivation in 10 years' time? How will the anticipated changes be handled without doing irreparable damage to the rural communities of Northern Ireland? The Minister referred in his speech to the research and development expenditure of the department. I was not able to follow him in detail, but I should like to know how many research projects financed by the department are to be decommissioned over the next few years. Meanwhile, are there any real prospects of the Government being able to negotiate with Brussels special terms for the Northern Ireland farmer? Or is it the case that Brussels may be willing but the Treasury is without the inclination to seek favourable terms for the industry?
I turn now to another ancient feature of the Ulster scene. I refer to the Irish language which is probably as old as Northern Ireland agriculture. Once again I have
654
looked in vain for a specific Irish language provision in the appropriations. Yet there is growing interest in parts of the Province in the renaissance of the Irish language, reflecting possibly the growing interest in the revival of the Gaelic language in Scotland and the Welsh language in Wales, and to which the Scottish Office and Welsh Office respectively are responding.
I read in the newspapers that two of the district councils are planning to appoint a full time officer to promote the Irish language and the culture associated with that language. If this expenditure is not provided for in the appropriations, presumably it will be at the expense of some other item of expenditure. It would be helpful if the Minister can indicate to the House what action the department proposes to take in support of the Irish language. For example, if the department were to spend £50 per annum per Irish language speaker, what would that expenditure amount to? But perhaps more important still, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government have a coherent policy to encourage the use of the Irish language? If they have such a policy, will he outline to the House the main features of that policy?
In our last appropriations debate I asked the Minister whether and to what extent the Province has been suffering from depopulation. Since then we have seen the valuable study on demographic trends in Northern Ireland published by the Northern Ireland Economic Council. It seemed to me that the signals from Northern Ireland are reassuring; but the council reminded us that the last full enumeration of the population was held 15 years ago and that we are today, in 1986, without an accurate account of the size of the Northern Ireland population. That is an interesting, if not an astounding, finding. The council asks a fair question whether the good administration of the Province can wait until 1992–93 when accurate population numbers are again available.
I have taken up the time allotted to me. Clearly, immense economic problems are still facing Northern Ireland and additional money could solve many of the problems. But the political problems facing the Province are of course of much greater magnitude and cannot be solved by the most generous of appropriations. Nevertheless an appropriation order could assist in creating improved conditions for political initiative. Measured against that background—and it is my judgment that that is the true background against which we must measure the appropriations order—the single most disappointing weakness of the order is probably its failure to provide an adequate budget for the housing executive.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for introducing this order. I propose to raise general points, and in the main leave detailed inquiries into the finances to others. To some extent they seem to be a recommendation for the medicine as before.
In recent days I have felt considerable gloom about affairs in Northern Ireland, where bigotry and a lack of desire for reconciliation seemed to be the dominating factors. But since then two events have taken place that can, I believe, cheer our hearts. First, there was the

655
brave visit to the Province by Prince Andrew and Miss Sarah Ferguson. The people there welcomed them warmly, and while it is true that they did not visit Republican areas, the obvious enthusiasm that was shown and the pleasure that was experienced were a refreshing contrast to the talk of possible civil war that has recently been in the air.
Secondly—and I believe very importantly—there has been the so-called "Belfast declaration" by an inter-Church group of Christian leaders in Northern Ireland, and many distinguished names are mentioned. There has been so much controversy between Catholics and Protestants that it is a very pleasant contrast to read such simple, direct and helpful words. It only seems surprising that so little notice of this publication has been taken on the mainland. Perhaps I may repeat some short extracts. The first is:
"We believe that for us obedience to Christ is more important than Nationalism of Unionism".
Secondly:
"While Unionists have a right to be British and Nationalists to be Irish, we reject the lie that justice can be achieved by the use of violence. We are interdependent and we must accommodate each other. Bigotry, discrimination, intimidation and distortion of the truth should have no place in our relationships".
Following these two comments, I should like to put three questions to the Minister. First, what steps are being taken to convince so-called "Unionists" that action by many of their supporters over recent weeks has done more to harm the Union than 17 years of IRA activity; and to make them realise that feeling in Great Britain over the treatment of some RUC officers, no more than doing their duty, has sickened public opinion over here? On the other hand, can the Minister say how many American Irish there are in the United States, and what steps are being taken to convince them that they are not living in the 1840s today, and that they are doing untold harm for the peace and happiness of Ireland as a whole by continuing support for the IRA?
Thirdly, what steps are being taken to convince the SDLP that it should have a more positive policy following the signing of the agreement and that its refusal to take part in the Assembly procedure played a significant part in the need for its, at least present, dissolution?
I refer now to an item under Class XI of the order before us, referring to the Assembly. How will the figure be adjusted to allow for the fact that it is desirable that there should be minimum difficulty in restarting the Assembly before too long if, as we hope, it can be reconstituted?
Finally, what support are the Government prepared to offer the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, which is the only non-sectarian party, which has been striving gallantly for reconciliation, and which has been subjected to much criticism and contempt? I ask also in what way we on the mainland, and particularly in Westminster, can get across that we respect the position of the many decent people in the Province and admire the courage of those leaders genuinely seeking a better future?
656
I hope that the message will filter quietly through that we applaud the following further statement from the declaration:
"It is also our responsibility to recognise that such injustices as are now experienced by one or other communities in Northern Ireland do not warrant any attempt by either to make government unworkable".
They continue:
"We declare that it is the responsibility of every Christian to work for just structures in society and to seek to rectify unjust acts of any kind on the part of government or society".
Together with good wishes from Great Britain must go the clear message that the future of Northern Ireland is in the hands of its own people. Great courage and unity of purpose will be necessary, and we shall be powerless to stop the people of Ulster from suffering severely if the thugs and hoodlums are not checked. I believe that both the opportunity and the need are great.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate but I have had second thoughts. However, I intend to be brief. First, I join in welcoming the matters raised by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. Also, I take this opportunity of thanking the Minister for his courtesy in writing to me some time ago about this appropriation order. He has kept me in touch, as he usually does, with the general tone and happenings of what is taking place in relation to finance and supply.
I have several times before made my views known about the ineffectiveness of the procedural arrangements, and about the rubber stamp way in which appropriation debates concerning Northern Ireland are undertaken. I make it clear that that is in no way the fault of the noble Lord the Minister or of our Front Bench spokesman, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. Indeed, I feel sure that my noble friend Lord Fitt would readily join me in thanking the noble Lord the Minister, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and others who have continually taken a concerned, compassionate and constructive interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland.
My main reason in speaking this evening is that this could be the last occasion on which this House will be invited to consider the present procedural arrangements for dealing with the important matters of finance and supply in Northern Ireland. I understand that there could be consultations and discussions to deal with the newly-devised way in which administrative and parliamentary matters concerning Northern Ireland will be dealt with.
I hope that whatever may emerge in the future, the constructive and responsible voice of the elected Northern Ireland representatives will soon be heard in Westminster, taking its rightful and full part in the parliamentary affairs of the United Kingdom, in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Blease I had not intended to take any part in this debate, but I shall make what will possibly be the briefest intervention I have ever made in speaking to a an appropriation order.

657
The events of last week and of the week before in Northern Ireland, and in the South last week, do not give any grounds for great optimism. The fact that this appropriation order did not receive the attention it should have received from the elected representatives in another place creates an atmosphere that Northern Ireland could very well do without. However, I wish to ask the Minister a few questions.
The Minister said that of the 125,000 or 130,000 unemployed people in Northern Ireland, 60,000 of them have been unemployed for more than one year. I know from experience that that is the understatement of the year. Of that total of 60,000 people, many thousands have been unemployed for five, 10, 15 or 20 years. The Minister said that the hopes of those people taking up employment will be assessed. How long will it take for that assessment to be made? How many extra people will be employed to carry out that assessment?
I do not believe it would be any exaggeration to say that in the case of people who have been unemployed for five, 10, 15 or 20 years, it will be very difficult to place them in any type of work. When the Labour Government left office in 1979, there were 61,000 people unemployed. Now there are 125,000 or 130,000 unemployed. It will be no easy task to rehabilitate those people and to find them employment.
Yesterday morning, the Bishop of Down and Connor, Dr. Cahal Daly, who I believe is a very eminent spokesman in the ecclesiastical field, was speaking in St. Peter's Church, which is now to be a mini-cathedral. He made an impassioned plea to the Government to consider very seriously the total and absolute demolition of the Divis Flats. The Government must recognise that they can no longer carry out minor repairs in an attempt to rehabilitate those flats. The Divis Flats are in my old constituency as a former Member of another place. In the atmosphere that was then prevailing, I remember well that the people in that area, who were being moved under slum clearance programmes, were very happy to take up residence in the whole Divis complex rather than be shifted away from the particular district in which they were born and bred.
In the years that have elapsed since then, it has been proved conclusively that the Divis Flats complex is a total and absolute disaster, as has been the case in many other major cities throughout the United Kingdom. The appeal made yesterday by Bishop Cahal Daly for the Government to consider very seriously the total demolition of the Divis Flats should be heeded, because the longer they exist the more the concern that will be created in that area.
My penultimate question concerns the expenditure on hospitals in Northern Ireland. I have had many representations made to me about Cushendall cottage hospital. It appears that it is the Government's intention to close that little hospital. That hospital has existed for many years in the Glens of Antrim, which is an area that can be subjected to extremes of weather. There have been times during hard winters when it has been impossible for weeks on end to negotiate the
658
roads out of that hospital. It has been very necessary to help that little hospital, situated as it is in Cushendall. The Minister may say that the new tower block in Belfast will be capable of looking after the needs of all the people of Antrim, Down and Belfast, but the Cushendall hospital has served its little community very well for a number of years. There would be great concern if the Government continued with their proposal to close it down.
Finally, I refer to the great deal of trumpeting and publicity—in which I have not had a great deal of faith—concerning the expected American financial contribution to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. First, we heard that it was going to be millions upon millions of dollars, and then over a period of weeks it was drastically cut down until the final figure was 250 million dollars over a period of five years—50 million dollars a year.
Can the Minister tell the House whether there is any sign that the money is forthcoming and will be made available in Northern Ireland, and where it is to be spent? We understand that representations have been made for it to be spent in the rural areas. Well, there is a great deal of poverty in the City of Derry and in Belfast, outside the poverty which exists in the rural areas. If the Americans are going to keep lending their support to the Anglo-Irish Agreement—I will not go into that in any great detail as it is something on which I have considerable doubts—that money which it is claimed is to be in support of the Anglo-Irish Agreement should be made readily available at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as always, we are very grateful for the close attention paid by all your Lordships to my impassioned remarks at the start of this debate. We have bi-annual or perhaps tri-annual debates on the Estimates for Northern Ireland, and it provides us with an opportunity to discuss any major points of concern in the Province as well as many others, which I shall come to later, including the Cushendall cottage hospital. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, takes on board that perhaps he, too, has been snowed-up there in winter, but we shall possibly hear about that another day.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for informing me of some of the topics that he intended to raise. I hope to be able to give some replies this evening. The noble Lord commenced by referring to the gloomy prospects in the latest Northern Ireland Economic Council report. There is, of course, more than one dimension to economic progress, and as I stressed in my opening remarks there are one or two encouraging signs. Output in manufacturing has grown in the range of 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. per annum in the four years since 1981.
Secondly, the level of employment has grown—I admit, slowly—since 1983, but I stressed, and I continue to do so, that unemployment remains unacceptably high. Most of the growth of unemployment occurred during the period 1979–82, but since then there has been a period of relative stability of around 20 per cent. (I think it is 21.5 per

659
cent.) although it is still too high. However, I add one small detail. The prospects for reducing this figure are not altogether encouraging because the demographic trends point to a rising labour force. However, as I shall be able to stress later, unemployment in Northern Ireland remains a top priority and is reflected by the high levels of spending per head on the social and economic programmes which appear in the Estimates before us this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred—not in great detail, but with considerable vigour and strength, which is quite right—to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the restoration of the housing programme and the budget. The noble Lord spoke about the letter from Sir Charles Carter, to which he rightly referred in Question Time. I said then that I hoped to be able to give some reply this evening. One of the seven points covered in that letter accompanying the latest Northern Ireland Economic Council report dealt with the levels of new housebuilding and renovation which, of course, are determined primarily by the level of public expenditure which we allocate to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I covered this, but only generally, in my opening remarks, and I dwelt possibly at some length on the factors which affect the levels of resources that we have in Northern Ireland and which we allocated to the Housing Executive in previous years and this year.
I hope that the noble Lord will find from my earlier remarks the reassurance that housing is still a high priority programme and that our commitment to it remains firm. However, I add this point. Public expenditure allocation to the housing programme this year is some £350 million, which exceeds, in real terms, the allocation in any year before 1984–85. The Government recognise the severity of the economic and other problems which face the Province. I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and to the noble Lords, Lord Fitt, Lord Blease and Lord Hampton, the size and the balance of the Northern Ireland public expenditure programme. This is formulated, and we take account of the particular needs of the Province.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also referred to electricity tariffs, and this was one of the other points covered in Sir Charles Carter's letter accompanying the NIEC report. I think that Sir Charles suggested that the cost of electricity should be linked to the UK average rather than the UK highest regional level, which is the current scale. Perhaps the noble Lord and other noble Lords will accept that the linkage to the highest charge in England and Wales has already provided significant benefits to the consumers of electricity in the Province, but if we brought that subsidy to the average rather than the highest level in the UK that would mean the taxpayer supporting the electricity charges for the Province at a level below that applicable in many parts of England and Wales. I take that, but I certainly stress the earlier point that we accord a very high priority to industry in the Province; but this would be squeezing the subsidy just a little too high.
The noble Lord also referred to inward investments. The Northern Ireland Economic Council suggested
660
the development of effective insurance guarantees to inward investors. The letter and the report did not necessarily help us with what the insurance guarantee would be. Indeed, nor were we entirely clear on how the scheme could work effectively. It would be difficult to identify the extent by which the performance of a company would be affected by local unrest as opposed to normal trading conditions and commerce in the Province. That would need to be a subjective view. However we have asked the NIEC staff to outline a proposal in detail so that we consider this further.
The noble Lord also asked about inducements to inward investors. The financial incentives available to the IDB to help attract inward investment are kept under constant review and have very close scrutiny by my honourable friend in another place. The Government recognise the need to ensure that these incentives remain competitive and attractive. To take one example, the corporation tax relief grant has not necessarily proved to be affective, and we are examining it to see whether its attractiveness can be improved.
The noble Lord also put three questions on a subject which is particularly dear to my heart—agriculture. If we take the future of farming in the Province over the next five years, it would be unrealistic and dishonest to predict a trouble-free future. That applies to farmers, like myself, in Scotland, farmers in England and Wales, and, I believe your Lordships will accept, farmers throughout the Community. Your Lordships will be well aware of the difficulties of excess production throughout Europe and of changing consumer demands. The Ulster farmer accepts that he cannot be immune from these changes. In referring to farmers, I mean the whole agricultural industry in Ulster, which goes beyond the percentage of the population mentioned by the noble Lord of, I believe, just under a further 3 per cent. involved in food processing. I take this opportunity of saying how efficient they are, too. I have been at close quarters with them in export markets and they are second to none in food production as well as being the top quality there is in Northern Ireland. I assure the noble Lord that the Government continue to recognise the prime importance of agriculture to Northern Ireland, and we remain committed to the maintenance of a prosperous and efficient industry.
The noble Lord asked about research and development in connection with agriculture. It is part of the overall United Kingdom R & D effort, but it is weighted particularly toward the needs of Northern Ireland industry. This is of necessity because of the climate, heavily livestock-oriented, but I think that the question of adequate need in this particular area is somewhat difficult to quantify.
I stress to the noble Lord that the estimates that we are debating include over £7½ million for activities in research and development, which maintains the level of the previous year, and certainly we have no plans to reduce it. I am afraid that I am not able to enter into particular details. Though I am aware of some details that have come across my desk, I have not necessarily costed them immediately, and it is a question of balancing, as the noble Lord will, I hope, accept.

661
So far as concerns special treatment from the EC for Northern Ireland producers, we already receive special treatment from the European Community in a number of areas. In my opening remarks I suggested that we are waiting for the Commission to come forward with a revised agricultural development programme which replaces the measure which has been of considerable benefit to producers in Northern Ireland's less favoured areas over the last five years. I assure your Lordships that we are making every effort to bring to the notice of the commission the problems that affect us in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord raised the question of the Irish language. We fully recognise the importance of the Irish language and culture in education and related activities in Northern Ireland. The curriculum in schools is not dictated or indeed controlled by the Government or the Department of Education in Northern Ireland, but is a matter for the school authorities and for head teachers. I understand that Irish is studied by over 20,000 pupils in secondary schools in Northern Ireland. In specific instances the right of parents to have their children educated through the medium of the Irish language has been recognised by the department. The noble Lord asked for a simple arithmetical term. I am not too sure about the number of teachers or other persons who might be in further education or vocational training and who also wish to learn Irish, but certainly there are 20,000 pupils in Northern Ireland's secondary schools who are studying Irish, and that gives some idea of the scale of the commitment that we have to the Irish language.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, was kind and warned me of various points that he would be raising. Indeed, there are four serious points that he brought forward. He asked me how we would convince the Unionists that many of their actions have not helped their image on this side of the water. I certainly accept his point and agree with him about the great harm that is done to the image of Northern Ireland both here and abroad by violence and intimidation. What has worried us very much is violence toward the police. The people of Northern Ireland, indeed, all of us everywhere in the United Kingdom, have good cause to be very proud of the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, both the reserves and those who serve full time. They have proved time and again to be fair and impartial upholders of the law, but as we have seen during the last few months, some of the so-called Unionists and Loyalists have turned on the brave police officers to whom we all owe so much. Police officers have been cold shouldered by their communities and regrettably have been physically attacked in their homes.
We are hopeful that this particular problem is now abating. The period from March to the middle of May saw over 380 attacks on police officers in their homes and on their persons, but since 21st May I understand that none has been recorded. I hope that this signifies a change of heart among the less responsible elements of the Unionist population and is indeed a recognition that they cannot enforce their will by violence.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, also asked me about Americans who claim Irish ancestry. I am given to understand that there are up to 40 million persons
662
in the population of the United States who claim Irish ancestry, but I stress that the great majority of them are horrified by violence, even though they may support Irish unity. We are giving the dissemination of accurate information about Northern Ireland a very high priority. Very considerable efforts are directed toward communicating the facts about Northern Ireland abroad, particularly in the United States, which is the primary focus for IRA propaganda and fund raising. We work closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our embassy in Washing-ton and with other diplomatic posts in the United States and elsewhere. I stress to your Lordships that my right honourable and honourable colleagues make regular visits to the United States—and they have made visits elsewhere in recent months—during which they back up particular efforts with political meetings and interviews in the media.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State returned last month from a short trip to Washington and New York and I think that your Lordships will be aware of the favourable publicity that was generated by his visit there and to other parts of the United States. My right honourable and honourable colleagues and officials take every opportunity of visits by distinguished Americans to brief them fairly and impartially, we hope, on the problems of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, raised one more query about convincing the SDLP that they should have a more positive policy following the signing of the agreement. We understand that the leader of the SDLP, the honourable Member for Foyle, reiterated in another place on 19th June the willingness of the SDLP to sit down and discuss devolution without preconditions. We believe that dialogue between parties, and, above all, between parties and government, is the only possible way forward for democratic life in Northern Ireland.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. I also want to pay a very full tribute to the role which the Alliance Party played in the work of the former Northern Ireland Assembly. In passing I shall reiterate the tribute that I paid to the noble Lord. Lord Dunleath—who warned me that sadly he would not be able to be with us tonight—for the part he has played both in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in your Lordships' House. I think that certainly in your Lordships' House he personifies the strength of the Alliance Party. Many of the reports of the Assembly reflected the very hard work put in by Members of the Alliance Party and of course the other parties in ensuring that local views and interests were fully taken into account by the Government. I was forced, indeed I was happy, to take into account the strong views put by the Assembly's Agriculture Committee. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, used to come and put his views forcefully and succinctly. I pay tribute to the role that the Alliance Party has played throughout as a force for reason and moderation in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked how we here on the mainland, particularly in your Lordships' House and in another place, could support the many decent people in Northern Ireland who want to see a

663
better future. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, my honourable colleagues and I make clear on every single occasion our admiration and respect for the resilience that has been shown (and continues to be shown) by everyone in Northern Ireland through the long years of terrorism and trouble. I think that those sentiments of admiration and respect are shared not only by your Lordships but, above all, by the majority of people in Great Britain.
Of course, your Lordships will be aware that sympathy and verbal support are simply not enough. We have tried to foster internal political progress, but sadly our efforts have met with fairly limited success. It is against that background that the Government reached an agreement with the Government of the Republic which we believe can help to relieve some of the pressures which are being faced in Northern Ireland. I think that the best way in which we in your Lordships' House can show our respect and concern for the law-abiding people in Northern Ireland is to reassure them about the effects of the agreement that we signed.
First of all, it does not give the Republic joint authority in the running of Northern Ireland. We retain full power to make decisions. Nor does it set us on the road to a united Ireland. If the majority eventually decide that it wants a united Ireland, the Government will respect its wish, but we know that that decision is not likely to be taken for many years, if indeed ever. I stress that so long as a majority of the people of Northern Ireland wants the country to remain part of the United Kingdom, the Government are committed to the union.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, also asked about the Assembly. I do not think we can speculate on the use that would be made of any savings that might arise, but I would assure the noble Lord that certainly money will be available should a new Assembly be possible. I hope that my reply has covered all the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hampton.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, quite rightly raised the question of how we are dealing with Northern Ireland affairs this evening. I am afraid that I have to stress, as always, that this is a matter for the usual channels, but certainly I feel constrained, just as he does, in trying to fit what is a very important debate into the limits of your Lordships' time. But certainly I shall push on, and I hope that he will accept this. I stress the noble Lord's support and his plea for the democratic representatives in another place to carry out the work for which we all understand that they were elected. Only good can come from that.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, raised four points. One concerned unemployment. I have stressed that we consider it to be a serious problem; above all that applies to long-term unemployment. But there are job opportunities for everybody and, above all, for the long-term unemployed. Last year over 31,000 jobs were filled and 16,000 people were placed in various types of training. I stressed earlier counselling for the long-term unemployed, and those are the persons to whom the noble Lord referred. I hope that our
664
renewed efforts will be recognised by the noble Lord and accepted by what we hope will be the many beneficiaries of the process. That is one of the range of services which we hope will be available through the job market and counselling programme. It is designed to renew contact for those who may have lost touch with what is available. As I stressed in my opening remarks, it is above all to foster once again the confidence of those people that they have qualities that are sought after. That will be the basis of our job counselling.
The noble Lord raised the question of United States funds. As he will know, nothing is yet decided. Fascinating figures are being bandied around, but we shall have to wait until the Senate finally concludes its deliberations. I shall have to write to the noble Lord on the question of the Divis Flats and the Cushendall Cottage Hospital. I hope that he has not been snowed in there too often.
I apologise for the rush. I hope that I have covered most of the points raised in this important debate. If I have missed anything, I shall write to noble Lords. I am grateful to noble Lords who have written to me. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1986
8.12 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th May be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. The draft order has two main purposes: first, it provides a scheme of assistance for eligible owners of certain defective dwellings sold by the public sector; secondly, it enhances the rights of public sector tenants by extending the right-to-buy provisions of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 for secure tenants of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and by providing new statutory rights for secure tenants of the housing executive and registered housing associations. The draft order has been the subject of wide ranging consultation with interested bodies in Northern Ireland, including the Northern Ireland Assembly and its environment committee, and has also been debated recently in another place.
Part II of the draft order provides a statutory scheme of assistance for eligible owners of certain defective dwellings sold by the public sector which are designated as defective by reason of their design or construction and which, as a result of those defects having become generally known, have been substan-tially reduced in value. The assistance is to be provided by the housing executive to eligible owners of designated defective dwellings in the form of a reinstatement grant at a rate of 90 per cent. of the cost of the reinstatement works (subject to an expenditure limit) or, in certain circumstances if the owner wishes, by repurchase of the dwelling at a price of 95 per cent. of the defect-free value.
These provisions flow from the discovery of defects in a wide range of prefabricated reinforced concrete or PRC dwellings built before about 1960. A scheme of

665
assistance for people who had unwittingly purchased such dwellings from the public sector in Great Britain was introduced in the Housing Defects Act 1984.
In Northern Ireland we have only the Orlit type of dwelling in the list of 28 or so defective types of PRC dwelling so far designated in Great Britain. The housing executive had about 3,000 Orlit dwellings in its stock and sold about 200 of them before the defects became known. Initially, therefore, the scheme of assistance is likely to apply only to those 200 or so dwellings.
As many noble Lords will be aware, the defect in PRC dwellings is essentially one of corrosion of the reinforcing bars in the structural concrete components. That process is a gradual one and technical investigations carried out by the housing executive have confirmed that no dangerous situations currently exist. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that that is at least one benefit. Many of these dwellings will provide perfectly good housing for a long time to come. Even those Orlit properties in which the corrosion is most advanced have a serviceable life of between five and 10 years without the need for remedial action, while others have a serviceable life of up to 30 years.
Part III, Chapter I, of the draft order deals with the right of housing executive tenants to buy their dwellings. It makes two important extensions to the scheme provided in the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983. First, under Article 22 and Schedule 4 secure tenants will have the right to buy their homes where the executive owns only on leasehold interest. This will ensure that the right-to-buy will apply equally to all secure tenants. Noble Lords may recall that these provisions fulfil the commitment given by the Government in their response to the report of the Assembly on the 1983 order that the extension of the right-to-buy to leasehold interests would be introduced in legislation at the earliest opportunity. The second extension to the right-to-buy scheme is that for the first time tenants who cannot afford to purchase outright will be able to buy their homes on an equity-sharing basis.
The remaining provisions of Part III, Chapter I, amend the existing right-to-buy provisions of the 1983 order in ways that further help tenants who wish to become home owners to realise their ambition. The minimum tenancy period before entitlement to discount arises is reduced from three years to two years and the maximum discount is increased from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. In addition, the range of public sector tenancies which can be taken into account for qualification and discount is extended.
However, we are also aware that there are those tenants who, for whatever reason, do not wish to become home owners, and it has always been our policy that such people should as far as possible be given the same freedoms and responsibilities as owner-occupiers to exercise their own personal preferences in the use of their homes. That is why in the 1983 order we provided a new framework of statutory rights for public sector tenants—the Tenants' Charter. The provisions in Part III, Chapter II, of the draft order reinforce this policy. In particular, secure tenants of the housing executive and registered housing
666
associations are given two important new rights; the right to exchange dwelling-houses and the right to carry out repairs.
The remaining provisions of Part III, Chapter II, are minor in nature. Part IV of the draft order contains a number of miscellaneous provisions.
The draft order is important to both the private and public sectors in Northern Ireland. It provides assistance for certain private owners who, through no fault of their own, purchased defective dwellings sold by the public sector. It ensures that housing executive tenants will continue to be able to become the owners of their own homes on favourable terms. It also extends the freedom of public sector tenants to enjoy their homes in a way best suited to their requirements. I commend the order to your Lordships, and beg to move that it be now approved.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th May be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we should be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves for being sandwiched in the middle of a most important Bill which is the main business of the day and having to try to discharge our responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland in such a shabby fashion. It is no fault of the Minister, but in the debate on the first order 40 minutes were taken up by the Minister, 20 minutes in the introduction and 20 minutes in reply. Other noble Lords took only 40 minutes in order to curtail the debate out of respect for the Minister and for other colleagues.
This side of the House may have failed to convince the business managers that Northern Ireland business deserves more time, but the biggest failure must be that of the Minister. I assume that he has impressed upon his colleagues that it is a disgrace that the affairs of Northern Ireland are treated in such a shabby fashion. I hope that when he has an opportunity of speaking to the Government Chief Whip and others he will tell them that although this evening's assembly is only small there might have been other Members present at prime time who want to demonstrate to the people of Northern Ireland that their affairs deserve a much higher priority. Sadly, our colleagues are waiting to continue the following business, and they must be irritated, frustrated and annoyed. That is sad and bad. I hope that the Minister will take on board how angry I am and how disappointed others outside the House must be.
The Minister will remember that before the debate I asked him to confirm that in Northern Ireland the rights, benefits and responsibilities of mainland legislation which has already been enacted are being visited upon the Northern Ireland scene.
I happen to have played a part in the Housing Defects Bill 1984 and I am therefore fairly familiar with the main arguments. The great problem with which we have to grapple is that on the mainland 16,000 people are affected by the designated categories. Can the Minister tell us how many people will be affected if this order goes through? We were trying to get those 16,000 people out of the difficulties

667
into which the Government had helped them by encouraging them with the right-to-buy scheme to buy houses that turned out to be pigs in pokes. While we were trying to assist them, 160,000 people were in comparable houses owned by councils. The Government did not bat an eyelid about them or where the councils would obtain the money to put right those houses.
Billions and billions of pounds are needed to put houses right, in general. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has talked about the Divis Flats. Those people are as much entitled to a decent place to live as those who will benefit from this order. They have had to whistle. They will have to have them put right out of the housing executive's depressed housing allocation. However, good luck to the people we are dealing with. The Government believe that having encouraged them to buy houses which have a major defect they should have that put right.
Will the noble Lord explain to the House what is special about the council tenant who has bought his house and who then finds that that house must be repurchased or substantially underpinned? Why do the Government believe that in order to induce council tenants to buy they must say to them that they need pay only 40 per cent. of the value? If it is such a good thing to purchase a council house, and it is, why does one need to say that a house worth £30,000 can be bought for £12,000? What other sector of the community is given such largesse? It is not the tenant of a private house. There is no legislation which says that the tenant of a private landlord who wants to buy his house will be encouraged by the Government to buy it by being given a 60 per cent. discount.
The Government believe that the council tenant should have the right to buy, which is right. The original argument was that the tenant had lived in it, paid all the rent and was entitled to be able to buy it. The Government will know from the experience of the past five years that that has been a substantial free gift. Having received that capital sum, people are selling their houses and moving elsewhere. There are some questions there for the Government to answer.
We know the dreadful housing situation in Northern Ireland. The record of this and other governments is good. There has been a decline in the percentage of unfit houses. At one time the figure was 25 per cent. It is now down to 10 per cent. Of all Northern Ireland housing, 10 per cent. is unfit. That is still twice the mainland level. The Belfast Telegraph of last Friday stated:
"Why the outlook is bleak for those who live in Ulster's unfit houses".
Whatever the Government say that they are doing, which I do not deny, for the vast majority of people who live in private and council rented accommodation, the prospect is bleak. Can the Government tell us how they can square that with the housing strategy that the former Secretary of State, Mr. Jim Prior, announced in December 1983? He told the people of Northern Ireland with a great deal of enthusiasm, "What we have is a programme to improve private and public housing." My information is that many
668
businessmen in Northern Ireland are in despair because they assumed that they would receive money from the Government in grants and aid. Individuals bought houses on the premise that they would receive improvement grants, but those have now dried up. As my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies has pointed out, in the past six months 5,000 more construction workers have been put on the dole. The Government can wring their hands and say, "We have a plan. We are doing our best. It is better than it was." I believe the Government's housing record is an absolute disgrace. The Government have let down a great many people in Northern Ireland and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, speaks with experience, but I shall be briefer for obvious reasons. This is a long and technical order. The idea and value of providing financial assistance to those who have brought property and then found it to be defective can hardy be challenged. I should have thought that that would have been accepted as fair play. I ask the Minister just one question. The implication here is that bad workmanship is not uncommon. Is that, regrettably, the true position?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, if I may, I shall reply succinctly and swiftly to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and I commend him upon a passionate speech on this order. Even he has stressed that it brings Northern Ireland into line with what we hope will be the case in the United Kingdom. I stress to the noble Lord that such legislation is a priority. We want to bring in legislation to ensure that we are in step with the rest of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord asked how many people were involved. In my opening remarks I said that initially we think there will be about 200. About 3,000 Orlit houses have these defects, which I did not go into too technically. I did not think that your Lordships would wish me to. As I understand it, there is some corrosion of the reinforced concrete beams. Only 200 of those Orlit houses were sold to tenants, and they will be covered by this order.
As for the noble Lord's questions about council tenants and discounts, I mentioned 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. That is in step with legislation for Great Britain which we have discussed for many years. I do not think that I can add anything new (or say anything different) to the discussions that we have had over years in your Lordships' House, in another place and outside.
I stress that we are not ashamed of what we have done. I believe that the noble Lord asked about unfit housing and I shall write to him on that point. I do not think that we have any reason to be ashamed of our record, as I stressed in my opening remarks and my remarks in the previous debate.
I take on board the noble Lord's opening remarks. This is a matter for the usual channels. I have done my best, but if I am at fault, I apologise to your Lordships. I am as frustrated as the noble Lord in trying to get through this business. I do so with the courtesy due to everyone in your Lordships' House.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned that there was one of 28 categories—the Orlit house—that had been built in Northern Ireland. Can he tell me whether in actual fact there are any other than Orlit houses in Northern Ireland? Bearing in mind that the designation of those entitled to the grant is always under review, there is great pressure. Everyone who bought a house that has turned out to be defective is putting the Government under pressure to include that housing in the list for treatment. I should be grateful if he could write to me.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I believe I shall not necessarily need to do that. I take the noble Lord's point but I do stress that we have only the Orlit type of dwelling in the list of 28 or so defective types of PRC dwelling so far designated in Great Britain. I hope the noble Lord accepts that. If there is any further technicality I shall write to him, I hope more fully than I have been able to speak tonight. I hope that I have covered the point.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, but I am afraid that I have forgotten precisely what his point was, Will he raise it again?
Lord Hampton: My Lords, my point was that the implication seems to be that bad workmanship is not uncommon.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I hope that bad workman-ship is uncommon but where we find it I think that it will be covered by the 28 different types of PRC defects which we attempt to cover with this particular order. I take the point concerning the question of bad workmanship but perhaps that can be dealt with another day. If your Lordships will allow me, I beg to commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Need (Northern Ireland) Order 1986
8.32 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th May be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the provisions of this order generally provide a better and more comprehensive legislative framework for the existing Urban Development Grant and Environmental Improvement Schemes in Northern Ireland. The order is geared particularly to helping tackle some of the problems associated with areas of social need. It has three main purposes. The first is to extend the scope and forms of assistance which the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) may make available under the Urban Development Grant Scheme. The second purpose is to enable the department financially to assist schemes for the improvement of the environment under the Environmental Improvement Scheme. The third purpose is to give the department power itself to undertake schemes for the improvement of the environment under the Environ-mental Improvement Scheme.
The Urban Development Grant Scheme has been operating very successfully in Belfast and Londonderry since 1983. The purpose of the grant is generally to assist economic development and relieve social need by stimulating investment and revitalising run-down areas. The present statutory base for both the Urban Development Grant and Environmental Improvement Schemes is the Social Need (Grants) Act (NI) 1970. However, the 1970 Act has always been recognised as a stopgap measure. It was originally enacted to enable the former Ministry of Community Relations to grant-aid community centre provision and has proved inadequate as a means of tackling urban development.
The 1970 Act, for example, restricts assistance to grant aid; in certain instances, however, private sector projects ought to be triggered by other forms of assistance—for example, a loan or rent guarantee. Nor is there power under the Act to pay grants in advance of expenditure being incurred towards the establish-ment costs of voluntary environmental groups. While the Act permits the Department to grant aid environ-mental improvement works, it does not permit the department to itself undertake such works. The 1970 Act also lacks adequate powers to impose and enforce conditions attaching to offers of financial assistance. The proposed order therefore seeks to tackle these deficiencies and thereby place Northern Ireland on a similar footing to Great Britain.
I had intended to deal with some of the more detailed provisions of the order but perhaps it is the will of your Lordships that I should simply mention that Article 3 also gives the department powers to contribute to the advance funding of projects for any body or any individual undertaking certain categories of project which is of benefit to a district. Article 4 provides safeguards whereby the department can impose conditions in offers of assistance and may enforce and police such conditions. Articles 5, 6 and 7 I think are very detailed and if the noble Lord wishes to raise them I can certainly cover them.
Finally, my Lords, there are inevitably some differences arising from different structures of central and local government but we believe that the provisions of the order will generally provide Northern Ireland with a similar framework for tackling problems associated with areas of social need to that already available in Great Britain. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th May be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I will be brief because this is a short order of only seven articles. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining its background and we hope that it will produce impressive results. However, I should like to suggest that there could be difficulties in interpreting two or three of the clauses.
The first problem is that the term "social need" is not defined. It is a wide expression and it does play a key role in this order. Unless there is evidence of social need, whatever that means, then the power to provide financial assistance will not arise.

671
Secondly, I wonder whether it is intended that a body corporate which has received financial advice under Article 3 should be beyond the reach of Article 4 which imposes a duty on a person who has received such assistance to furnish information and documents to satisfy the department that the conditions imposed at the time of giving the grant have been complied with. Article 4 contains no reference to a body corporate.
Thirdly, why should Article 3(2)(b) authorise the giving of financial assistance to a third party for the improvement of the environment, while under Article 5 the department reserves to itself the power to carry out works which contribute "directly or indirectly to the improvement of the environment"? Should not the order be applying the same criteria whether works are to be carried out by a person or a body under Article 3 or by the department under Article 5?
Lastly, the power to provide financial assistance is vested in the Department of the Environment. Assuming that that is constitutionally correct, at what level within the department will the decision be taken and will there be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State? Can the Minister answer these inquiries, either tonight or in the letter?
Lord Blease: My Lords, I shall not expect a reply from the Minister. He has been under tremendous pressure for the past hour and a half, but this is an important order to the people of Northern Ireland. First of all, I would like to welcome the main stated provisions and purposes as set out in Article 3. As I understand it, this article brings the law and the general provisions concerning urban development and environmental improvement work in Northern Ireland in line with he law and with similar provisions for Scotland, England and Wales.
However, I am concerned about the actual realisation of two matters raised by the order. The first matter is the possible efficacy of the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland in implementing the purpose of the order. The second concern is the actual resources which are available to undertake the purposes of the order.
As regards the present functional activities of the 26 district councils, may I ask the Minister whether effective administrative co-operation and participation of elected representatives in positive decision-making procedures is not a prerequisite for any effective working of the measures proposed in the order? In other words, I am saying that the Northern Ireland district councils are not working at the present time in any effective manner. If that is true, how do the Government propose to move forward on these social needs provisions?
With regard to the matter of actual resources, I welcome the stated intention of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment as set out in Article 6 for the necessary studies, investigations and research which could forward the purposes of the order. However, as I understand it, no additional public expenditure or staffing arrangements are intended.
672
How do the Government and the department propose to undertake the purposes of the order? How vigorously will the provisions of the order be promoted and activated, and also the enforcement and monitoring of approved work? I do not expect the Minister to reply this evening, but I should welcome a written reply. I hope that it will be more encouraging and perhaps more hopeful than I and others expect.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Blease, for their forbearance. I am afraid that I shall have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in respect of all his queries, apart from his thoughts on the area of social need. I am advised that there is no statutory definition of an area of social need in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain, where this phrase is used in the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. We take it that an area of social need is generally recognised as one where deprivation is above the norm. An example would be an area of high unemployment, of poverty, of poor housing and environment, or where there are high demands on the social services or low educational achievement. The precise mix and combination of these factors may vary from area to area. The overall impact is such that what we call social need exists. I would stress that such deprivation is normally associated with urban areas. That is the matter with which we are dealing this evening.
I should like to write to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Blease. I have an answer in respect of district councils. It is, however, a little long. I do not think that I can precis it sufficiently. I should therefore like to deal with that in writing. With that and with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and to all your Lordships, I commend this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Bill
8.42 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 32.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 92A:
Page 42, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) The Social Security Advisory Committee shall monitor the operation of the social fund and shall receive from the Secretary of State such specified payments as may be necessary to ensure the proper exercise of this function.").
The noble Lord said: The social fund is a new concept and, as we saw earlier, a very controversial one. There is a great deal of apprehension about how it will work out in practice. It would seem to be essential that it should be subject to independent monitoring. It seems that the best way of achieving this is for the Social Security Advisory Committee to have a duty to monitor the fund. In order to do so, it will need to have sufficient resources to carry out research. The Government have pointed out that the Social Security Advisory Committee will be able to comment if it so wishes. We do not believe that this goes far enough. The Social Security Advisory Committee is

673
already hard pressed to fulfil its existing duties. We feel that unless it is placed under a specific duty to monitor the fund and given adequate resources with which to do so, the fund will not be properly monitored. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: The Committee will be aware that the Social Security Advisory Committee was set up under Section 9 of the Social Security Act 1980. It has several functions under Sections 9 and 10 of that Act. It has the important duty of considering and reporting on regulations made under social security legislation. It also has the duty to give advice and assistance to the Secretary of State. This duty applies whether a matter is referred to it or whether the committee selects a subject of its own accord. Your Lorships will notice that this role is advisory. It is reflected in the name of the committee. I do not think that we should lightly alter that role to a formal monitoring duty. This would have considerable implications for the wider relationship between the committee and the department.
The main thrust of the amendment is already catered for in legislation. There is no need to write this provision into the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will not seek to press the amendment.
Lord Ennals: I want to support strongly the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. After all, the Social Security Advisory Committee is an extremely responsible body. It is appointed by the Government. Therefore, it is a body in which the Government have confidence. It seems to me that in a new venture such as has been outlined, the social fund, it is vital that there should be some responsible body able to advise the Government on the progress it has made. The noble Baroness said in an earlier debate that there were issues on which lessons would have to be learned. We were talking then about cash limiting. She was saying, "If it does not work, we will have to change it". The "we" refers to the Government. It seems to me, as it does to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that someone other than the Government will advise the Government on what should be done. It is not the case that some other body can do this. I remarked earlier that the traditional charities would give their advice but that they cannot give any assistance. So far as I can see none was consulted on how the social fund would affect its work for hardship cases.
The advisory council is a government-established body set up to advise them. The monitoring role has to be done by someone. If the noble Baroness, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, had said what other body would do this, I might have been a little more interested in her argument. She simply said, "No". I believe that she needs to give some argument that goes further. An argument from Scotland has been mentioned. I have an interesting argument from Welsh Women's Aid which says, in respect of the social fund:
"We are particularly concerned about its effect upon women leaving refuges".
The organisation argues that because of the different problems of the social fund that it had seen, there needed to be some sort of body that could monitor and
674
report to the Government on the effect that the social fund was having, and whether its worst fears were fulfilled or not. If the Government intend to say that the Social Security Advisory Committee shall not monitor and advise, will they kindly say what other body will do it?
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the noble Baroness replies, she seemed to suggest that this amendment would alter the relationship of the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Government. It is clear, if she looks at the amendment, that there is no intention to return to the previous system by giving it the same sort of executive powers as the old Supplementary Benefit Commission. I am sure that the noble Baroness would be the first to recognise that the Social Security Advisory Committee has much to do with an increasing mass of regulations on which it comments either on its own initiative or at the request of the Secretary of State. Normally, there is, I understand, a quarantine period of one year before the Social Security Advisory Committee can begin to scrutinise regulations under a new Act of Parliament. This may be appropriate for relatively minor legislation. We are, however, confronted with the introduction of a completely new system—what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, called a new venture. It seems important, therefore, that there should be no quarantine and that the committee should have the necessary resources to carry out a proper monitoring exercise and report back. This would not in any way distort the relationship between the committee and the Government. I hope that the Government will look on it rather favourably.
Baroness Trumpington: I shall gladly expand on my earlier remarks. I mentioned that the committee commented on the changes to the supplementary benefits scheme in 1980 in its annual report. Your Lordships may wish to be aware that in its 1981 report it also devoted a chapter to service to the public. In this, it said:
"Although the Social Security Advisory Committee does not have any responsibility for the day to day running of social security operations, Ministers have asked it to keep a watch over the quality of social security service to the public".
The report then describes the committee's initial observations.
This request has never been withdrawn, and I know that the committee sees this aspect of its work as a continuing task. Again, if it specifically wanted to consider the operation of the social fund, it is able to do so. But this should be left to the committee. It may wish to examine the fund in its early stages and turn to other subjects when the fund is bedded down, so to speak. Alternatively, it may wish to leave it during the early stages of settling in and consider the fund later. I think it is better to leave this matter to the committee to decide.
I hope I have demonstrated that the Social Security Advisory Committee already has adequate powers to carry out its proper statutory role. This has worked well since its formation. I do not think that the introduction of a new type of benefit should lead us to alter radically its role and function. There is no reason

675
for the social fund to lead us to change a perfectly adequate relationship between the committee and the social security scheme. I still cannot support this amendment.
Lord Ennals: Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I see whether I understand what she is saying. As I understand it, she is saying that the Government have great confidence in the Social Security Advisory Committee, and that the Social Security Advisory Committee would be perfectly free to study the operation of the social fund and to report to the Government and publicly on its impressions. If I have interpreted the speech of the noble Baroness aright, that seems to me a considerable advance.
Baroness Trumpington: Yes.
Lord Banks: I am grateful to those who have supported this amendment. It seems to me that the second answer of the noble Baroness was rather different from her first. Her first answer seemed to suggest that the effect of the amendment would be to give an entirely new role to the Social Security Advisory Committee, whereas her second reply seemed to suggest that this was something that it was doing already but that we do not need to put it in the Bill—which is a fairly familiar answer.
Baroness Trumpington: I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Banks. My first answer was not a good idea, but I was trying to make up for lost time, if the Committee knows what I mean.
Lord Banks: I accept the explanation of the noble Baroness and assume that her second answer is the one on which we must place the most reliance. As that was for me the more satisfactory of the two I am rather pleased about that, although I am disappointed that the noble Baroness is not more enthusiastic about the precise proposal in the amendment.
However, I should like to think further about what she said and to read both her replies again. I must point out that there is the question of resources which is important and with which I do not think she dealt. Having pointed that out. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 [Awards etc]:
[Amendments Nos. 93 to 95 not moved.]
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 42, line 30, leave out ("or for the benefit of).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 96. Under the Bill the Secretary of State may recover an award made from the social fund from the person to whom, or for the benefit of whom, it was made. Where that person is the member of a married or unmarried couple it may be recovered from the other member of the couple.
Arising from this there is concern that women may be pursued for debts incurred by their partners without their consent. Perhaps I may mention a particular case. In this case Mr. R lived for some time with Miss M and they had a child. They obtained a grant for essential furniture. Miss M then left the house because of violence and Miss S and her child later moved in with Mr. R and the furniture. Mr. R subsequently abandoned Miss S, who continued to live in the house. That may seem an unusual case, but it is a case history. Under current legislation no money would be repayable by any of the parties for the furniture. Under the Social Security Bill's proposals if the furniture were obtained using a social fund loan, the Secretary of State may have the power to pursue both Miss M, who lived with Mr. R at the time of the loan, and Miss S, who now has the use of the furniture, but who did not know of the loan. Neither woman would have been required to consent to the loan. Which woman would the Secretary of State pursue for payment?
Several other questions arise. For example, who owns the furniture? It was provided originally for Mr. R, Miss M and their child, but is not now used by any of them. Who now is Mr. R's partner in terms of the Social Security Bill? For how long after a separation will a man and woman be considered to constitute a couple? If Mr. R and Miss M are subsequently reconciled, will they become liable for one another's loans obtained during a separation? For example, if a woman leaving a refuge receives a loan, her husband or cohabitee could be made to repay the loan out of his benefit. This could cause very serious problems for the woman, who may be further abused and harassed by the man as a result of being forced to repay the loan.
In future a man will be able to take on loans from the social fund without his partner's consent, the repayments of which will have the effect of reducing her benefit entitlement, as well as his own, and making her liable to proceedings to recover the loan should the man fail to pay out.
I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 97. The two amendments together would remove the problems which I have been outlining. High street shops and banks do not have this power to pursue partners who have not been party in writing to the debt or loan in the first place. It is most unjust that one person can be turned into a debtor without his knowledge or consent. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: The present wording of Clause 33(8)(a) enables recovery of a social fund payment from two types of people: first, the person to whom the award was made or, secondly, the person for whose benefit the award was made. I agree that this might carry connotations which we did not intend. If one accepts the principle of recovery, obviously the payment should be recovered from the person to whom it was made. There will be no doubt about that, and the first part of Clause 33(8)(a) achieves that.
We intend to achieve the same effect by the second part of Clause 33(8)(a) also, but we wish to provide for the different circumstances which might exist. Members of the Committee will see that in the clause we provide that an application might be made on behalf of someone. Let us assume that an award is

677
made and that it is recoverable. If a person is making a claim on someone's behalf, circumstances might demand the payment also to be made to that person. But there would be no question of recovering the payment from that person. Recovery would be from the person on whose behalf the application was made and the payment made.
This is the intention of the second part of Clause 33(8)(a), but I accept that the wrong impression could be given. It could look more draconian than, for example, recovery from a child because the payment was intended for a pair of shoes for him. I need hardly tell the Committee that we would not to do this. But for the reasons I have outlined we do need the second part of Clause 33(8)(a) in some form. This is why I cannot accept the amendment at the moment. But I can promise to consider the points that have been made and to come forward with a clearer definition of the intentions at a later date. I hope that on that amendment that the noble Lord will find this acceptable.
On Amendment No. 97 I recognise the importance that Members of the Committee attach to the whole question of recovery of social fund payments, but I fear that in this issue there is unlikely to be a meeting of minds.
Clause 33(8)(b) is concerned with the recovery from either partner of a married or unmarried couple. In cases where recovery from the person seeking help is not a practical proposition, I would suggest that it is perfectly fair and reasonable to consider recovery from their partner. There will indeed be occasions where these arrangements will be of benefit to the person seeking help. For example, a claimant may be working part-time and receiving insufficient income support for a social fund loan to be payable. It will be to his advantage in those circumstances if the social fund officer has the power to make payment and recover it from his partner's social security benefit.
Clause 33(8)(b) provides for the recovery of a social fund payment for an item of furniture being made to the wife or husband during what turns out to be a temporary separation. It would be more than curious to prevent a recovery from the partner on his return to the household, particularly where he or she resumed a joint claim for both partners. I can assure the Committee that this provision will not be used to recover a social fund payment from the partner following a permanent separation.
9 p.m.
Lord Banks: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply because she seemed to be moving some way towards meeting the objections which have given rise to this amendment, and I am grateful for that. However, I should like to read very carefully what the noble Baroness has said; and perhaps she, too, may like to read what I said, and we can possibly consider the matter again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 97A:
Page 42, line 34, leave out from ("person") to end of line 36 and insert ("who is liable to maintain the person by or on behalf of whom the application for the award was made or any person in relation to whose needs the award was made.
(8A) Subsections (3) to (6) of section 25 above have effect for the purposes of subsection (8)(c) above as they have effect for the purposes of sections 23 to 25 above.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 97A. The purpose of this amendment is to remedy a defect in the clause which if left unaltered would not reflect the principle that it should be possible to make, in the appropriate circumstances, a recovery from a liable relative. This subsection deals with the recovery from a liable relative of payments made from the social fund. Let me explain that the term "liable relative" is generally used in the context of supplementary benefit to denote a person who has a liability to maintain another person—for example, husbands and wives have a liability to maintain each other and parents have a liability to maintain their children.
The provision for recovery of benefit from liable relatives has been accepted by successive governments. There is an acceptance that there should be a means of recovery of a social fund payment from a "liable relative", in the same way as there is now for supplementary benefit, as there will be for income support. The subsection, as drafted, allows recovery only in the very limited circumstances when the social fund beneficiary is receiving income support and, in addition, a court order for maintenance has been made against the liable relative. The intention is to allow for the recovery of a social fund payment in a wider range of circumstances.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 43, line 3, leave out paragraph (c) and insert— ("(c) whether it is reasonable to expect that some other person or body may wholly or partly meet it.").
The noble Lord said: When considering the possibility of making an award, an officer must have regard to the possibility that some other person or body may wholly or partly meet the need. The possibility, which may exist only in the mind of the social fund officer, that various local charities or relatives of applicants may be able to provide money or items requested from the social fund, could result in applicants being required to seek help from a whole list of individuals and organisations. Quite apart from the delay in considering an application, it would be demoralising for the individual concerned to have to face a series of humiliating requests and refusals. No indication is given of how the social fund officer is to determine what possibilities may exist. Will the social fund officer accept the word of the applicant or, at the other extreme, will official letters of refusal from charities and relatives be required?
The amendment will remove some of those uncertainties and put the onus on the social fund officer to show that the applicant's need can be met fully in some other way than by a social fund payment. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I should very much like to support the noble Lord, Lord Banks. Indeed, I touched upon this matter in relation to an earlier amendment. I was perhaps out of order in doing so; but one occasionally strays from the terms of amendments if one feels very strongly about something.
The purpose of the amendment has been very well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I find it appalling that a social fund officer, faced with a person who has represented some very great problems in relation to a single payment for furniture, clothing or whatever else it may be, has to ask himself: "Is it possible that someone else would pay? May be the parents have some money? What about Auntie Flo? Perhaps we should find out whether Auntie Flo can pay? She has a brother who may be able to pay". How does he dig into the possibility that some other person or body may be wholly or partly able to meet the payment?
If it cannot be a member of the family, the officer in question may say, "This fellow is a Mason. Will the Mason's pay?" He may be an Elk or a member of some other society. He may be a member of the North Beddington Rugby Club and perhaps they will pay. If not, the officer may say, "Perhaps we could persuade some charity to pay. Maybe the local authority will pay? Yes, the local authority". How will he handle this situation? Will he telephone Auntie Flo, the local government offices, the family welfare association and all these other bodies? That seems to me to impose an intolerable burden upon a social fund officer. Moreover, it puts the person who is applying in an invidious position because he or she knows that they will find out whether some other member of the family or some relative can possibly find the money to pay. I find that so obnoxious. As Members of the Committee will understand, I feel deeply about the matter. I hope that the Minister can see her way clear to taking this nasty paragraph (c) out of the Bill.
Baroness Trumpington: The Bill includes some of the considerations to which the social fund officer might have regard in reaching his decision. These are in Clause 33(9). One of these considerations is the subject of this amendment. This simply builds on current practice, although to hear some people you would not believe it. The Committee will wish to bear in mind that Regulation 6(2) of the present single payments regulations contains a long list of items for which a single payment cannot be made. Some of these are because it has not been felt that the social security scheme should meet the cost of a television or a holiday. But others are clearly included because we should ensure that the cash benefit system is not used to pay for items or services which are properly the responsibility of other bodies. Thus we do not pay removal charges where someone is rehoused following a compulsory purchase order on their property or for repairs to local authority property. This kind of provision must be carried forward.
Similar rules operate in the current provisions for urgent cases. There are additional rules for these reflecting the different nature of these cases; for example, that they are payable to people not normally
680
entitled. So in urgent cases our local office staff have to pay regard to whether help is available from other sources. The S Manual gives guidance on this. At present it points out that the local officer must not assume other means are available. But it does point out that help may be available from other sources which could help in cases of urgent need. These vary from friends and relatives, through banks, to charities and organisations. So we are simply ensuring that the social fund officer has the same ability and flexibility as an officer has at present. We are not introducing a new principle which need be routinely considered in all cases.
Lord Wigoder: Could the noble Baroness give us a simple example of a set of circumstances in which there is never the possibility that the person or body might wholly or partly meet the payment?
Lord Ennals: And how would he find out?
Baroness Trumpington: The current paragraph in the S Manual states:
"refer a claimant to a charity or benevolent fund only if:—

(a) an appropriate organisation is known to exist in the area and it is likely that he would be eligible for help;

(b) it is known that help is likely to be received in time to meet the need; and

(c) the urgent need is for items which are known to be available"

Baroness Seear: Could the noble Baroness not look at the wording of this again even if she will not remove it? The way it reads at the moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said, is that the officer shall have regard to,
"the possibility that some other person …".
That is extremely wide. It is not really in accord with what the noble Baroness has told us is the S practice. After all, the S practice is not in the Bill.
Baroness Trumpington: May I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that we are simply ensuring that the social fund officer has the same ability and flexibility as an officer has at present. We are not introducing a new principle which need be routinely considered in all cases.
Lord Banks: Does the noble Baroness argue that the amendment would not leave the officer with that flexibility? The noble Baroness is not answering that question.
Baroness Trumpington: I am very sensitive of time. We shall be ensuring, if this is helpful to the noble Lord, that training and published guidance indicate how the consideration should be applied.
Lord Ennals: In view of the representations that have been made, including by the Leader of the Liberal Party in this House, would the noble Baroness not agree to at least take it away and think again about

681
it? Obviously, she was a little reluctant to answer before. I know that it was in order to save time; but actually it delayed things. Would she not agree to take it away and have a look at it again?
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is being at his most persuasive, but I regret that he has not worked his magic on me.
Lord Banks: I regret that the noble Baroness has not agreed to think about it again. After all, I should have
682
thought that the amendment on the Marshalled List that he must consider:
"whether it is reasonable to expect that some other person or body may wholly or partly meet it"
would have left the flexibility, and left the noble Baroness with all the power that she feels it is essential for the officer to have, and all the guidance. However, the noble Baroness thinks otherwise. I do not intend to pursue it tonight, but perhaps we can come back to this point. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 43, line 5, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: When determining whether to make an award, the officer must have regard, where the payment is repayable, to the likelihood of repayment. Before the social fund officer reaches the stage of deciding the likelihood of repayment, he will presumably have satisfied himself that the applicant has a need, has no resources from which to meet the need and that no other person or body can meet the need. Is the applicant then, having shown that he has no resources, to be refused a loan on the ground that he has no resources to repay it? I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Lord has once again touched on an important point in moving this amendment. He has echoed reservations which have been expressed before during debates in another place. Clause 33(9) sets out a number of the factors which a social fund officer should take into account when making a decision. The particular consideration with which the amendment is concerned is one which we believe quite reasonably refers to a feature which must be taken into account when considering a loan.
I accept that we are not likely to reach unanimity today on our policy of recoverable loans from the social fund. But as payments will be recoverable, I would suggest that it makes sense that when a social fund officer reaches decisions about whether to award a payment, or what the value of the recovery could be, he should pay regard to the effect on the person receiving help. Primarily the payment will be aimed at meeting the need of the individual. But there is a balance to be struck between this and ensuring that either too great a strain is not put on the person concerned or that the repayments extend indefinitely. Similarly, in deciding payments, some regard must be paid to whether recovery is likely at all. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Banks: I am not sure that the answer, for which I am grateful, was entirely satisfactory. I do not think the noble Baroness answered my question, when I asked if the applicant, having shown that he had no resources, was to be refused a loan on the ground that he had no resources to repay it. But I shall not pursue it further tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 43, line 7, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: The amendment would remove the requirement on the social fund officers to consider the amount of money in the social fund when deciding whether or not to make an award. If we may take a particular case: Mrs. M. is a single parent with two daughters. She receives £57.70 per week in supplementary benefit and child benefit. She has no other income. Her electric cooker, purchased second-hand five years ago, is now beyond repair. The cost of a replacement will be £90. Under the present regulations Mrs. M. will receive a grant. Under the proposed scheme, if the social fund is running low in
684
a particular area—we touched on this earlier and if this is an incorrect interpretation perhaps the noble Baroness would explain to me why—an application in, say, February, would result, it would seem, in Mrs. M. and her daughters having no home-cooked meals until April when a fresh injection of cash is made into the social fund.
It is difficult for any person on any income to save an amount equivalent to 1½ weeks' income. But for someone on supplementary benefit this feat is, to all intents and purposes, impossible since the amount is calculated to provide only the basic necessities of life—that is to say, fuel, food and clothing. There is no justice in the idea that Mrs. M's claim should be decided not on its merits but according to how many other people had made similar claims in the same financial year or on how many births or deaths there had been that year.
It is clear from the Bill that the officer has to take allocations to the fund into account. Perhaps the noble Baroness would explain why that is so if it does not mean that in certain circumstances the condition of the fund will determine whether a loan or payment is made.
Baroness Trumpington: May I say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that the matters to which he has been referring are matters that we shall want to consider as we decide how to respond to the vote earlier today.
Lord Ennals: That really is no reply to a question that absolutely strikes at the heart of the whole of this new social fund. In earlier debates we have said it is quite wrong that the social fund should be cash limited. If you cash limit a social fund, you are saying that regardless of the personal need of any applicant during a particular year, unless there is some supple-mentary estimate—and there rarely is—the social fund officer is going to have to take note of the amount of money that is available. In other words, he must take note not of the need of the person involved, but of the amount of money that is available.
That strikes at the whole root and it is, I believe, the cancer in the social fund. It puts aside the principle of a welfare state which gives according to needs, not according to the ability of the Government, in a cash limited exercise, to be able to pay. If the social fund officer has to do as he is asked, before he looks at any need at all, he has to ask, "How much money have we got left for the rest of this week or this month? Can we afford to pay this old lady or this crippled person?" And the answer may be, "I am afraid not, because we had to spend all that money last week."
Surely the essence of any welfare state system must be based on the needs of the persons who apply to it. The judgment ought to be based on their needs and not on the financial situation of a cash limited fund at any given time. The noble Baroness really must answer the question that was put to her by the noble Lord, Lord Banks.
Baroness Trumpington: I have never heard such a fuss. I said perfectly plainly that this was a matter we would have to consider in the light of the vote this afternoon. I have also explained at some length why

685
the fear that money would run low in February is totally exaggerated. We will of course monitor the expansion and the expenditure and take appropriate action. We have made it perfectly clear that maternity and funeral payments would not be subject to the budget. We shall also always want to pay special attention, whatever the time of year, to absolute financial crises. This is the purpose of Clause 33(9)(e), and in the overall framework of the fund it is a useful purpose. I suggest to the Committee that it makes sense to retain it.
Baroness Seear: Do I understand that maternity and funeral benefits are safeguarded, but other things are not?
Baroness Trumpington: No; the noble Baroness will know that funeral and maternity payments are grants. Other things may be grants, but they may also be loans.
Baroness Seear: Then why did the noble Baroness mention maternity and funeral benefits, if they come under a different heading?
Baroness Tumpington: In order to make sure that it was understood by the Committee that these were perfectly safe and not included in the budget.
Lord Ennals: I did not quite understand what the noble Baroness was really saying. She was trying to reassure me and was saying that I was making a fuss about nothing. Was she saying that if there is a claim which has to be dealt with at a particular time by a social fund officer and if that officer is running short of money he will, by some means, be able to get some extra money from the Government? If that is so, it is interesting news; but it is not cash limiting it. The noble Baroness knows as well as I do that cash limiting means imposing upon an authority a limitation above which it is not allowed to go. That is how the health service operates. When the noble Baroness made her comparison with the health service she put her foot in it absolutely, because there it means waiting lists or ward closures. In this case it means refusals. However, if she is now saying that that is not really so and that steps will be taken by the Government to ensure that the money will be available, then I should be absolutely delighted. If she would simply say to the Committee that the Government will think again about this in the light of earlier decisions, we should all be happy.
Baroness Trumpington: I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, simply has not listened to what I said earlier about flexibility in the early years of the budget to ensure that money does not run out. I accept that I shall not take noble Lords opposite with me on the question of the need for budgetary control. But, having decided to adopt such a system, I suggest that it is only sensible to provide that social fund officers should have regard to their budget allocation when making decisions. Otherwise the effects of the greater financial control that we are seeking will be lost.
If I may just return to those maternity and funeral payments, if the conditions we set are met, a payment will be made. In the Bill as drafted the Secretary of
686
State has power to pay into the fund certain amounts. He can then allocate amounts for different purposes. This means that he can separate out and identify the elements directed for maternity and funeral needs. I hope that that gives a fuller answer to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Seear: I am very sorry to come back to this. I do not want to be contentious about it. but I think the noble Baroness does not quite understand the reason for the anxiety on this side. We are dealing in the social fund with people who are at the very bottom of the pile and in the greatest need. Of course, we appreciate that over a whole range of matters there have to be cash limits, but is the noble Baroness telling us that there can be people in the position outlined by my noble friend Lord Banks, who are desperate to have a new cooker because otherwise they cannot cook, and where it could arise that the answer would have to be "No", because of cash limits? It is to that that we want an answer, because we are dealing with the most necessitous cases in the country. We are not trying to plague the noble Baroness. We are trying to establish that there is a fundamental principle of meeting the wants of people in real need.
Baroness Trumpington: Yes. I fully understand why the noble Baroness is expressing those fears, but I must tell her that they are totally misplaced. This brings us back to the budget that we discussed earlier. We aim to set up quick and effective mechanisms for monitoring the fund, but we intend to do more than that. We will develop budget profiles, so that local offices can tailor their expenditure according to the seasonal patterns of demand. We aim to be in a position where, as well as knowing what is happening to the budget, we can reasonably gauge why it is happening, so that we can make an appropriate response.
It is the need to respond flexibly and appropriately to pressures on the budget which explains the importance we attach to budget monitoring. We may need to be able to move resources from offices which are lightly loaded to offices which are under pressure. I have said all this before—I am not sure whether the noble Baroness was in the Committee when I said it—but we shall always make sure in financial crises that they are the first call.
I do not think I have anything else to say. I am totally convinced that the Government have got it right, that we are not going to run out of money—how could we propose anything like that?—and that we shall have the needs of the very poorest as our first attention. We are, on the whole, talking about exceptions when we talk about people who will not get a grant immediately. If you are talking about people who are going to have to wait and appeal to the social fund officer if the decision is against them, that is one thing. But money we are not going to run out of and I really do not think this argument can go on.
Lord Ennals: In which case, how can it be said to be cash limited if the noble Baroness says, "We are not going to run out of money"? She cannot have it both ways.
The Countess of Mar: I support the noble Lord, Lord Banks. From my own experience under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Scotland) Act 1972, local authorities were empowered to provide telephones for chronically sick and disabled people. Many noble Lords will know that I worked for British Telecom for a number of years. Every January, people used to apply to us for telephones and then, when they had been advised that perhaps the local authority could help them, the local authority would come back to us and say, "We are very sorry but we cannot help this person, because we have run out of money. Come back to us in April." This happened only after the Conservative Government at that time, which was the late 1970s-early 1980s, had imposed cash limits on the local authorities. I know from my own experience what happens when there are cash limits.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: I have given our side of the case. I have given assurances over and over again that the social fund will not run out of money. I am afraid that I have no more to say.
Lord Banks: This position is very unsatisfactory. It is clear that the officer must have regard to what is in the kitty. That is written into the Bill. The amendment would have taken it out. The noble Baroness opposes the amendment. She must feel it is necessary for some reason that the officer should continue to look in the kitty, although she says that there is no possibility of it running out of money. The two things seem to be at odds. We shall certainly want to come back to this issue, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 43, line 9, leave out ("general directions issued") and insert ("regulations made")
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 88. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 43, line 13, at end insert—
("(11 A) A person applying for a social fund payment may appeal to a social security appeal tribunal constituted in accordance with section 97(2) to (2E) of the Social Security Act 1975 against any determination or direction of a social fund officer with respect to the application.
(11B) On an appeal under subsection (11A) above the appeal tribunal may—

(a) confirm the determination or direction appealed against;

(b) substitute for that determination or direction any other determination or direction which a social fund officer could have made; or

(c) if the appeal is against a direction, set aside that direction.")

The noble Lord said: This amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 88 and was considered when that was agreed. I therefore formally beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved. ]
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Widowhood]:
Baroness Macleod of Borve Baroness Macleod of Borve moved Amendment No. 104ZA:
Page 44, line 32, leave out from ("4") to end of line 33.
The noble Baroness said: I hope to be brief in moving Amendment No. 104ZA, which seeks to take out one short line:
"she survives him by at least seven days".
We are talking of the new £1,000 tax-free amount that the Government have decided shall be given to widows when they are widowed. As the Bill is drafted, the widow will have to wait for seven days before she can claim the £1,000; this is just in case she survives her husband by less than seven days. That presupposes that the two of them are in a motor-car accident; that one is in hospital and the other dies. Perhaps the widow dies three or four days after the husband; in other words, within seven days.
I hope that the Government in their wisdom will agree to this amendment because it seems to us that, although the £1,000 is tax free, the widow needs it there and then. There are bills to be paid, and we all know the high cost of dying these days. The widow would have to pay for the funeral, and very few widows, unless they are in exceptional circumstances, have enough small change in the kitty to pay. Therefore, this plan will work if the widow is able to get the £1,000 within a short time, which I am sure is what the Government intended when they brought it forward, but it will not work if we leave in these few words. Having said that, I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: On reconsideration we think that this is a useful simplification of the provisions which I am happy to accept. I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing our attention to it.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister—more grateful than I can say at this late hour.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 104A is agreed to, then I cannot call Amendment No. 104B.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 104A:
Page 45, line 4, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: This amendment challenges the alterations in the ages affecting widows' payments. In sub-paragraph (a) the age will be increased from 40 to 45, and in sub-paragraph (b) the age will be increased from 50 to 55. I and my noble friends would prefer the Bill to revert to the existing age limits of 40 and 50, instead of having a five-year increase to 45 and 55.
We do so because it is very difficult at those ages for many women who have spent a long time at home bringing up their children to find jobs and get out to work. They need the remuneration that they can receive at the existing age limits, whereas many women at 45 and 55 years of age have to rely on part-time jobs that are not always very well paid. It seems harsh to us that there should be a five-year increase in the qualifying ages. We hope that the Government will examine that point again.
On June 3rd, at col. 686 of Hansard, the Minister told me that as a result of changes in widows' payments on page 45 of the Bill 15,000 widows would suffer some cash loss. I hope that those 15,000 widows will remember that on polling day. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: The raising of the age range for age-related widow's pension is a modest proposal in the Bill which seeks to relate national insurance protection for widows a little more closely to present and future social trends. The Committee will, I am sure, accept that the national insurance scheme has to change with the times if it is to serve any useful function. I hope the Committee will accept also that we have to re-think benefits designed to protect against financial difficulty if the danger of financial difficulty recedes. Social change has nowhere been more marked than in the economic position of married women. Over 60 per cent. of married women now work, and nearly all women with children now return to work after the birth, often quite quickly. That enormous social change means we must look again at the rationale behind our widow's benefit structure, which is based on the presumption that women will have been dependent on the husband's earnings and that they will have difficulty in supporting themselves after the husband's death.
The present age-related taper from 40 to 49 was introduced only in 1971. With hindsight, it was a provision that was moving against social trends even then. Between 1948 and 1971 benefit was not paid to widows below the age of 50 unless they had children. That was in itself an advance on Beveridge's proposals. He had said:
"There is no reason why a childless widow should get a pension for life; if she is able to work she should work".
And had gone on to say that:
"The principle that any person physically fit for work should be entitled to retire from work upon pension before reaching the minimum pension age of 60 for women or 65 for men cannot without grave danger be admitted in any scheme for social insurance".
Our proposals continue to recognise that older widows are less likely to have been in the workforce and to be able to support themselves than are other groups. But we believe that to set the minimum age for receipt of widow's pension by a childless widow at 45 rather than 40 is a change that is demanded by changing circumstances. For that reason, we cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness Jeger: The noble Baroness quoted Beveridge, but I remind her that the Beveridge Report came out in the context of full employment. The noble Baroness says that these women are entitled to work,
690
but she did not tell us whether they can get work. It is in the context of increasing unemployment that we have to look at these facts and figures. It is absolutely unacceptable that the Government should tell women of 45 or 55 that they should go out and get a job. There is such unemployment in the country as a result of deliberate Government policies that that is quite unreal. It is a difficulty which affects many older women. I very much regret that the noble Baroness has replied in that way, and I assure her that it is a subject to which we shall return. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 104B:
Page 45, line 9. at end insert—
(" ( ) In the case of a widow whose husband died before the commencement of subsection (3) above, section 26 of the Social Security Act 1975 shall apply as if it had not been amended by that subsection.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment affects very many widows in the country where the Government appear to be unsympathetic. So far as I can understand the position, and perhaps the noble Baroness can assist me, it appears that if a widow is under 50 when her youngest child leaves school she will not be able to receive the widowed mother's allowance at the personal rate at that time.
Many widows have calculated and budgeted that after their widowed mother's allowance ends they will go on to the standard pension. It seems cruel to change that anticipation. We now have a situation where the pension is to be reduced if they are under 55 and there will be no pension if they are under 45.
So far as I can make out from this complicated Bill it appears that in future it will be necessary for a woman to give birth at the age of 39 or over in order to qualify for a standard pension if her husband dies when she is under 55 and the child leaves school at 16. I am sorry if that sounds complicated but it sounds even more complicated to the many widows who have written to me and who I know have been in touch with the Minister on this subject. It is unfair and puts a serious burden on older widows. I cannot understand why a woman has to give birth at 39 years of age or over in order to maintain her benefits. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I must make it clear at the outset that all existing beneficiaries will remain on any benefit they are already receiving when the new age groups come into effect; and if that is what the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve her amendment is unnecessary.
Where, however, a widow moves from one category of widow's benefit to a succeeding benefit after the change then the new rules will apply. Thus, a widow who ceases to be entitled to widow's allowance or widowed mother's allowance after the new age limits come into force would be considered on the basis of the new rules. This is perfectly justifiable and, quite apart from the administrative difficulties in doing so, we see no reason to perpetuate transitional arrange-ments which would lead, perhaps many years later, to different provisions being applied to widows in ideal circumstances (for example, on cessation of the widowed mother's allowance).

691
In view of the assurance that no one will lose the category of widow's benefit already in payment, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jeger: Before I decide what to do about the amendment, the noble Baroness has not answered her own sentence on 3rd June—reported in col. 686 of the Official Report—that 15,000 will suffer some cash loss. Can the noble Baroness explain that to the Committee before I decide what to do about this amendment?
Baroness Trumpington: Returning to the widowed mother's allowance, which is not covered in this Bill, the provision is covered in regulations but it is proposed to withdraw the widowed mother's allowance from widows without dependent children. Whatever be the figure that the noble Baroness quoted to me from a speech that was made some time ago, I must tell her that 55,000 widows will gain.
Baroness Jeger: We shall have to come back to this point again because obviously there is some unfairness in the proposals but for this evening I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 36 and 37 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Industrial injuries and diseases.]
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 99, line 13, after ("shall") insert ("not").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 105 standing in my name on the Marshalled List. At a very late stage in Committee in the other place an amendment was introduced which takes away from workers injured at work who have a less than 14 per cent. disablement the right to any disablement benefit at all.
Disablement benefit, which has existed since the industrial injuries scheme was introduced in 1948, compensates for the severity of physical or mental injury suffered from an accident or disease, the associated pain, suffering and disfigurement, and the effects upon the individual's ability as compared with another person of the same age and sex who has not had an accident. Its introduction was a major step forward since, until 1948, workmen's compensation had only compensated for loss of earnings. I understand that a similar benefit operates in the war pensions scheme and no equivalent cut-off is proposed so far as that scheme is concerned. I hasten to say, of course, that I am not advocating that it should be proposed.
The abolition of the benefit for victims who are assessed as being less than 14 per cent. disabled would mean that a very large number of work accident and disease victims would receive no compensation at all for their injuries. The large majority of current disablement awards are below the 14 per cent. figure, so it would affect most accident sufferers and sufferers of the common prescribed diseases such as industrial
692
dermatitis, occupational asthma, and vibration white finger.
There has been a steady decline in the number of new claims for disablement benefit from a peak of over 200,000 per year in the mid-1960s to around 120,000 currently. This means that the cost of the benefit should be falling. The decline has been partly due to improved health and safety standards but also, I regret to say, to the contraction of the more dangerous heavy industries as a result of industrial decline. However, there are some working environments that are inherently more dangerous than others and which are likely to remain so despite efforts to improve health and safety.
The amounts of money involved for individual victims are quite substantial so far as they are concerned. A life gratuity for a 13 per cent. disablement is currently worth £2,905; for a 10 per cent. disablement it is nearly £2,300; and for a 5 per cent. disablement it is £1,245. I have with me some examples of actual cases of people injured at work. In the case of one individual there was a scaffolding which fell on to his neck and spinal column, causing injury to neck, shoulder and back. The assessment was 4 per cent. for life and the amount of the award was £1,037. In another case in which a bus braked sharply and the conductress was thrown against a hand rail, the injury to chest and neck was assessed at 7 per cent. for life and the amount received was £1,600.
The loss of a whole middle finger is assessed at 12 per cent., and the award for that is £2,697. The loss of a whole ring or middle finger is a 7 per cent. assessment nowadays, and that is £1,660. The loss of four toes on one foot is 9 per cent., at £2,075. All those are awards paid under the current industrial injuries scheme. Under the proposals contained in the Bill none of these people, if they sustained the injuries after the passage of the Bill, would get anything at all.
It will be argued that the individuals concerned will still have their rights at common law; they will still be able to sue their employers if the injuries come about as a result of employer negligence. All too often, however, that is difficult to establish. Indeed, seeking to do so can be a costly process. Often the injury is not due to employer negligence but is simply an accident; an unfortunate occurrence for the individual.
The industrial injuries scheme, which was introduced in 1948, was the first attempt that we had in this country to provide for compensation on a no-fault basis. Many countries have no-fault systems of compensation, and that is the nearest that we have to such a system. It applies whether or not earnings are affected. An injured worker may still suffer from his disability or disfigurement even if he or she is able to work with undiminished earnings.
The industrial injuries scheme accepted that we had a public responsibility to those injured in the production of goods and services and that those goods and services were worked on for the rest of us. We should not turn back on that responsibility now. I know that it will be argued that there are other gains to be made; I believe that the Government intend to improve allowances for people who suffer from diminished earnings. However, overall I am told that the gains that the Government hope to make as a

693
result of the scheme will in total amount to some £40 million. There will be losses overall, even though some people may gain. It is unacceptable to have a situation in which people who have those injuries have no compensation whatsoever. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Stallard: I support the amendment, which seeks to remove the provision that the cut-off for entitlement to industrial injury benefit should be a 14 per cent. instead of a 1 per cent. degree of disability. It is a remarkable coincidence, as the Government confirmed at the Committee stage in another place, that the proposal will mean that about 90 per cent. of the people who now have awards under the industrial injuries scheme will no longer receive an award of any kind. From my years in the engineering industry I know of the injuries to workers and the effects on their future employment prospects; and most of those would be affected by the provisions in the Bill. The Government have said that they want to simplify disablement schemes. Unfortunately, whenever they propose any simplification it invariably results in worsening the existing position.
My noble friend gave examples. It is worth noting some further examples that were recently given in the Guardian. A 49 year-old bus driver sustained severe hand injuries after intervening to protect a passenger from being attacked in Regent Street. After going to the social security commissioners he won compensation of £1,245 from London Regional Transport Board, but under these proposals his award would be abolished. A lady succeeded in claiming compensation for occupational asthma, but her award of £1,867 is not due until the autumn. She is afraid that she may lose that award. A drayman, injured while unloading beer casks, is not due to receive his final award of £1,452 until next May. He also expects to lose under the proposals in the Bill. There are many other similar examples. At the same time as that is happening, appeals to the social security commissioners on points of fact will be abolished, making it even more difficult for people injured at work to claim the remaining benefits.
I understand that in Great Britain there are about 400,000 industrial accidents every year, leading to nearly 200,000 claims. The new rules will exclude 180,000 of those claims. As my noble friend said when she moved the amendment, in another place the Government explained that the expected total savings will be between £46 million and £56 million and that net of any improvements it would be between £40 million and £50 million. It seems to be a squalid way to save that amount of money. The Government are removing a benefit to which people have contributed, which has been negotiated, fought for through the courts on appeal, and won after considerable difficulty. Workers have always derived no little comfort from the fact that they have an insurance contract which means that if they are injured they at least receive some compensation. That will no longer apply under this Bill.
Workers are still entitled to as much protection, in whatever circumstances they work, as we can possibly give them. I deplore this further attack on the basic principles of the social and welfare schemes. I support the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: While I sympathise with the aim of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I cannot recommend the amendment to the Committee. The Government have to take into account the much lower levels of benefit paid to people disabled outside the workplace, especially when that disablement results in a loss of work. We all know that disablement is difficult to bear, but how much harder that burden is when combined with a low income. That is why we propose to devote substantial additional resources to the less well off sick and disabled, chiefly with the disability premium to be paid with income support.
It is against that background that I ask the Committee to view the Government's proposal. Of course we should have preferred to bring other disabled people up to the level of benefit paid to the industrially injured but that is impracticable. The estimated cost is about £4 billion. I also ask the Committee to bear in mind that the average lump sum payable for disablement below 14 per cent. is less than £400, although I accept that some payments are higher than that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said.
A further important change to be set against this proposal is the planned improvement to reduce the earnings allowance which will enable it to be paid to the most severely disabled. They will gain up to £25 a week extra as a result. Moreover, the allowance will continue to be paid even at levels of disablement below 14 per cent. That will ensure that those who lose earnings as a result of minor injuries will still receive compensation for that loss.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, suggested that people awaiting finalisation of claims may lose under the Government's proposals. I am pleased to be able to reassure him that those claims will not be affected. They will be settled under the scheme's present rules.
The Government's aims are twofold: to strike a fairer balance between help for those injured at work and other disabled people, and to focus the industrial injuries scheme more clearly on the more severely disabled. I ask the Committee to support those aims and reject the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: The Committee will not be surprised to learn that I am disappointed at the response from the noble Baroness. I repeat what I said when I moved the amendment: the industrial injuries scheme was introduced in 1948 because it was accepted then, and it has been accepted by governments since, until this one, that if one goes out to work, particularly if one works in a hazardous environment—and the environment of many manufacturing industries is hazardous no matter what one does about it—there is a case for a special industrial injuries scheme.
With this Government we have seen the gradual whittling away of that industrial injuries scheme, firstly with the disappearance of injury benefit and now of course with the disappearance of disablement gratuities for people with 14 per cent. or less disability.
It has been said that the Government want to concentrate benefit on compensation for loss of earnings, but in fact no attempt has been made to remove the cash ceiling which exists on the special hardship allowance at the moment. Overall, 90 per

695
cent. of special hardship awards are currently at the maximum rate, which suggests to me that many victims will suffer a drop in earnings in excess of the current cash limit. I do not think it is acceptable to say, as the noble Baroness has said, that we want to treat everybody who is injured alike. Not everybody is at the same risk and it is because people are not at the same risk and because they have to work in hazardous environments about which very little can be done that we have an industrial injury scheme at all. I am not intending to press the amendment at this time but I intend to come back at Report stage because I regard the response of the noble Baroness as entirely unsatisfactory.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 103, line 20, at end insert—
("8A. Where an employed earner dies as a result of personal injury by accident arising out of or in the course of the employed earner's employment or any prescribed disease or injury, which occurred or developed after July 4 1948, there shall be payable to their widow or widower a lump sum death benefit at a level to be fixed annually by the Secretary of State as being equivalent to half average annual earnings ")
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to attempt to write back into the Bill provision for compensation for the families of people who are killed at work. The abolition of industrial death benefit would mean the end of special benefits for widows and families of people killed by work accident and diseases.
It can and probably will be claimed that there is provision and that it is possible for widows, widowers and families or people who are killed in industrial accidents to claim at common law. However, the fact remains that common law claims are very difficult to pursue and they do depend, as we all know, on establishing that such accidents have arisen because of negligence on the part of the employer. Sometimes that is very difficult to establish. A man could be killed at work at a relatively young age, leaving young children, and the normal widow's pension is expected to make up for the loss of the victim's income and family support from it over a period lasting many, many years. Therefore, nothing at all would be payable for the fact that a person's life has been lost in the production of goods and services which the country needs. We believe that there is a strong case for compensation on a no-fault basis for the families of those who die as a result of industrial disease or injury. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: Successive Governments have left the main preference paid to industrial widows unchanged at 55p per week. We propose to end the nonsense of maintaining a separate scheme to pay such paltry sums. While we all sympathise with the tragic loss faced by a widow who loses her husband in an industrial accident, we must remember that the tragedy is just as great for other widows, whatever the cause of their husband's death. For these reasons the Government propose to treat industrial widows no differently from national insurance widows.
696
We will ensure, however, that no industrial widow is denied national insurance widow's benefit for want of sufficient national insurance contributions. That will make them automatically eligible for the new tax-free £1,000 lump sum payable on bereavement, provided they meet the other conditions of entitlement.
The noble Baroness also proposes that industrial widowers should receive a lump sum payment. That would be an attractive step in the direction of greater equality between the sexes in the social security scheme. Unfortunately, it would be too costly to extend the lump sum to all widowers and, for the reasons I have given, we would not wish to restrict the payment to industrial widowers. I therefore cannot recommend this amendment to your Lordships.
Baroness Turner of Camden: In view of the noble Baroness's response to the previous amendment, I am not really surprised at her response to this one, and she will not be surprised to learn that I am not at all happy about it. I repeat what I said earlier. In my view, there is a case for an industrial injuries scheme for those who go to work and who are involved especially in hazardous circumstances. Many countries have an industrial injuries scheme with a no-fault basis. If there is no continuation of a separate scheme with benefits for people injured at work, or their families, we shall see an increase in the number of cases that eventually come before the courts as people try to get some compensation on a common law basis.
It is a great pity that we cannot have a proper industrial injuries scheme on a no-fault basis. I hear what the noble Baroness says. I shall not press my amendment at this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 106A:
Page 104, line 30, leave out ("of this Act").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend, I propose to take with it a number of other amendments; namely, Amendments Nos. 111G, 111H, 118H, 130D, 130M to Y inclusive, 131ZC, 131ZD and 131ZE. The Committee may be relieved to know that these are technical amendments consequential upon the changes to the industrial injuries scheme in the Bill. They amend or replace existing references to provisions altered by Schedule 3. They do not alter the provisions in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 107:
After Clause 38, 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.

697

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) Circumstances 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: With the lights dimming around us, this is an appropriate moment to move the amendment on the death grant. The Bill proposes to abolish the death grant of £30 and replace it with discretional awards under Clause 32(1)(b) from the social fund. We believe that it is totally wrong to require people to apply for help with funeral costs at the time of bereavement. The noble Baroness has said that funeral grants are protected under the social fund; that is, that they will have priority for funding. Even so, an applicant will have to establish the case for his or her need at a time of severe personal distress. I invite the Committee to imagine the additional distress if death occurs over a weekend or during a long public holiday when the social fund office is closed and there is no certainty anyway of an award. In such circumstances it would be impossible for very poor people to instruct an undertaker pending a decision that might take some days. Natural distress would be further compounded by fear of being forced to accept a pauper's funeral which local authorities still have an obligation to provide for the destitute.
Our proposal in the amendment should commend itself to the Government. It is, in effect, a flexible loan/grant proposal, according to circumstances. It says that a death grant shall be payable in respect of each death that occurs after the commencement of the Bill on application in the prescribed form by the personal representative of the deceased. It also provides in subsection (2) that the prescribed amount can vary according to the differing costs in differing areas. We have published a "green paper" including recommendations on this subject in which we mention a sum, in the region, I believe, of £250 to £300. That might vary in different parts of the country, and subsection (2) provides for that.
In subsection (3) the new clause provides that the grant can be recovered in its entirety from the estate if that eventually turns out to be more than £10,000. A fraction of the grant may be recovered on a sliding scale on estates between £5,000 and £10,000.
In subsection (4) it is set out that,
"circumstances 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."
That takes care of the obvious circumstance of the widow or widower continuing to live in the home and therefore there being no realisable asset in that respect.
I submit that this is a much better system than that proposed by the Government with the hurdle of the social fund to be surmounted before any action can be taken in these extremely distressing circumstances. On our proposal a person may confidently engage the undertaker, and the undertaker may confidently make the necessary arrangements for the burial in the knowledge that an application has been made under this new clause. The motto behind this new clause is "no means test at the time of bereavement". The
698
means test comes later when the decencies of burial have been completed. All civilised societies attach great importance to the proper arrangements for the burial of their dead. This Bill as drafted does not measure up to that standard at present. I beg to move.
Lord Stallard: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 107A. I believe that these two amendments are lumped together, although this amendment has a slightly different approach. The death grant was introduced by the National Insurance Act 1946. Contributions under that Act commenced in July 1948 and payment of the death grant commenced one year later. Originally the grant was designed as one of a package of benefits intended to introduce the cradle-to-the-grave security concept inherent in the philosophy of the welfare state. The £20 grant was the amount recommended in the Beveridge Report as a reasonable estimate of the necessary expenses of a decent funeral for an adult, including cemetery fees, and so there is no doubt that it was intended to cover the full cost of a funeral. In 1949, moreover, the National Association of Funeral Directors agreed with the Board of Trade that their members would not charge more than £20 for a simple funeral—that is, a hearse, four bearers and one following car.
Beveridge hoped that the death grant would replace the millions of industrial insurance policies through which most working-class families tried to save for their funerals. These policies were a public scandal because of the large proportion of the premiums that went in commission and expenses, and because most of the policies lapsed before the money became payable. Funeral insurance was clearly something that the state could do more cheaply, more efficiently and more fairly.
Within a few years inflation had raised the cost of even a simple funeral above the level of the death grant. The agreement with the Board of Trade lapsed in 1956 and the last increase in death grant—to its present £30 maximum—was in 1967. Today the death grant is by univeral admission woefully inadequate to meet funeral costs. It covers only about 10 per cent. of the cost of the cheapest cremation and there has been substantial evidence of considerable hardship in cases of tragic bereavement. Old-age pensioners struggle to save up to meet the costs of their own burial, sometimes finding that their savings prevent them from qualifying for other benefits.
The Government now propose to abolish the grant altogether, limiting the state's role in meeting funeral costs to cases where the family is poor enough to qualify for a payment from the social fund. It is not clear—certainly not yet to me—precisely how the new means test for death grant will operate. Will people on income support, family credit, and housing benefit be passported into the scheme? Will the new lump sum widow's allowance count as capital in any means test, or will it count as a resource from which the grant can be recovered? I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness can give some replies to these questions when she winds up.
In failing to increase the death grant all governments have behaved in the way commercial insurance companies behave when they sell without-profits life assurance policies. If the policy turns out to be worth

699
a fraction of its originally expected value, that is too bad: it is what you paid for. The state has no excuse for behaving in this way. National insurance operates on a pay-as-you-go basis. That has the enormous advantage that, as average earnings rise, the scheme's contribution income can rise in line with earnings, and benefit rates can also rise in line with earnings without causing any financial problems.
Recent calculations have shown that, for a national insurance contribution of about 20p per week, the death grant could be increased at once to £380, which is the cost of a simple funeral which certainly two London boroughs have recently arranged for local funeral directors to offer their residents. By raising that very modest weekly contribution in future years as prices rise, the death grant could also be increased so that it remained adequate to meet the cost of a simple funeral.
To abolish the grant altogether is equivalent to the Prudential saying to its policy holders, "You have paid your premiums on this policy regularly for 38 years, without missing a week; but we have now decided that the policy is worth so little, as a result of inflation, that we are going to cancel it. You will get nothing for your premiums—not even a surrender value". Although the sums may be small, the Government are taking away a contributory right from those who pay national insurance. The Government's proposal is therefore yet another erosion of the welfare state. It is a switch from a universal benefit to a means-tested benefit.
When the Government abolished earnings-related supplements to sickness and unemployment benefits a few years ago, there were complaints that they were abolishing an insurance benefit for which people had paid by their contributions. On that occasion, the Government argued that these were short-term benefits, earned by recent contributions. However, the death grant is a benefit for which people have paid contributions throughout their working lives. The fact that payment is subject to minimal contribution conditions does not alter this fact.
Amendment No. 107A would ensure that anyone who has already paid enough contributions before April 1987 would remain entitled to a death grant if he or she died after April 1987. Another purpose of the amendment is to draw attention to the fact that the death grant is an insurance benefit for which people have been paying contributions for 38 years. It is important to emphasise that fact. It is one thing to say that people now entering the workforce should not qualify for it, but it is quite another to abolish a benefit that people have been paying for throughout most of their working lives.
I said that for a national insurance contribution of 20p a week the death grant could be increased to £380 now. I know, from my connections with all the voluntary organisations concerned, especially with youngsters, with the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Fund, the Council of Churches, Age Concern and the Dignity in Death Alliance, that most people, if asked, would agree to that simple proposition. The Government, in proposing this clause, have completely failed to understand the needs of the people and have totally misjudged the mood of the people in the matter of the death grant. This
700
amendment, therefore, is an attempt to retrieve the dignity and respect of people in those unhappy circumstances. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, cannot move Amendment No. 107A, but can merely speak to it. I shall speak to both amendments, which aim to preserve universal assistance with funeral costs. It is the Government's firm belief that neither can be justified in the 1980s, and that our proposal to abolish death grant and give better and more selective assistance to those who need it most is the right and realistic course. Indeed, £30 does not go far towards the current cost of a funeral, which ranges between £350 and over £600. For the great majority of people, who have no difficulty in coping with funeral costs, the £30 grant makes little difference one way or the other. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that I simply cannot think of how one will get the £30 grant over a long weekend or over a long holiday. Indeed, the difference between the number of deaths and the number of death grant claims suggests that about 40,000 people a year do not bother to claim the grant, despite the ease with which the contribution conditions can be satisfied.
We can see no justification for preserving a grant which is not needed by the vast majority but does not give adequate help to those who really do need assistance. For this reason we could not accept Amendment 107A, which would effectively preserve the existing grant for the foreseeable future. The contribution conditions for death grant can be satisfied by the payment, or crediting, of 25 contributions in any year between 1948 and 1975, or its equivalent since then, by either the deceased person, his or her spouse, or a near relative. Consequently, the death of almost anyone who is currently of working age would continue to give rise to a death grant for decades to come. The Committee will understand that I am not thrilled at this perpetuation of what is already a historical relic.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, spoke about the death grant as a contributory benefit, and its abolition meaning the removal of an entitlement for those who have already paid for it by their national insurance contributions. At present, payment of contributions provides entitlement to the death grant, but like other national insurance benefits the grant is not a funded benefit, it is a pay-as-you-go benefit and is therefore paid out of current contributions. The reduction in expenditure resulting from the abolition of the grant will be taken into account in setting contribution rates.
Amendment No. 107 does at least attempt to address the twin issues of the inadequacy of the present death grant for any useful purpose and the lack of targeting on those who need help most. The proposed new clause would provide for a non-contributory grant payable at a higher level, but recoverable from those with estates over £5,000 or £ 10,000. May I say at once that I sympathise with what they are getting at, but I cannot agree with it. The effect of this proposal would be to spend considerable amounts of public money—£230 million if we assume a funeral cost of £350, but ranging up to £400 million at a funeral cost of £600—to give interest-free loans to people who do not need help at the moment.

701
The noble Lords may say that people will not bother to claim a recoverable grant if they know that the deceased person's estate is worth more than £10,000. 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. So I think we have to accept that the gross cost of the noble Lord's proposal could be anything up to £400 million, against about £17 million at present on death grant. The net cost would depend on the number of estates worth more than £5,000 or £10,000. Our best estimates are—and they are rather rough—that the net benefit cost would be of the order of £185 million. The administration cost would be very considerable. If resources of this magnitude were available, I can think of much better uses for them in the social security system. I submit that our existing proposals to give greater help through the social fund and to recover from the deceased's estate will actually achieve the same purpose as the noble Lord's amendment, and I would ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Kilmarnock: As the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said, these two amendments approach the problem of the funding of funerals from two slightly different angles. I agree with him in his comments on the dignity and respect which are vital to proper burial arrangements. The noble Baroness misinterpreted what I said. My amendment is trying to get the security of knowing that assistance is available. That is what is required in order to enable the deceased's relative to go ahead with making the necessary arrangements. Frankly I find it rather difficult to understand why the Government do not like my amendment because it targets on those in need. I find the argument of the noble Baroness on the enormous costs which might result from this new clause to be absolutely extra-ordinary. It is surely most unlikely that people would claim assistance under this clause where there was no real need. I was extremely surprised to hear the noble Baroness say that she would do it herself. I found that most extraordinary. This gives a cynical view of the way people might behave in these circumstances. I do not accept that at all.
Our amendment is a very reasonable way of dealing with people's real needs while ensuring that those who do not have the same financial need are not assisted or, if a payment is made and it eventually turns out that the estate is worth a certain amount of money, the sum can be reclaimed. That is a sensible way of going about matters and so far as I am concerned I shall return to this at a later stage in the Bill, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 [Abolition of death grant]:
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 107A:
Page 46, line 2, at end insert ("except by virtue of contributions paid or credited before the commencement of this section.")
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 107A. I must confess that I was not satisfied with the reply given by the noble Baroness. She failed even to comment on the alternative proposal I made that it has been calculated that for a
702
20p per week contribution the death grant could be increased to £380 for all deaths from now on, to be upped with the rate of inflation. There are 22.5 million national insurance contributors. If they all paid 20p per week that would bring in £225 million a year. These are different statistics from those that the noble Baroness quoted. If this were divided by 600,000, which is approximately the number of deaths annually in Great Britain, that works out at £375 per funeral.
We could also add something for the cost of administration, although I have always argued and failed to see why it costs more to administer a £380 grant than it does to administer a £ 100 grant, or a £50 grant. The costs of administration cannot continue to go up and up. That must be limited. If the noble Baroness were seriously to consider the alternative proposal that I and millions of people in this country support, I think she would come to a more positive and constructive conclusion. However, having heard what she has to say, something which she will no doubt repeat, I too reserve my freedom to come back to this on Report. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 39 shall stand part of this Bill?
Lord Winstanley: On this Motion, I seize this opportunity to ask the noble Baroness to expand a little on her answer to my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock on the last amendment. Her principal objection to his amendment was on grounds of its greater cost: that its cost would be greater than the Government's own proposal. The Committee would find it helpful if the noble Baroness would tell us precisely what will be the cost of the Government's proposal. The Government have told us that they intend to pay the equivalent of a death grant from the social fund to many people in need. They have not said to how many people such a grant will be paid, nor have they said how much it will be. If the proposal in this clause is to be of greater cost, it would be helpful if we knew how much the Government's proposal would cost. How much is the grant to be and how many people will it go to?
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: It is quite impossible to say how many people would be involved unless we know how many people died. Most people do not need the death grant. Over 90 per cent. of funerals are paid for by private resources and for those who need help the amount of grant, maximum £30, is totally inadequate when compared with the cost of a simple funeral, which varies widely in the range of £350 to £650. The cost of increasing the grant to its original value would be £140 million. The abolition of the death grant will enable the Government to concentrate resources from the new social fund on more of those who really need help.
I cannot give the precise cost, but I should like to come back to the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, on the £380. That would cost about £250 million; but even then it would not ensure that the full cost of a funeral would be met. As I said before, costs range between £350 and £650. The other point is that

703
the widow's lump sum of £1,000 will be disregarded in assessing entitlement to social fund payments.
Baroness Seear: If the noble Baroness does not know what the cost of the Government's scheme is going to be, how does she know whether it is more or less than the scheme proposed by my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock?
Baroness Trumpington: The Government's proposals for payment of funeral costs out of the social fund extend considerably the existing arrangements under which less well-off people are helped. This is because these proposals will enable housing benefit and family credit recipients to make claims as well as those receiving income support. As a result, the number of people who, subject to the capital rule, will have full cover for the cost of a reasonable funeral will be increased from about 4·5 million to about 8 million. I cannot give the precise cost. We estimate that it will mean around 60,000 funeral payments being made each year—roughly 10 per cent. of the number of deaths. This represents about a four-fold increase on the number of single payments made to supplementary benefit claimants for funeral costs at the present time. I hope that reply satisfies the noble Baroness.
Clause 39 agreed to. Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Unemployment benefit—disqualification]:
[Amendments Nos. 107B to J07D not moved.]
Clauses 41, 42 and 43 agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 108:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
("Invalid care allowance.
. For subsection (3) of section 37 of the Social Security Act 1975 there shall be substituted the following subsection:
" (3) A person shall not be entitled to an allowance under this section if he is under the age of 16 or receiving full-time education; and a woman shall as from 20th December 1984 be treated as having been entitled to an allowance notwith-standing that she may be married and either residing with her husband or in receipt of maintenance or living together with a man to whom she is not married as husband and wife." ")
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of those who have tabled this amendment—the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, not being here—I should like to say that in view of the recent Government statement we do not propose to move this amendment at this stage.
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm moved Amendment No. 108A:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
("Annual uprating of child benefit.

PART IVA
BENEFITS UNDER THE CHILD BENEFIT ACT 1975
. Whenever the Secretary of State lays before Parliament the draft of an uprating order under section 61(2) below, he shall at the same time lay before Parliament a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations for the purpose of increasing the weekly rate or rates at which child benefit is payable under the Child Benefit Act 1975 by a percentage not less than the percentage by which the general level of prices is greater at the end of the period specified in section 61(2) below than it was at the beginning.")"
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may explain that I had tabled an amendment (No. 121) on the same subject which I withdrew because I was advised that it was not all that satisfactory. Also I wanted to get an amendment sufficiently close to Amendment No. 122 of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I believe that the two amendments could go together now and if mine is accepted I do not think the other one will be pressed.
Your Lordships will remember that child benefit was brought in by the 1975 Act and came into effect in 1977; so we have now had nine full years' experience of it and I think it has brought enormous comfort to an enormous number of families. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that the difference between this form of benefit and other forms is that it is non-discriminatory—in other words, it is not means-tested—it is tax free, and it is paid to the mother. I am glad that the noble Baroness has said that that will continue; and that has given a great deal of satisfaction to a great number of people.
The other point to make is that there is nearly 100 per cent. take-up. On the family income supplement and so on, the take-up is about 50 per cent. The cost is high—it is £4.4 billion or something like that—but that is because there is 100 per cent. take-up, and if there was 100 per cent. take-up on the other benefits it would look very different in proportion to this expense.
I believe that the main objection that will be put forward to this amendment is that horrid thought that some people who do not need it will get benefit. There is a misapprehension here. All the family researches that I have seen over many years show that a number of families with children go through a period of their lives in considerable financial trouble. They get into debt, even if they are way up on the wage scale. So this is not something which is simply for the very poor. Therefore, it is extremely important that this benefit scheme should continue.
Another point is that we must all put a very high priority on the welfare of children. It seems to me that if we want to have an efficient and healthy population in this country, we have to take every step we can to see that children are brought up in some form of comfort, particularly nowadays when the cost of things like children's shoes and clothes is soaring. The child benefit scheme has brought an enormous amount of comfort and will go on doing so, if it continues in its present form.
The amendment is simply to index this benefit as the other benefits will be indexed. There will be no increased cost whatsoever in real terms. It is simply continuing the child benefit scheme in its present form. I do not wish to say any more on this amendment, because it is self-evident that it is an extraordinarily good form of benefit and it is unique in the ways that I have explained. Therefore, I want to see it kept separate as an entirely different form of benefit from any of the others. I hope that this amendment will be accepted by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: I fully support this amendment and I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 122. This amendment has precisely the same effect as Amendment No. 122 in the names of my noble friend

705
Lord Kilmarnock, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and myself and, in the circumstances, we shall not be moving that amendment.
The alarm bells rang last year when child benefit was not up-rated in line with prices, but was allowed to decline in value. The White Paper and the Bill have given rise to some concern that the Government could be going to allow the real value of child benefit to decline, and the role of income-related, income support and family credit to increase. Can the Government deny that they have any such intention? We have seen the death grant and the maternity grant gradually reduce in value, and we know what has happened to them. We see the same process repeated with the pensioners' Christmas bonus and we want to make sure that this process is not applied to child benefit.
Baroness Faithfull: I have a working relationship with both statutory and voluntary child care agencies in this country. Indeed, last week I spent four days in Birmingham meeting social workers, both in the voluntary sector and in the social services, and talking to mothers in a very poor inner city area. What I knew before was reinforced by what I learned last week; that not only should we increase child benefit in line with prices, but should go further and try to increase it in line with tax allowances.
It will be remembered that the Women's National Committee of the Conservative Party has for many years been promoting child benefit as the key benefit for the family. The benefit fell in value from 1979 to 1981. In 1981 the number of children living in poverty or on its margin in families with an income up to 40 per cent. above the supplementary benefit level— the definition of a low income—reached more than 3½ million. Half of these children were living in families supported by at least one wage earner. The numbers living below supplementary level, conventionally taken as the poverty line, were more than half a million in 1981—nearly twice as many as in 1979. We still await the figures for 1983.
This amendment would be a small step towards rectifying the situation by at least ensuring that the real value of child benefit was not eroded further. This amendment, if passed, would be widely welcomed, not least in the other place, where child benefit receives remarkably strong support right across the political spectrum.
Lord Ennals: I want strongly to support the amendment. In my view, the introduction of child benefit was one of the most important measures that was taken by the last Labour Government. It was a measure that had the full backing of the other political parties and, I believe, of all the organisations working in the field. However, it was never the view of the Labour Government at that time that the level of child benefit achieved at its point of introduction represented the ultimate target. It is therefore rather depressing that seven years later the real value of child benefit is actually slightly lower than in 1979 as a result of the cut that was made in 1985. It is also depressing that we have no guarantee or commitment
706
that even its present inadequate level will be maintained. That is why this present amendment is so important.
In 1980 the then Secretary of State for Social Services, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, committed the Government to up-rating child benefit in line with prices,
"subject to economic and other circumstances".
Presumably, that is why the Government are not prepared to do it—because of the economic circumstances. That is a very depressing situation. That commitment apparently no longer stands. The Government's position now is that:
"The future level of child benefit will be determined up-rating by up-rating, according to all the circumstances at the appropriate time, including in particular the pattern of family support as a whole and the needs of the families on low incomes".
I must say that if I had said that when I was Secretary of State I would have been shouted at by the Conservative Opposition at that time; but I did not say that.
Child benefit is currently £7. The l0p increase for July is in line with prices but it does not make good the 35p cut in real value imposed in 1985. It is known that the Treasury would like to see child benefit frozen completely. I am sure that that is what the Treasury would wish. The importance of child benefit both to poor families and to families generally is underlined by the strong all-party support it receives and by the rapid growth of Save Child Benefit, a widely based coalition of more than 70 organisations committed to maintaining and improving the level of child benefit. The Members of another place were prevented from debating a similar amendment which had the support of about 40 Conservative Members of Parliament.
The case for index-linking child benefit was summed up by the Conservative Women's National Committee in its 1985 pre-Budget memorandum. It said:
"For many years the Conservative Women's National Committee has been promoting child benefit for the family. We argued strongly that child benefit should have a high priority in our welfare system. Of all our social provisions it is remarkable in that it has an almost universal take-up. It is comparatively easy and cheap to administer and is paid directly in response to the needs of children. We"—
the Conservative Women's National Committee—
"strongly ask you"—
the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
"not to overlook the significance of child benefit being paid directly to the mother or whoever is responsible for the child. We recommend that as economic circumstances permit"—
and the Government tell us that the economic circumstances are steadily improving—
"child benefit is increased in line with increases in tax allowances or at least"—
that is something less—
"protected against rising prices".
Child benefit is widely seen as the most effective weapon for attacking child poverty and the employment and poverty traps. It is an important source of income for mothers. I must say, frankly, that I find it sickening that an issue of this importance— child benefit, which goes to 7 million mothers—and the proposed amendment are being debated at a quarter to eleven. I find that deplorable.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Denham: If the noble Lord will forgive me, when we take Bills through this Committee the fact that a particular amendment comes on at this time at night depends, as the noble Lord must realise, on how much time one spends discussing the other amendments—and we have had three days on this Bill. The noble Lord must not complain if an amendment comes on late at night, however important it is. Many amendments come on late at night; that has nothing to do with it. When we take Bills through this Committee we agree through the usual channels how long they shall have. If a particular amendment comes on late in the evening, it does not mean that we think of it as being less important. It means that the amendment just happens to fall later in the Bill.
Lord Ennals: I heard the Chief Whip's long intervention on the subject. I just want to say that we have not had three days on this Bill. The first day of debate on the Social Security Bill began at half-past six in the evening. On the second day of debate on this Bill, two hours were taken up by the dinner break. Today, nearly two hours were taken up by the dinner break. So it is not correct to say that there have been three full days on this Bill. I submit to the Chief Whip and to the Committee that it is in fact the management of the business that is at fault, in not ensuring that a Bill of this importance—
Lord Denham: Will the noble Lord-
Lord Ennals: Of course I will give way.
Lord Denham: I cannot accept that. We agree these things through the usual channels. We agree the amount of time that will be allowed. The noble Lord is trying to make a point about when a particular amendment is reached. If the Opposition want to make much of a particular amendment then they should make sure, as we did when in Opposition, that it reaches the Committee earlier in the day. The noble Lord's point is not a reasonable one to make. The noble Lord may by all means debate the points that he wants to make, but he should not debate the way in which the business is done.
Lord Thorneycroft: May I, with diffidence, say just a word, not about the time but about the merits of the amendment? I have the deepest respect for those who moved the amendment, all of whom I count among my friends. However, I am bound to say that I hope they do not press it to a Division; and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will advise the Committee to reject it if they do.
It seems to me that the amendment offends against most of the principles that stand behind this Bill. As I understand it, the Government are trying to introduce a really important measure on social security. It has principles behind it. The Government are trying to target the amount of money that they have to the most important causes that they can find. They are trying to have flexibility. Above all, they are trying to ensure that social security has a financial scale that could be supported by other Governments and other generations than this one. It is in the interests of all of us, on all sides of the Committee, that the Government succeed in that.
708
We come now to child benefit. Child benefit is, as other noble Lords in the Committee have said, a many splendoured thing, and not what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was saying just now about each according to his needs. This is a quite different world that we are in. This is from those who do not manage to produce children to those who do, which are different categories in the world. Nevertheless, the noble Lord is right when he says that it is supported by all parties. It falls upon the rich and upon the poor. It goes to families who would have been amazed in any other generation that the state should assist them in keeping their children. It goes to the richest wage earners and to the poorest people. All of them receive it. The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, is right in saying that it costs just over £4 billion. That is a substantial sum of money.
We are all agreed that it goes on. That is common ground between us. It is maintained in the Bill. But to select this, of all benefits, and say that it should be added to the rather select group of items which are to be linked is, I am bound to say, pushing our luck pretty far. It is true that there is a 100 per cent. take-up. I am not altogether surprised at that. It is attractive to have a bonus that is handed to you, tax free, whether you need it or not, and it is tempting to take up bonuses of that kind. Therefore, there is a 100 per cent. take-up. But we should be cautious on how we suggest that there should be added expenditure.
I have had totted up what the Opposition amendments to this Bill would cost if carried. In total they would cost nearly £1 billion. To propose amendments costing £1 billion to a Social Security Bill aimed at the purposes I have described is asking the Government to undo much of what they are trying to do. It is pushing our role rather beyond that of a revising Chamber. It is a substantial demand.
I agree that this amendment is difficult to cost. Under a Conservative Government it would cost practically nothing, because prices are being held down and inflation is being held. Under a Labour Government—I do not want to make a party point, but I am speaking for Mr. Hattersley and perhaps I am on his side rather than others—it would face Mr. Hattersley with a considerable problem because an increase in inflation is written into their whole system. They would then have to rely on this Bill.
Therefore, we ought to be careful about urging very large and additional amounts of expenditure. Above all, it would be quite wrong to take a benefit of this kind—politically popular, and taken up 100 per cent.; of course it is, and always will be—and to spoil matters by adding it to that list of exceptional items which happen to be, by general agreement, linked to the price index. That would indeed be spoiling matters.
Lord Seebohm: Before the noble Baroness agrees with me, may I first say how much I disagree with (I must call him) my old friend, who is a typical Chancellor of the Exchequer? I wish to make it absolutely clear that I have not asked, in real terms, for one more penny.
Baroness Trumpington: I can well understand the wish of some noble Lords to link child benefit to the general level of prices, irrespective of the competing claims for resources which have to be considered in the

709
context of very substantial expenditure on the totality of social security. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft for his wise words. We have made quite clear our appreciation of the importance of child benefit, and, as my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft said, it provides a measure of financial support for all families. In our review of social security we recognised and accepted that a substantial body of opinion, including the Women's National Committee, called for its continuance as a non-means tested benefit, free of tax and paid primarily to mothers. Indeed, that is the Government's policy.
Our overall programme will give to all families a valuable contribution to the cost of bringing up children while directing extra help to low income families. That is why since coming to office in 1979 we have increased family income supplement in real terms and by a minimum of 13 per cent. One-parent benefit—the increase in child benefit for single parents—has increased significantly in recent years. It is now 22 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1979.
I welcome the opportunity to repeat our commitment to child benefit and our undertaking that it will remain a universal benefit, not means tested, tax free and paid to mothers. I should like to emphasise that there is nothing in the existing legislation, nor in the Bill, to prevent an increase in child benefit in line with the movement in prices, and when practicable this has been done.
The rate of child benefit does not affect people who receive supplementary benefit—the poorest families. It is taken into account when paying supplementary benefit. However, we cannot accept the commitment contained in the amendment which would abolish the flexibility which we believe is essential.
Lord Seebohm: I am disappointed in that reply, though there was a glimpse of light in it at one stage, when the noble Baroness said that the Government intended to continue with child benefit. I have with me sheets of ammunition which we do not have time to go into tonight and so I think I shall have to bring this matter back again on another occasion. In the meantime I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 [Statutory maternity pay—entitlement and liability to pay]:
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 48, line 25, leave out from first ("of") to end of line 26 and insert ("the Secretary of State").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 110 and to speak also to Amendment No. 111, which is concerned with the same question. If the Bill leaves your Lordships' Chamber unamended, it will mean that the maternity pay provided for in Clause 44 will be paid by the employer rather than by the Secretary of State. The object of my amendments is to ensure that the benefit is paid by the Secretary of State.
I may say in moving this amendment that the people who are very keen on it are employers, because
710
they have already pointed out in regard to family credit that this will be an additional burden. I have with me a copy of the CBI handout in which they say that their members have considered the Government's proposals on family credit—on which the Government have already changed their view of course—and maternity allowances. They have expressed strong opposition to the transfer of adminis-trative responsibility for social security payments from the state to employers. They believe that the Government have not provided adequate justification for adding to employers' costs or involving employers in benefit administration. Indeed, the proposals clearly contradict moves by other Government departments designed to reduce burdens imposed on employers by the state. Employers believe that social security benefits are a state reponsibility and should be clearly identified as such. Payment of benefits through the wage packet may adversely affect the perceived relationship between work done and wages received and is certainly not appropriate where there is no contract of employment. That could well be the case, of course, so far as maternity pay is concerned because the woman may have left the employment.
The Retail Consortium has written to me to say that it was pleased to learn of the Government's decision to withdraw the provisions within the Bill to make family credit payable by employers. However, retailers are equally opposed to the provision that employers should assume responsibility for the payment of maternity allowances. The consortium objects strongly to that proposal both in principle and on the grounds of the administrative and subsequent financial costs that its implementation would involve, particularly as there is no provision for compensation to employers to cover the additional administration costs.
I need say little more in support of the amendment. The Government having given way and made a sensible statement in regard to family credit—and this is very much the same issue—I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: I simply wish to support the noble Baroness in the amendment. The Retail Consortium has also been in touch with me, and I shall not repeat what she said on its behalf. The argument is totally valid. The proposals make a complete nonsense of the principles embodied in the Government's programme to lift the burdens of businesses and small businesses in particular. Incidentally, it is not only the retailers who are concerned; it is also the pharmacists, the self-employed and small businesses in general.
How the policy of turning these businesses, some of them very small, into an agency for collecting state revenue can be married with the Government's rhetoric about their help and encouragement of small business is hard to understand. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to explain it to us.
Baroness Hooper: I should point out that if the amendment were passed as it stands we should be left with the worst of all worlds. In order for the DHSS to establish whether there was title to statutory maternity pay and at what rate, it would be necessary to contact

711
the employer. The employer would thus still be involved in all processes except the actual payment, and delays could occur to the detriment of the employee. Operational and manpower costs would be high for both the DHSS and employers, with no return for the employee.
Furthermore, as was made clear in both the Green and White Paper, on the reform of social security which preceded this Bill, the present maternity allowance is badly targeted. Many women become entitled on the basis of distant contribution records and have not worked at all during their pregnancies, while others do not qualify even though they have a full record of employment over the immediately previous 12 months. That is obviously wrong.
In a scheme on which entitlement is to be related to a recent employment test, the person best placed to judge that is the woman's own employer, who in any event is already responsible for making payments of maternity pay under the scheme currently adminis-tered by the Department of Employment. Over 130,000 such payments are already made by employers each year, added to which an employer may also be operating his own occupational scheme of maternity provision for his employees.
We accordingly propose that the responsibility for paying maternity allowance to women still in the workforce should transfer to employers. In many ways that is a logical extension of the statutory sick pay scheme. The vast majority of employers operate the SSP very successfully. Moreover, our research shows that most employees prefer to receive SSP from their employer rather than benefit through the state. There is no reason to believe that that will not also apply to statutory maternity pay.
I understand the concern expressed about the extra work for employers, particularly small employers, to which the noble Baroness referred. The Government are fully alive to that. Indeed, I have only to point to the statement made by noble friend Lady Trumpington on family credit earlier in the Committee stage to emphasise that.
The Government recognise the need to keep the arrangments for statutory maternity pay as simple as possible. That is why we issued a consultation paper before Christmas. We have studied the comments made on that consultation paper most carefully and, as the Committee will know, have introduced significant easements for employers which are in direct response to the representations made.
Most notably, of course, we have provided for the integration of the present maternity pay scheme, which, as I said earlier, employers already operate, with our original proposals. One major advantage for employers from this approach is that they will be able to recover the whole of the statutory maternity payments they make by offsetting these against the regular monthly remittances of PAYE income tax and national insurance contributions that they make to the Inland Revenue. This follows existing statutory sick pay practice and is a major simplification over the present arrangements for maternity pay, where the employer has to make separate applications for a
712
rebate at a later date to the Department of Employment.
This will mean that employers will deal with only one Government department instead of two. Further-more, self-reimbursement also eases possible cash flow problems which might otherwise occur where there is some delay under the present arrangements for maternity pay.
On top of this, I am sure your Lordships will be pleased to know that the Government intend further to assist employers by following the SSP precedent and providing for employers to be compensated for the national insurance contributions that they pay on SMP.
Perhaps I may turn now briefly to Amendment No. 111, which we are discussing with this amendment. The amendment would remove the power to prevent an employer dismissing an employee solely or mainly to avoid his liability to SMP. I am sure the noble Baroness would agree that the employee should be safeguarded against this. However, I accept that the amendment is consequential to Amendment No. 110 and stands or falls with that amendment.
With what I have been able to say, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jeger: Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask her what is the Government's attitude to women who work part time? I understand from the Bill that a woman who works part time (between eight and 16 hours a week) must be with the same employer for five years. That will cause many difficulties for women who take occasional part-time work, especially women in agricultural areas who work during the harvest and people who work in seaside resorts and so on. I wonder what the Government think will happen to those people and why they have put a five-year limit on the time that they must spend with the same employer. That may cause difficulties for many women.
Baroness Hooper: I hope that I can help the noble Baroness by saying that the requirement for SMP for a woman who works fewer than 16 hours a week with the same employer is extended from two to five years and follows existing rules for maternity pay. It applies also to other employment rights conferred by the Employment Protection Act. Where the employee works very few hours in the week, it has always been considered right that a longer qualifying period be required before she acquires the employment rights enforceable on employers for full-time employees. It provides greater freedom and flexibility for employers in recruiting part-time staff, who often work on a less rigid basis than full-time employees.
Our general principle in devising the statutory maternity pay rules has been to follow wherever possible existing maternity pay practice as regards service and rates. That ensures equality of treatment for both employers where statutory maternity pay subsumes maternity pay.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness said, but I still feel that the case for my amendments is strong. This is a social benefit and it seems to me that there is a strong

713
case for it to be paid by the DHSS, or the appropriate Government department, rather than the employer. That was a view also strongly held by the CBI, to whose submissions I referred earlier. It rejected the claim that this would be a logical extension following the introduction of the statutory sick pay scheme. It said that there is no overlap in either provision or administration between employers and the state such as was abolished by the SSP scheme. Furthermore, employers do not believe that they should accept responsibility for statutory maternity allowance for women who may no longer be under contract of employment. Maternity payments are designed to encourage pregnant women to give up work in the interests of both mother and child. The CBI believes that they are a state responsibility and should be clearly designated as such. Payment by the employer only confuses that relationship.
I was glad to hear from the noble Baroness that there is an intention to simplify and streamline the provision, because that is helpful. But the basic problem remains. These are a state benefit and as such they should be paid by the state to the women and not via the wage packet or the employer.
I shall not press my amendments this evening, and I shall look carefully at what the noble Baroness has said. However. I still believe that there is considerable strength in the arguments that I have advanced.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 111ZA:
Page 49, line 26, leave out ("woman's confinement occurs") and insert ("woman is confined")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment which the eagle-eye of the parliamentary draftsman has identified as being needed to maintain a consistent approach in the wording used in the references to the statutory maternity pay provisions. They do not alter the effect of the provisions in the slightest way.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [The maternity pay period]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 111ZB:
Page 50, line 7. leave out ("week in which falls the expected day") and insert ("expected week")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 [Rates of payment]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 111ZC:
Page 51, line 11, at end insert—

("(5A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to when a contract of service is to be treated for the purposes of subsection (5) above as normally involving or having involved employment—

(a) for less than 16 hours weekly; or

(b) for 8 hours or more weekly,

or as not normally involving or having involved such employment.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment enables the Secretary of State to specify in regulations when cases are to be treated as normally involving employment for fewer than 16 hours or more than 8 hours a week for the satisfaction of the service qualification test for part-time workers referred to in Clause 46(5). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Statutory maternity pay etc.]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 111A and 111B:
Page 108, line 25, leave out ("4") and insert ("5").
Page 108, line 31, leave out ("4") and insert ("5").
The noble Baroness said: These are purely drafting amendments to correct a mistake which crept into the Bill on its way from another place. The right reference in both cases is paragraph 5 and not paragraph 4. These amendments put the text back as it was. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 111C, 111D and 111E:
Page 111, line 24, leave out ("her confinement occurs") and insert ("she is confined").
Page 111, line 40, leave out ("the date of the confinement was") and insert ("she was confined").
Page 112, line 4, leave out ("is") and insert ("and "confined" are").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 [Interpretation of Part V]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 111F:
Page 51, line 31, leave out from ("and") to second ("of) in line 36 and insert ("where a woman's labour begun on one day results in the issue of a child on another day she shall be taken to be confined on the day of the issue of the child or, if labour results in the issue of twins or a greater number of children, she shall be taken to be confined on the day")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 49 and 50 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Adjudication]:
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 111G and 111H:
Page 114, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("Where") in line 34 and insert ("and
(e) the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (7)—
"(7)")
Page 114, line 44, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 46 and insert—
("(2) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of that section—
(d)")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 111J:
Page 117, line 8, at end insert—
("(2) The following paragraph shall be inserted after that paragraph—
"(bb) without an application review such a determination on any ground within the prescribed period;".")
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend I would say that this is, again, a purely technical amendment that restores to the Attendance Allowance Board the power to review a decision where no application has been made by a third party. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 111K:
Page 120, line 18, leave out second ("under") and insert ("made by virtue of paragraph (b), (c) or (e) of)
The noble Baroness said: Again I speak on behalf of my noble friend. This amendment provides that questions arising on statutory maternity pay and regulations made under Clause 44(8)(b), (c) and (e) will be for decision by the Secretary of State. It replaces the original provision that was too widely drawn. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 [Overpayments]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 57, line 19, leave out from ("that,") to end of line 22 and insert ("any person has failed to use due care and diligence through-out to avoid overpayment of benefit and in consequence of such failure to use due care and diligence.")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should like to discuss with it Amendments Nos. 113 and 114. I shall be brief. The amendment is to provide that the test for the recovery of over-payments should be whether the claimant exercised due care and diligence. The amendment is to ensure that people are not prosecuted for over-drawing social security benefit unless there was a clear intention to defraud. It must be proved that a claimant made a false statement knowing it to be false.
Secondly, the amendment provides that the test for recovering over-payments from a claimant should be whether a claimant exercised due care and diligence. But legislation currently applies different tests for the recovery of over-payments. Because of the time I shall not go into the four different tests. The amendment recommends that the same test should apply to all four areas. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I wonder whether I may speak in shorthand. Proving a person's intentions is more difficult than even establishing that due care and diligence has been used. In effect, the amendment would limit recovery of over-payment only to cases where there had been fraudulent intent. There is much more that I could say, but I would ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I was going to say that I would read in Hansard what my noble friend said; but perhaps I may discuss the matter with my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 59, line 16, at end insert—
(" (e) housing benefit").
The noble Baroness said: This is an amendment to bring the criteria for recovering overpayment of housing benefit into line with the criteria for recovering overpayment of other benefits. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: There is a separate provision in Clause 29 to deal with recovery of overpaid housing benefit. This provides for the arrangements for recovering housing benefit overpayments to be set out in regulations, including the circumstances in which an overpayment can be recovered. As my honourable friend the Minister of State explained in another place when Clause 29 was debated, we have not defined the categories of overpayments which it will be possible to recover in the main legislation because this is something we need to discuss with the local authorities.
However, it was made clear in the Standing Committee's discussions on the HB clauses that we agreed in principle it was right for the main grounds for recovering overpaid housing benefit to be the same as those applying to other benefits; namely, that recovery is possible only where the claimant has misrepresented or failed to disclose a material fact. It was also said that this would be the starting point for our discussions with the local authorities.
I should like to repeat that undertaking. But I am afraid that it has not yet been possible to take forward our discussions with the local authority interests on all the aspects of the new scheme which we need to discuss with them, including the arrangements for dealing with overpayments. These discussions would not be meaningful if all possibility of variation is ruled out before the consultation begins. Parliament will have the opportunity to debate the relevant regulations once these discussions have been completed. I would once again ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I shall read what the Minister has said in Hansard, and withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 agreed to. Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [False representations for obtaining benefit etc.]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 59, line 37, at end insert ("dishonestly").
The noble Baroness said: From the point of view of groupings I shall, with the permission of Members of the Committee, speak to Amendments Nos. 116, 117 and 118. These amendments require a dishonest intention to be proved in a prosecution for a social security fraud. When these amendments were discussed in Committee and at Report stage in the House of Commons on 20th May, John Major,

717
Member of Parliament, Parliamentary Under-secretary of State, said that he had been impressed by the arguments on the question of recklessness, that the Government would look at them carefully, and would consider bringing forward an appropriate amendment in the House of Lords. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: As the Committee will know, the concept of recklessness is not new either to social security law or to the criminal law generally. As the noble Baroness said, in response to concern expressed about recklessness in another place the Government undertook to reflect again upon the concept. I am pleased to be able to report to the Committee that our deliberations have led us to the conclusion that the objections to recklessness offences, from both within and outside Parliament, are sufficiently persuasive to merit the removal of these provisions from the Bill.
I therefore give an undertaking to bring forward appropriate amendments at Report stage which will have the effect of restoring the status quo on social security offences, thereby meeting the broad thrust of the amendments of my noble friend. I hope, bearing in mind what I have said, that my noble friend will not press her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: It is wonderful how my noble friend the Minister and I agree without my having given her a long description. I therefore withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clauses 54 to 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Consultations on subordinate legislation]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 118A:
Page 65, line 42, at end insert ("and, in so far as he does not propose to give effect to them, his reasons why not.").
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to give his reasons when he proposes not to give effect to recommendations in the report of an advisory body on regulations made earlier by reason of urgency. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 118B:
Page 65, line 44, at end insert ("made by virtue of an enactment contained in this Act or in an Act passed before this Act, if they are").
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 118B. I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 118C. These two amendments ensure for the purposes of this Bill and earlier Acts that the period during which there is no requirement for regulations to be referred to an advisory body is 12 months, and for future Acts, unless specifically stated, the period will be six months. This is essentially a tidying-up exercise and as such I hope that it will be welcomed by the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 118C:
Page 66, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—
("(5A) Nothing in any enactment shall require the reference to the Committee, the Council or the Board of regulations made by virtue of an enactment contained in an Act passed after this Act, if they are—

(a) contained in a statutory instrument made before the end of the period of 6 months from the commencement of the enactment under which it is made; or

(b) contained in a statutory instrument which—

(i) states that it contains only provisions consequential on a specified enactment or such provisions and regulations made under that enactment; and

(ii) is made before the end of the period of 6 months from the commencement of that enactment,

unless the Act containing the enactment by virtue of which the regulations are made excludes this subsection in respect of the regulations.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 118D:
Page 66, leave out lines 36 and 37.
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 118D. I should explain that such a definition is no longer required, given that the new subsection (5A) (as introduced by Amendment No. 118B), which provides for the reversion to the traditional six months sterile period for future Acts, contains an express reference to an enactment contained in future legislation.
I consider that it is clear from the context in which the other provisions of this clause operate that they relate to past legislation, without the need specifically to define that that is what we intend. I therefore commend this minor change to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Annual up-rating of benefits]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 118E:
Page 68, line 10, at end insert—
("(dd) specified in section 41(2B) of the Social Security Act 1975;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 118F:
Page 69, line 17, after ("(1)(d)") insert ("(ii)").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 118F. This is a drafting amendment. I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 118G, which is also a drafting amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 118G:
Page 69, line 18, at end insert ("and an increase in a sum such as is specified in subsection (l)(d)(i) above shall be added to and form part of that pension but shall not form part of the sum increased").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 62 to 64 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Christmas bonus for pensioners]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 118H:
Page 121, line 26, leave out from ("allowance") to end of line 27 and insert ("means—

(a) an unemployability supplement payable under section 58 of the Social Security Act 1975 by virtue of paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to this Act; or

(b) any corresponding allowance payable—

(i) by virtue of section 7(3)(a) of the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1975;

(ii) by way of supplement to retired pay or pension exempt from income tax under section 365(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970;

(iii) under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939; or

(iv) by way of supplement to retired pay or pension under the Polish Resettlement Act 1947;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 121 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 65 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 122 not moved. ]
[Amendment No. 123 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clauses 66 and 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Entitlement to mobility allowance—general]:
11.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 74, line 22 at end insert—
("(2D) In determining whether a person is unable, or virtually unable to walk, account shall be taken of

(a) the distance, speed, time and manner in which he can make progress on foot without severe discomfort;

(b) the need for guidance, supervision or assistance;

(c) the ability to conceive and achieve a desired destination").

The noble Lord said: With the best will in the world I cannot move this amendment formally, nor can I do it in one minute. It is on an issue of great importance. When I was a constituency Member I had brought to my attention many cases of the difficulty of interpretation of the legislation that established the mobility allowance. This amendment has been worked out and now has the support of the all-party Disablement Group and several organisations representing the interests of disabled people, including the Disability Alliance, MENCAP, SENSE, and the Royal National Institute for the Blind.
The amendment will insert wording in the Social Security Act 1985. If we do not do this now, we may have to wait many years before we are able to do it. The amendment seeks to clarify several ambiguities that now arise in claims for mobility allowance made by people who, though literally able to make the physical movements of walking, are not capable of independent mobility. The point is that the mobility allowance was designed for those who cannot walk, or virtually cannot walk, and all the circumstances beyond that were not described in the legislation, and it could be said that they should have been. Well, we must now put it right.
Although paragraph (a) of the amendment repeats the wording of regulation 3(1)(b) of the mobility allowance regulations, paragraphs (b) and (c) are new. Inclusion of this wording will clarify the entitlement to mobility allowance of mentally handicapped people, deaf-blind people, and people who suffer some orientation problem. Under current regulations some disabled people who are incapable of independent mobility fail to qualify for mobility allowance. They receive no help with the extra financial burden imposed by their mobility problems.
It so happens that I have a son who works with people who are deaf-blind. He has brought many cases to my attention. Deaf-blind claimants experience difficulties in qualifying for the allowance. Even if they are not capable of independent mobility, they are physically able to walk. This is the problem that has led to a variety of different judgments.
The deaf-blind require a skilled guide at all times when walking outdoors. Their difficulties arise not only because they are unable to orientate themselves but also because they are able to communicate only by use of the deaf-blind manual alphabet, and they cannot ask passers-by for assistance as the blind can. They need to take taxis for all but the simplest journeys or need to be able to meet the travelling expenses of a travelling companion, and yet in most cases they cannot get the mobility allowance.
Mentally handicapped children may be able to make the physical movement of walking but have behavioural problems restricting their mobility. They run away. They have tantrums. They sit on the ground and refuse to walk. They need supervision at all times. Their parents are unable to take them on public transport because of their behaviour, and they are unable to contemplate walking far in case the child refuses to walk farther. For the parents a car is essential and yet the mobility allowance is not available to pay for it.
Much confusion has arisen because of differing commissioners' decisions about the definition of "to walk" and about which factors can be taken into account in deciding whether a claimant is unable, or virtually unable, to walk. I shall not go through the different commissioners' awards which, because they are contradictory, have caused such confusion. The first one was in 1978. The next one was in 1981. Then there was one in 1983 and the next one involved a tribunal of commissioners, also in 1983. The latest one, in the Lees case, has led to great confusion and extreme difficulty for those who have to determine whether mobility allowance should be granted. What is the interpretation of the law as it stands?
In conclusion, though I may have made a brief presentation that may have suffered as a result, the present interpretation of the regulations causes a great deal of confusion. Claimants are unclear why they fail to qualify while others in similar positions— sometimes in exactly similar positions—do qualify. Advisers cannot give clear guidance to potential claimants and because of this many claims are appealed by the claimant and the DHSS with the result that claimants can often wait a year or even longer for their claims finally to be decided.
The proposed amendment will clarify this by stipulating the factors that should be taken into account by medical boards and medical appeal tribunals in deciding whether a claimant is unable or is virtually unable to walk. It will be for the medical authorities to decide the extent to which these factors limit a claimant's walking ability. The new clause would not, for example, mean that all blind people would qualify for a mobility allowance. They would qualify only if they had some additional disability, such as deafness or orientation problems, that, combined with their blindness, means that they are able to walk only with a great deal of assistance.
I shall not give any of the examples I have which are now unresolved, but I think I have said enough in the amendment itself by setting out the considerations that the medical board (I stipulate that it must be a medical board) has to have in mind when reaching a conclusion to show that it will be greatly helped if Amendment No. 124 is carried. I beg to move.
Lord Winstanley: I shall be as brief as I can but I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that it would be neither right nor proper to try to deal with this matter briefly and formally. It is a matter about which millions of people are very deeply concerned and they would wish to know that it is being properly considered in your Lordships' Committee and will not care twopence about the time at which it is considered, nor do I make any complaint about that. I feel that the matter is one of sufficient importance for some of the facts to be put on record.
The purpose of the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, is to remove some of the anomalies and the confusion that currently surround mobility allowance. That is not a new matter. Indeed there has been confusion and there have been anomalies since the days of the old invalid vehicle, the trike. Even in those days I, as a doctor, had to send patients along to the Artificial Limb and Appliance Centre, who were then the people who made the decision. Later, when I dealt with constituency cases as a Member in another place, one found over and over again that there were anomalies. Different cases were dealt with differently and we constantly had problems of this kind. Let me emphasise that it is no new matter at all.
What is happening and the real danger is that with the confusion that has arisen as a result of a number of the judgments and opinions that have been given by the commissioners and on appeal (indeed, on appeal to your Lordship's House) we are now in the situation where there is a distinct possibility, indeed a probability, that certain people who have been entitled to the mobility allowance will find on an application for renewal that it is refused. My experience, particu-larly as a doctor, is that few things cause more distress than for a person in receipt of some benefit or some form of assistance suddenly to find on an application for renewal that, while his condition has remained totally unchanged, he is deprived of a benefit which he previously enjoyed. This is a cause of immense frustration and resentment and is something that at all costs should be avoided.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, the amendment is fairly simple. He said that (a) merely
722
repeats the wording of Regulation 3(l)(b) of the mobility allowance regulations and thus should be acceptable to everyone in the Committee. As for (b), that was taken directly from a judgment of a Tribunal of Commissioners which said (and I quote):
"The need for guidance, supervision or support is a facet of the manner in which a person can progress on foot and should be taken into account by medical authorities."
As for (c), that comes from a number of cases concerned with mentally handicapped people.
I should emphasise that these are factors that need only to be considered, if your Lordships accept this amendment. It would still be up to the assessors to decide the extent to which they should apply. There has been much argument about how much this would cost. I think the various voluntary bodies to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred, who feel deeply about this particular issue and who are closely associated with the all-party disablement group, have done their own calculations and they believe that the numbers involved would be somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 rather than the enormous number which has been suggested by Government spokesmen, who have been anxious to resist the amendment.
I think we have more or less had an invitation to look at this matter again from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in a judgment in your Lordships' Chamber—and how much we regret his absence from our proceedings today and how very deeply we all regret the reasons for it! His guidance on this matter would be of great importance.
In the case of Christine Lees, to which reference has been made, that case finally came to the Law Lords in your Lordships' House, and I have here a quotation from the judgment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said:
"Mr. Drabble [the claimant's representative] would have us construe the ability to make progress on foot as an ability to advance from point A to a desired destination B. The context does not admit of such a meaning. The words clearly refer to the physical ability to move on foot not to the direction of that movement."
The noble and learned Lord then went on to refer to another commissioner's decision, and said:
"I am satisfied that Mr. Rice, the Commissioner who heard this case, reached the correct conclusion in law and that other decisions which differ from his on the law must be held to be to that extent erroneous. Mr. Rice considered that, had the legislature intended to include in regulation 3(1)(b) the inability to direct one's walking, it would have done so in clear terms".
I have no doubt at all that it was in fact the legislature's intention to do precisely that: and we do now have an opportunity to do it. For far too long after the disappearance of the "trike" we had people applying to the DHSS, who then became the authority for deciding whether or not mobility allowance should be granted. In this field the DHSS seem to me to begin to resemble increasingly a kind of inverted Mr. Micawber, waiting for something to turn down. We find that more and more often they have turned down applications because they did not conform with the kind of entitlement referred to in this amendment.
If this amendment were accepted, or if the noble Baroness could say that the Government could go some way towards accepting it, I think we would do away with many anomalies and a great deal of uncertainty. We will also do away with the (I think)

723
very dangerous situation in which many people who have previously been entitled to the mobility allowance will suddenly find they become unentitled to it. I hope the noble Baroness will give us a sympathetic reply on this very important amendment.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: May I very briefly support the moving of this amendment and express the hope that even if it is not perfect (and I suspect that that is what the noble Baroness will say) somehow or other, between us, we shall be able to clarify the present confusion before the Bill leaves this Chamber?
I know that there is some difference of opinion about the effect of this amendment. The intention certainly is to benefit some 5,000 to 10,000 people, whereas, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said, the Minister suggested it might be as many as a quarter of a million people. If there is that difference between the Minister and those who have put forward the amendment, as we have done in this Chamber, there must some room for a coming together to find a solution to the problem which has been created by the Lees case.
I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord, whose judgment has been quoted, clearly was expressing what the law is. It is not surprising that he came to that conclusion, in that it is generally agreed that when the law was framed it was to provide assistance to the physically handicapped, and it has been developed by various decisions which led to the test case and that has now been judicially clarified. All we are asking is that the legal decision, which has been taken in this House sitting judicially, and which has led to a confusion, should be clarified before this Bill leaves the House. I myself would not ask any more of the Minister, but I would ask at least as much as that.
Baroness Trumpington: I, too, am glad that we have had an opportunity, however short, to debate the issue of the eligibility criteria for mobility allowance, because it is one which is of great interest and concern to many disabled people. The Government have great sympathy with that concern and I recognise the force of many of the arguments for change which have been put to us, but I cannot advise that the Committee accepts the amendment before us this evening.
Inability, or virtual inability, to walk has been the basic qualifying condition for the allowance since it was first introduced in 1976 by the then Labour Government. The meaning of "virtually unable to walk" was a subject of uncertainty and dispute until two recent judicial decisions; one by the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House and the other by a tribunal of social security commissioners. I am sure that your Lordships' Committee would accept the value of a clear legal definition which emerges from these decisions and which means that the confusion over the qualifying conditions is now effectively resolved. At the same time, though, I readily accept that it is now clear that some highly deserving and sympathetic cases, like those that have been mentioned, are not entitled to the benefit as the law stands. That is something which the Government will look at.
724
I have said that we will consider the arguments that have been put this evening. We have the power already to bring in other changes swiftly by means of regulations if, and when, a clear case is made for changes which we can afford. I recommend that the Committee rejects the amendment before us now, and I hope that noble Lords will take note of what I have said.
Lord Ennals: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that together with her right honourable friend she will look at this. I should like in that consultation to be able to submit some information that might be helpful—not that the Secretary of State is not able to decide for himself. But I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the concession that she has made and, in those circumstances, I most willingly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 124A:
Page 74, line 35, at end insert—
("(5) Where the Secretary of State has made a payment to a person who has claimed mobility allowance on the ground that if the person's claim had been received by the Secretary of State at a date later than that on which it was in fact received, the person would have been entitled to mobility allowance—

(a) the payment shall be treated as a payment of mobility allowance; and

(b) the person shall be treated as having been entitled to mobility allowance for the period in respect of which the payment was made.").

The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Trumpington, may I say that Clause 68 restores the law to what it was believed to be before a recent decision of the Court of Appeal held that entitlement to mobility allowance could be considered only as at the date a claim is received or treated as received. It enables regulations to provide for the adjudicating medical authorities, including medical appeal tribunals, to determine the medical qualifying conditions for the allowance as at the date a claim is received or is treated as received or from a later date, and for the allowance to be awarded from whichever of these dates the qualifying conditions are found to be satisfied. Clause 68(4) validates awards of mobility allowance made from a "later date" which were rendered erroneous in law by the Court of Appeal decision.
However, following the Court of Appeal decision there have been cases where medical appeal tribunals, having found a claimant does not satisfy the qualifying conditions as at the date of claim, would have decided those conditions satisfied from a later date, and had the present law allowed it mobility allowance would have been awarded from that date. As it is, the only decision the adjudicating authorities can give is that the claimant does not qualify for the allowance and the claimant is faced with the chore of making a fresh claim in order to get his benefit.
We think it is wrong that these claimants should lose out in this way and be put to the trouble of making another claim. We are therefore making them extra-statutory payments on account of, and at the same amount as, the mobility allowance they would have received had the present law allowed "later-date" awards. To minimise the period of extra-statutory

725
payment and avoid any difficulties in the future about the entitlement to mobility allowance of the people receiving the payments, we propose to put the payments on a statutory basis, by treating them as payments of mobility allowance, and to treat the recipients of the payments as entitled to the allowance for the period the payments are made. The present subsection (4) is not wide enough to achieve these aims and the provisions of the new subsection (5) are therefore required. I am sure the Committee will recognise the entirely sensible and beneficial purpose of this amendment, and I commend it.
Lord Ennals: For my part, I greatly welcome the announcement and statement, and the amendment that has been proposed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 69 and 70 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clauses 71 and 72 agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 124B:
After Clause 72, insert the following new clause:
("Amendments relating to forfeiture of benefits.

(1) The Forfeiture Act 1982 shall be amended as follows.

(2) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (1) of section 4 (Social Security Commissioner to determine whether forfeiture rule applies to social security benefits)—

"(1A) Where a Commissioner determines that the forfeiture rule has precluded a person (in this section referred to as "the offender") who has unlawfully killed another from receiving the whole or part of any such benefit or advantage, the Commissioner may make a decision under this subsection modifying the effect of that rule and may do so whether the unlawful killing occurred before or after the coming into force of this subsection.

(1B) The Commissioner shall not make a decision under subsection (1 A) above modifying the effect of the forfeiture rule in any case unless he is satisfied that, having regard to the conduct of the offender and of the deceased and to such other circumstances as appear to the Commissioner to be material, the justice of the case requires the effect of the rule to be so modified in that case.

(1C) Subject to subsection (1D) below, a decision under subsection (1A) above may modify the effect of the forfeiture rule in either or both of the following ways—

(a) so that it applies only in respect of a specified proportion of the benefit or advantage;

(b) so that it applies in respect of the benefit or advantage only for a specified period of time.

(1D) Such a decision may not modify the effect of the forfeiture rule so as to allow any person to receive the whole or any part of a benefit or advantage in respect of any period before the commencement of this subsection.

(1E) If the Commissioner thinks it expedient to do so, he may direct that his decision shall apply to any future claim for a benefit or advantage under a relevant enactment, on which a question such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above arises by reason of the same unlawful killing.

(1F) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (1E) above whether the claim is in respect of the same or a different benefit or advantage.

(1G) For the purpose of obtaining a decision whether the forfeiture rule should be modified the Secretary of State may refer to a Commissioner for review any determination of a question such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above that was made before the commencement of subsections (1A) to (1F) above (whether by a Commissioner or not) and shall do so if the offender requests him to refer such a determination.

726

(1H) Subsections (1A) to (1F) above shall have effect on a reference under subsection (1G) above as if in subsection (1A) the words "it has been determined" were substituted for the words "a Commissioner determines".".

(3) In subsection (2) of that section, after the words "that subsection" there shall be inserted the words "or any decision under subsection (1A) above".

(4) In section 5 (exclusion of murderers) after the word "Act", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or in any decision made under section 4(1A) of this Act".").

The noble Baroness said: This new clause amends the Forfeiture Act 1982 to give the Social Security Commissioners the same powers in relation to granting relief from forfeiture of benefit as the courts already enjoy in relation to property rights. It will enable the commissioners to decide in cases where the rule of public policy applies whether, and if so for how long, an offender should forfeit benefit. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Earnings factors]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 124C to 1240:
Page 125, line 26, leave out from ("from") to ("and") in line 28 and insert (" "from" to "above" there shall be substituted the words in respect of each tax year from those of his earnings upon which primary Class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as paid").
Page 126, line 9, leave out ("Class 1 contributions have been") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as")
Page 126, line 15, at end insert—
("(4A) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (5A)—
"(5B) Regulations may provide for requiring persons to maintain, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, records of such earnings paid by them as are relevant for the purpose of calculating earnings factors, and to retain such records for so long as may be prescribed.".")
Page 126, line 20, leave out ("a liability to pay Class 1 contributions arose") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as paid")
Page 126, line 28, leave out ("a liability to pay Class 1 contributions arose") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as paid")
Page 126, line 41, leave out ("a liability to pay Class 1 contributions arose") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as paid")
Page 127, line 3, leave out ("a liability to pay Class 1 contributions arose") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as paid")
Page 127, line 9, leave out ("Class 1 contributions were") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions were paid or treated as")
Page 127, line 16, leave out ("Class 1 contributions were") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions were paid or treated as")
Page 127, line 24, leave out ("Class 1 contributions were actually") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions were paid or treated as")
Page 127, line 32, leave out ("Class 1 contributions were actually paid by him") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions were paid or treated as paid")
Page 127, line 41, leave out ("liability to pay Class 1 contributions arose") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as paid")
Page 128, line 4, leave out ("Class 1 contributions are payable") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as paid")
The noble Baroness said: These are technical and clarificatory amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 73 [Refreshments for school pupils]:
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 124P:
Page 76, line 2, at end insert—
(" ( ) References in subsection (2) of each of those sections to supplementary benefit and family income supplement shall be treated as references to income support and family credit respectively.")
The noble Baroness said: In view of the grouping, with this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 119, 120, 125 and 126. I have been asked to be brief and I shall do my very best. The purpose of the amendment is fairly complex because it tries to preserve the status quo with regard to the three categories of children currently benefiting from a school meal. I shall not go into those three categories because the Committee will know them well; but the changes proposed in the Bill are that local authorities providing schools meals and school milk must charge for them except in cases where the parents of the pupils receive income support. That means that no fewer than 545,000 children currently benefiting from a school meal will lose their entitlement.
As the Committee will know, the Government intend to provide a notional amount of £2·20 per week throughout the whole year, which works out at 60p per day in the school year, to families on family credit to compensate them for the loss of the free midday meal. The Government argue that it is preferable to provide help in cash rather than in kind. However, I shall put forward the reservations of this side of the Committee as to the true outcome of that arrangement, which we believe will be rather different from that which the Government meant.
We doubt whether the children themselves will benefit from a cash payment rather than from a benefit in kind. First, we are concerned as to who will be entitled to the compensation and whether the sum will be adequate to cover the cost of the meals for those who do receive it. On the first count, we know that there will be no compensation at all for families not in work and not receiving family support. At present they are the families receiving help under local authority discretionary schemes. Can the Government guarantee that all children served by discretionary schemes will receive family credit? That is an important question that we have to ask the Government.
Secondly, as to the adequacy of the compensation, it appears to us that the very poorest of families may suffer, in that those receiving family credit who receive also housing benefit will be given only 44p a week cash compensation instead of £2·20. That is because family credit counts as income for housing benefit purposes. That 44p per week will hardly compensate for the present nutritional meal that is provided five days a week. Those are very complex points and I shall not go into them now, but perhaps other Members of the Committee may wish to elaborate briefly on one or two of them. However, I wish to express to the Minister the deepfelt concern that there is on this matter and to which I believe she should try to respond.
I wish also to express the anxiety that is felt as to the wisdom of providing help in cash rather than in kind
728
when it comes to school meals. This amendment has nothing to do with asking for more money. We are often criticised for wishing to throw money at things. Here we are asking only that children should benefit in kind rather than in cash. The Government have said that both ways cost exactly the same amount of money.
We welcome the Government's decision that family credit should be paid direct to the caring parent and not through the wage packet. However, given the many pressures on family budgets, we still have great reservations as to whether that part of the allowance apportioned to the cost of paying for a school meal will be spent on either a meal provided by the school or on another meal of adequate nutritional value. By that, I do not mean to suggest that poor families cannot be trusted, but, with the best will in the world, mothers could feel tempted to borrow the meal money to pay some pressing bill; any mother might be tempted to do that. Alternatively, she might be asked by her husband for some extra money for whatever reason.
In support I should like to quote a survey by the Child Poverty Action Group which shows that mothers themselves express fear that when money is tight they might not be able to keep separate the money for the school meal and that it might get swallowed up in the general housekeeping. Some mothers even said that they would prefer it if free meals continued to be provided even if cash compensation was worth more than the meal. That must be because of the peace of mind they would enjoy in the certitude that their children would be provided with a proper meal at lunchtime.
I visited some primary schools and any reservations I might have had about the high level of the school meals service were completely extinguished. I also took the opportunity of speaking with the teachers and members of the school meals service. I cannot over-exaggerate their concern. In one school in Lambeth 80 per cent. of the children are in receipt of free meals. Of the 140 children in the school, as many as 35 to 40 children will lose benefit altogether because at present they have entitlement from the discretionary scheme. The school was worried about what to do when the children arrive with no money. What can the school do? It can hardly leave the children sitting there without any lunch. Will it put the parents into debt, or pursue the parents for the money? The school was most concerned at the predicament in which it would be placed. It was also concerned that the children might leave the school and spend the money outside on it did not know what and the children might not return. There could be disruption to the school day.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will remember that when I moved Amendment No. 66 there was a great deal of concern throughout the Committee. Even the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that he had a certain sympathy with my original amendment. Noble Lords throughout the Committee expressed their concern in different ways. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness that before we reach Report stage there should be wider consultation on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, put foward the suggestion during an earlier sitting that school meals need to be discussed further by the DES, the DHSS, by all concerned Peers and by all those organisations involved with school meals.
I conclude by asking the noble Baroness, most seriously, whether she will arrange for a meeting to take place on this whole issue well before Report stage. It will not cost more money, and the benefit of the children could be put foremost. I beg to move.
12 midnight
Lord Kilmarnock: In rising to support the noble Baroness I note that she said that some noble Lords might want to elaborate briefly (that is a possibility!) and there are one or two comments that should be made.
This matter was not debated properly at the previous sitting of the Committee because it was in the debate on this issue that the noble Baroness chose to make her extremely welcome announcement about the payment of family credit to the mother. We were therefore sidetracked on that occasion from the real point at issue. To fill in one or two of the technical gaps, I could not initially understand how it was that, of the £2.20 which was designed to be paid in compensation. some families might end up with only 44p per week. The reason is that where families receive housing benefit the compensation will be clawed back because family credit, including compensation, will count as income when the housing benefit is calculated and will be taxed up to 80 per cent. The result of that is that some families will be left with only 44p compensation.
The Government suggested that out of the estimated 610,000 children to be compensated—that is, those who are expected to receive family credit—around only a quarter would be among families receiving housing benefit, who would therefore lose compensation in the manner I have described. But it does mean that around 150,000 children will receive less, and in some cases considerably less, than the £2.20 compensation suggested. Children from the poorest working families would be affected in that way.
Also, of course, there is the fact that was mentioned the last time we debated this point, and it is worth stating again, though I shall not go through the figures—that the cost of school meals is rising constantly and many authorities are now charging over 60p a day.
There is yet another very important point, which the noble Baroness did not mention—and of course she was trying to save time—that there is a minimal operational level for school kitchens. I do not know• exactly what that level is, but it may be 100 meals. Once one falls below a certain level, it may be impossible to operate a kitchen even for the children who need it. So there may be some superficial attractions to the Government's proposals, but I think that the noble Baroness has demonstrated, as I also tried to demonstrate, that there are some very serious drawbacks to them. The Social Security Advisory Committee, which we discussed earlier today, made the following comment:
"We do not believe that this [proposal] will fulfil the Government's aim of giving families adequate resources and the freedom to choose how to use them".
The nutritional considerations also have not really been considered and cannot be considered at length at
730
this time of the night. However, one must remember the opinion expressed in the Lancet in 1979 on the value of free school meals, the Black Report on inequalities in health, and indeed the report of the DHSS itself on the nutritional value of school meals. These all seem to me to be very good reasons why this whole question needs further discussion. It cannot simply be left as if it is a matter which has been set in concrete and which cannot be changed in any way.
On those grounds I very much hope to hear the noble Baroness say that she will take up the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that there should be further consideration among interested parties, along perhaps with her and her officials, to see whether we can resolve some of these problems. It may be that the Government are not even achieving their own aims by the way in which the Bill is actually drafted. I must say to the Committee, and to the noble Baroness in particular, that if we cannot get under way some talks of this sort we shall certainly want to return to this matter on Report—as, I am sure, will the noble Baroness—and on that occasion we may have with us the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who has expressed great concern on this matter and whose name is already attached to this amendment.
I hope that we shall hear from the noble Baroness this evening that she is disposed to reconsider the Government's proposals and meet with some of us who are interested in this matter to see if we cannot make some progress on it.
Lord Rea: I think it would be perfectly possible for me to make a speech of Second Reading length on the health implications of Clause 73, but I shall try to compress into a few minutes the matter which would fill out that speech.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, have shown how this clause will lead to a reduced number of the less well-off children in the country taking up school meals. Similarly and following from that, if fewer school meals are eaten, the cost of the remaining meals must inevitably rise, since the overheads will remain much the same. So the whole service will suffer and some kitchens may even have to close, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock has pointed out.
We already know that those who are entitled to school meals are shorter than average—and the noble Baroness knows the reference so there is no need for me to spell it out. We also know since the preliminary report on the dietary survey of school children that was published in April that those children who do not eat school meals perhaps eat snacks which are very unsatisfactory from a nutritional point of view. They contain far too much saturated fat, sugar and salt and too little essential—that is polyunsaturated—fats, fibre, minerals and vitamins. Particularly they contain too little iron, which is needed by adolescent and pre-adolescent girls.
School meals are also very important from the point of view of calories—the energy provided from the diet—for less well-off children. I quote from the DHSS survey:
"It would appear that, particularly for older children, the school meal whether paid for or provided free, represented a very important source of the energy".

731
The reason this country is falling behind others in health statistics is the persistence or even the widening of the gap between the health of the different social classes. That is now present in coronary artery disease even, which used to be the preserve of the well-off and well-fed. A major cause for that differential, not only in coronary heart disease but in all diseases, is increasingly being shown to be of nutritional origin.
It is not so much the quantity but the quality of the diet which is at fault. Poor people used to have too little of almost every kind of food. Now they have too little of some nutrients and an excess of others which do active harm—and the harm starts in childhood. Risk factors which lead to coronary heart disease can be shown to start in childhood.
As a member of the Coronary Prevention Group and as executive chairman of the National Co-ordinating Committee for Coronary Prevention, I am acutely aware of the need to influence the dietary habits and choices of children and their parents in a positive and healthy way. School meals are potentially an important way to do that. Many districts—I mention Sheffield and Nottingham, to name only two—are making considerable progress in improving the quality of the diet for school meals. It is not true that children like only chips, biscuits and Coke. Good food can be attractively served, and that can be backed up by health education in the classroom. Most nutritionists are convinced that school meals are an important way to improve nutrition in childhood.
To diminish the coverage of school children by the school meal service would be to miss a first-class opportunity to benefit every child's health, not only now but in future adult life. I think it might also influence parents to eat a little better. That has been shown where children have been given nutritional education in the third world.
I shall cut my speech short now. My Whip is anxiously looking at me as if to make me shut up. I am not quite sure why. I think that the clause as it stands would be a retrograde step and would damage the chances of success of what could prove to be an exciting venture in positive preventive medicine.
I should like finally to quote one passage of a document from the Coronary Prevention Group:
"The CPG fully endorses the views expressed by its Chairman Sir Douglas Black when he said (1980 Black Report) that … one of the most effective ways of reducing the inequalities in health was via school meals. Far from [reducing] free school meals CPG urges the Government to reintroduce nutritional standards for school meals and concentrate on making healthy school meals available to all children, free where necessary".
I think that it is perfectly clear why I support my noble friend's amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: This debate takes us back over what is now well trodden ground, but having listened carefully to what noble Lords have said in support of the amendments, I have to say that I do not think that we have heard any new arguments today. These amendments would take us back to square one so far as the arrangements for free school meals are concerned. Some of the arguments that we have heard this evening are, frankly, alarmist and out of all proportion.
732
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, acknowledged the payment to the mothers of the money in the future. It is not a question of an evil Government taking the bread out of the mouths of children: it is a case of the Government extending help to 60,000 more children and providing the help in a manner which enhances the dignity, sense of responsibility and self-reliance of families.
12.15 a.m.
Baroness Jeger: I regret the fact that the noble Baroness did not give us a more encouraging answer. If any Members of the Committee think that we are sitting too late tonight, may I point out that we were supposed to rise for the dinner hour from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. Because of the nature of the business that the Government put into that dinner hour, we did not resume on the Social Security Bill until 8.41 p.m. That happened last Monday as well, when the dinner hour was so extended that the time on the Social Security Bill was curtailed. That is because the Government do not like the Social Security Bill and want to minimise the time that we have on it.
I wonder whether the Government have had any consultations with teachers and other people who will have to implement the school meals proposals. I, like my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs, have talked to teachers about it. They ask what they are to do when a child whom they know is from a poor family arrives without its dinner money. The dinner is on the table but the child does not have the money. Is the teacher to throw that dinner in the dustbin and send that hungry child away?
The Bill takes away all discretion from local education authorities. It is an apalling situation. I agree with some of the Government's thoughts, and that parents should be responsible for their children. But we cannot make children responsible for their parents. If a child arrives without its dinner money, is it to have a lecture from the teacher about its irresponsible parents, and to be sent away hungry? I cannot believe that Members opposite want to see that happening in our schools. The more that happens and the more that children are not allowed to eat the dinner that is there, because they do not have the money, the more will there be a rundown in the whole school meals service. Fewer and fewer meals will be provided on the grounds that fewer and fewer children have brought the money.
That will undermine an important nutritional element. We should spend a great deal more time in the health service on prevention and less on curing people. I must put down this marker: we must come back to the question of school meals, which are so essential to the nutrition of our children and our future citizens. It is absurd for children to be penalised because their parents do not put the money into their hands to take to school. That view is shared by many of the school teachers with whom I have discussed the matter. I have not heard that the Government have had any consultation at all with school teachers.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: The Minister said that no new arguments had been brought forward, but she has not answered the arguments on either of the occasions on which they have been put forward. There is serious

733
doubt about the increased number of children who will benefit, which is about the only point that the noble Baroness brought forward this evening. The increased number of children who will benefit is thought to be speculation.
I am disappointed that the Minister did not even mention our suggestion of discussing this issue, not to make it cost more but to try to get it right for the children. I presume that she has turned down the idea of consultations with representatives from the Department of Education and Science, the DHSS and all the organisations, Members of Parliament and Peers who are deeply concerned. If she is unwilling even to accept that tentative suggestion, we shall most certainly bring it back on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 119, 120, 125 and 126 not moved.]
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 agreed to.
[Amendment 126A not moved.]
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clauses 76 to 78 agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 79 [Orders and regulations (general provisions)]:
[Amendment 126B not moved.]
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clauses 80 to 82 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 126C:
Page 133, line 30, at end insert—
("2A. In section 64 (modification of occupational pension scheme by order of Occupational Pensions Board) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) The Board shall also have power on such an application to make an order—

(a) authorising the modification of the scheme with a view to achieving any one or more of such other purposes as may be prescribed; or

(b) modifying the scheme with a view to achieving any one or more of those purposes.".")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 127 to 129:
Page 135, line 30, leave out ("(l)(a) (contracted-out rates of benefit)") and insert ("(contracted-out rates of benefit)—
(a) in subsection (1)(a),")
Page 135, line 33, at end insert—

("(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) after the words "this section" there shall be inserted the words "and sections 16(2B), 28(7A) and 59(1A) of the principal Act"; and

(ii) at the end there shall be added the words "or if as a result of a transfer payment or transfer under regulations made by virtue of section 38 below he is no longer entitled to guaranteed minimum pensions under the scheme by which the transfer payment or transfer is made and has not as a result of the transfer payment or transfer become
734
entitled to guaranteed minimum pensions under the scheme to which the transfer payment or transfer is made." ")

Page 136, line 11, leave out paragraph 17 and insert—
("17. The following subsection shall be substituted for section 38(1) (transfer of accrued rights)—
"(1) Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which and conditions subject to which—

(a) there may be made by one occupational pension scheme to another or by an occupational pension scheme to a personal pension scheme a transfer of or a transfer payment in respect of—

(i) an earner's accrued rights to guaranteed minimum pensions under a contracted-out scheme;

(ii) an earner's accrued rights to pensions under an occupational pension scheme which is not contracted-out, to the extent that those rights derive from his accrued rights to guaranteed minimum pensions under a contracted-out scheme; or

(iii) the liability for the payment of guaranteed minimum pensions to or in respect of any person who has become entitled to them;

(b) there may be made to an occupational pension scheme or a personal pension scheme a transfer of or a transfer payment in respect of an earner's accrued rights to guaranteed minimum pensions which are appropriately secured for the purposes of section 52C below.")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 129A:
Page 138, line 17, leave out paragraph 25 and insert—
("25.—(1) Section 52C (cases where scheme's liability is discharged) shall have effect and shall be deemed always to have had effect as if the following subsections were substituted for subsections (I) to (3)—
"(1) A transaction to which this section applies discharges the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme from their liability to provide for or in respect of any person either the requisite benefits or short service benefit or any alternative to short service benefit—

(a) if it is carried out not earlier than the time when that person's pensionable service terminates; and

(b) if and to the extent that it results in—

(i) the requisite benefits; or

(ii) short service benefit or an alternative to short service benefit, for or in respect of that person being appropriately secured; and

(c) in a case where the transaction takes place on or after 1st January 1986, if and to the extent that the requirements set out in any one of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (5) below are satisfied.

(2) This section applies to the following transactions—

(a) the taking out or the transfer of the benefit of a policy of insurance or a number of such policies;

(b) the entry into or the transfer of the benefit of an annuity contract or a number of such contracts.".

(2) Subsection (5) of that section shall have effect and shall be deemed always to have had effect as if"(1)" were substituted for "(2)0)".
(3) In relation to transactions which take place after the commencement of section 8 above section 52C(1) of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 shall have effect with the substitution of the words "guaranteed minimum pensions" for the words "the requisite benefits", in both places where they occur.
25A.—(1) Subsection (1) of section 52D (supplementary provisions) shall have effect and shall be deemed always to have had effect—

(a) as if the following paragraph were substituted for paragraph

(b)-

"(b) either—

(i) the transaction wholly or partly securing them was carried out before 1st January 1986 and discharged the trustees or managers of the scheme as mentioned in subsection (1) of that section; or

735

(ii) it is carried out on or after that date without any of the requirements specified in subsection (5)(a) to (c) of that section being satisfied in relation to it and the scheme has been wound up;"; and

(b) as if for the words from "entitled" to "which" there were substituted the words "only entitled to such part (if any) of his or her guaranteed minimum pension as".

(2) In that subsection after the words "purposes of there shall be inserted the words "sections 16(2B), 28(7A) and 59(1 A) of the principal Act and".")
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is to remove doubts as to whether Section 52C of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 fulfils the original intention that the circumstances in which it should provide a discharge for scheme trustees include those where the benefits secured by the policy are not identical to those that would have been provided by the scheme. They will apply from 1st January 1986. I beg to moved.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 138, line 23, at end insert—
(".The following definition shall be inserted after the definition of "occupational pension scheme" in section 66(1)—
" "personal pension scheme" has the meaning assigned to it by section 80(1) of the Social Security Act 1986; "")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 130ZA:
Page 140, line 7, at end insert—
("National Assistance Act 1948 (c. 29)
28A. In subsection (3) of section 22 of the National Assistance Act 1948 (charges to be made for local authority accommodation) for the words "(apart from any supplementation of his resources which he will receive under the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976" there shall be substituted the words "(disregarding income support)".
28B. The words ", whether before or after the commencement of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976," shall be omitted from subsection (6) of section 43 of that Act (recovery of cost of assistance from persons liable for maintenance).
Maintenance Order Act 1950 (c. 37)
28C. In subsection (1) of section 3 of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950 (jurisdiction of English courts to make affiliation orders) after "1976" there shall be inserted the words "or section 24 of the Social Security Act 1986".
28D. In section 4 of that Act (jurisdiction of English courts to make affiliation orders against persons in Scotland or Northern Ireland)—

(a) the following paragraph shall be added at the end of subsection (1)—

"(d) for an order under section 23 of the Social Security Act 1986 (which provides for the recovery of expenditure on income support from such persons;" and

(b) in subsection (2), after the words "or the said section 18" there shall be inserted the words "or the said section 23".

28E. In section 9 of that Act—

(a) the following paragraph shall be added at the end of
subsection (1)—

"(d) for an order under section 23 of the Social Security Act 1986 (which provides for the recovery of expenditure on income support from such persons);" and

(b) in subsection (2), after the words "or the said section 18" there shall be inserted the words "or the said section 23".

28F. In section 11(1) of that Act (jurisdiction of Northern Ireland courts to make affiliation orders) after "1977" there shall
736
be inserted the words "or any enactment applying in Northern Ireland and corresponding to section 24 of the Social Security Act 1986".
28G. In section 12 of that Act (jurisdiction of Northern Ireland courts to make affiliation orders against persons in England or Scotland)—

(a) the following paragraph shall be added at the end of subsection (1)—

"(d) for an order under any enactment applying in Northern Ireland and corresponding to section 23 of the Social Security Act 1986 (which provides for the recovery of expenditure on income support from such persons);" and

(b) the words "or of any order falling within subsection (1)(d) of this section" shall be added at the end of subsection (2).

28H. In section 16(2) of that Act (enforcement of maintenance orders)—

(a) the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after
paragraph (a)(vii)—

"(viii) section 23 of the Social Security Act 1986 or section 4 of the Affiliation Proceedings Act 1957 on an application made under section 24(1) of the Act of 1986;";

(b) the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after
paragraph (b)(viii)—

"(ix) an order made on an application under section 23 of the Social Security Act 1986;"; and

(c) the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph(c)(vii)—

"(viii) any enactment applying in Northern Ireland and corresponding to section 23 of the Social Security Act 1986;".

Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 (No. 1)
28J. In subsection (7) of section 55 of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963, as amended by section 1 of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction (Amendment) Measure 1974, (deprivation etc. of priests etc. after certain proceedings) in the definition of "affiliation order" the word "or" shall be omitted and at the end there shall be inserted the words "or section 24 of the Social Security Act 1986".
Administration of Justice Act 1970 (c.31)
28K. In Schedule 8 to the Administration of Justice Act 1970 (maintenance orders)—

(a) in paragaph 5, the word "or" shall be omitted from both places where it occurs and after "1975" there shall be inserted the words "or section 24 of the Social Security Act 1986"; and

(b) in paragraph 6, the word "or" where first occurring shall be omitted and after "1976" there shall be inserted the words "or section 23 of the Social Security Act 1986".

Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (c.32)
28L. In Schedule 1 to the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (maintenance orders)—

(a) in paragraph 6, the word "or" shall be omitted from both places where it occurs and after "1976" there shall be inserted the words "or section 24 of the Social Security Act 1986"; and

(b) in paragraph 7, the word "or" where first occurring shall be omitted and after "1976" there shall be inserted the words "or section 23 of the Social Security Act 1986".

Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 (c.46)
28M.—(1) In section 24(l)(a) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 (amount to be carried to credit of rent rebate account) for the words "under section 32 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982" there shall be substituted the words "under section 30 of the Social Security Act 1986".
(2) In section 25(l)(a) of the Act (amount to be carried to credit of rent allowance account for the words "under section 32 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982" there shall be substituted the words "under section 30 of the Social Security Act 1986".")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I should like, in addition, to speak to Amendments Nos. 130A, 130B, 130J, 131ZZAand 131ZZB. The amendments are consequential to a variety of legislation. I shall give any explanation that I can if further detail is needed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 130A and 130B:
Page 140. line 27, at end insert—
("31 A. In paragraph 3(c) of Part I of Schedule I to that Act for the words "18 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976" there shall be substituted the words "23 of the Social Security Act 1986.")
Page 142, line 9, at end insert—
("Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43)
38A. The following paragraph shall be added after subsection (1)(1) of section 65 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (domestic proceedings)—
"(m) section 23 or 24 of the Social Security Act 1986;".
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (c.27)
38B. In paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (proceedings excluded from Schedule 4)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (c), after "1976," there shall be inserted the words "section 23 of the Social Security Act 1986, or any enactment applying in Northern Ireland and corresponding to it,"; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (d), after "1976," there shall be inserted the words "section 24 of the Social Security Act 1986 or any enactment applying in Northern Ireland and corresponding to it.".")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 130C:
Page 144, line 36, at end insert—
("Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1977 (c.5)
"52A. In section 18(2)(c) of the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1977 (certain sums to be earnings for social security purposes) for the words "that Act" there shall be substituted the words "the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978".")
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend, this amendment substitutes the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 for the original words "that Act" in Section 18(2)(c) of the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1977.I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman (Lord Renton): I have to point out that Amendments Nos. 130CA and 130D are marshalled in the wrong order. They have, however, been discussed.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 130CA and 130D:
Page 146, line 41, at end insert—
("63A. The words ", reduced earnings allowance" shall be inserted in section 165A(3)(c), as originally enacted, after the words "disablement benefit".").
Page 146, line 38, leave out ("industrial death benefit") and insert ("reduced earnings allowance").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No.130E:
Page 149, line 33, leave out first ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend, this is again a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 130F, 130G and 130H:
Page 149, line 39, leave out ("would be so disqualified if he were") and insert ("who would be so disqualified if).
Page 149, line 41, leave out ("him") and insert ("the person").
Page 149, line 43, at end insert ("or to be within the maternity period.
(2A) In subsection (2) above "the maternity period" means the period commencing at the beginning of the sixth week before the expected week of confinement and ending at the end of the seventh week after the week in which confinement takes place".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Repeals]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 130J:
Page 151, line 4, column 3, at beginning insert—
("In section 43(6), the words ", whether before or after the commencement of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976,".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 130K:
Page 151, line 7, at end insert—

("1965 c. 55.

Statute Law Revision (Consequential Repeals) Act 1965.

The whole Act.").

The noble Baroness said: This again is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 130L to 130Z:
Page 152, line 20 at end insert ("and (2C)")
Page 152, line 25, column 3, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 26 and insert—
("Sections 64").
Page 152, line 29, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 84, subsection (3) and in subsection (5), the references to sections 65 and 66.").
Page 152, line 30, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 88(a), the words from "or", in the first place where it occurs, to "prescribed", in the third place where it occurs.
In section 90, in subsection (2)(a), the words from "(including" to the end and in subsection (3), the references to sections 79 and 81.
In section 91, subsection (l)(b)(i) and in subsection (2), the words "section 58 (unemployability supplement)," and the words from "section 64" to the end.")
Page 152, line 36, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 101(3)(c), the words "or, in relation to industrial death benefit, the deceased".")
Page 152, line 40, column 3, after (" 107") insert (", in subsection (4), the words", whether or not the claimant is the person at whose instance the declaration was made" and in subsection")
Page 152, line 45, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 117, subsection (4) and in subsection (5), paragraph (a) and the word "and" immediately following it.")
Page 153, line 41, column 3, at end insert—
("Schedule 5.")
Page 153, line 47, column 3, at end insert—
("In Schedule 16, paragraphs 3 and 4.")
Page 153, line 48, column 3, after ("20,") insert ("the definitions of "The deceased" and "Industrial death benefit", in the definition of "Relative", the reference to sections 66(8) and 72(6),")
Page 153, line 51, column 3, leave out ("and the definition of) and insert (", the definitions of "Unemployability supplement" and")
Page 153, line 52, column 3, at end insert—
("and in the definition of "Week", the reference to section 64.")
Page 154, line 3, column 3, at end insert—
("In Schedule 3, paragraph 18.")
Page 154, line 37, column 3, at end insert—
("Section 52D(2) and (3).")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 155, line 21, column 3, leave out ("27") and insert ("26")
The noble Baroness said: This is an amendment to retain in force Section 26 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976. I would be happy if my noble friend the Minister would write to me about this because it is quite complicated. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I gratefully accept the suggestion made by my noble friend.
Baroness Faithfull: With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 131 ZZA and 131 ZZB.
Page 155, line 29, after ("(d)") insert ("3(a),")
Page 155, line 29, leave out ("31") and insert ("23, 24, 31, 33")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 131 ZZC:
Page 155, line 30, column 3, at beginning insert—
("Section 9.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman: Before calling Amendment No. 131 ZA, I should point out that it is followed by another amendment on the Marshalled List that has not been numbered. I understand, however, that they go together.
12.30 a.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 131ZA:
Page 155, line 31, column 3, leave out from (" 18") to end of line 33 and insert (", in subsection (1), in paragraph (a) the words "and the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976" and paragraphs (c) and in subsection (2) paragraphs (a) and (b).").
The noble Baroness said: As well as Amendment No. 131ZA and the unnumbered amendment, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 131ZB and 131ZC. These four amendments repeal references in the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1977 and the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 no longer appropriate due to the ending of the present maternity pay scheme. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooperb Baroness Hooperb moved the unnumbered amendment, and Amendments Nos. 131 ZB and 131 ZC:
Page 155, line 57, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 133(l)(a), ",33" ").
Page 155, line 48, column 3, at end insert—
("Section 122(4)(e).").
Page 156, line 12, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 155(1), the words "44 to".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 131ZDand 131ZE:
Page 157, line 53, column 3, at end insert—
("In Schedule 2, paragraph 6.").
Page 157, line 55, column 3, at end insert ("5,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 80 to 83 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Commencement]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 131A:
Page 86, line 8 after ("68") insert ("(4) and (5)").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is consequential on the Government amendment to Clause 68. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 131B:
Page 86, line 10, at end insert—
("section (Amendments relating to forfeiture of benefits);")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 131C:
Page 86, line 13, after ("paragraphs") insert ("25(1) and (2), 25A,")
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend I should like to say that this amendment is part and parcel of an amendment to Schedule 10 and it ensures that it comes into effect on the day that this Bill is passed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 85 [Transitional]:
[Amendment 13ID not moved. ]
Clause 85 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The question is that this report be now received.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, if I may intervene, with respect to the noble Lord in the chair, I believe that we wish to have a separate Report stage, and indeed this must be so as the Bill has been amended in Committee.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, yes indeed.

River Humber (Burcom Outfall)Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before one o'clock.