HL Deb 30 June 1986 vol 477 cc703-40

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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 111ZC: Page 51, line 11, at end insert—

  1. (a) for less than 16 hours weekly; or
  2. (b) for 8 hours or more weekly,

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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—

  1. (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
  2. (b) contained in a statutory instrument which—
    1. (i) states that it contains only provisions consequential on a specified enactment or such provisions and regulations made under that enactment; and
    2. (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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 118H: Page 121, line 26, leave out from ("allowance") to end of line 27 and insert ("means—

  1. (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
  2. (b) any corresponding allowance payable—
    1. (i) by virtue of section 7(3)(a) of the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1975;
    2. (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;
    3. (iii) under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939; or
    4. (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 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

  1. (a) the distance, speed, time and manner in which he can make progress on foot without severe discomfort;
  2. (b) the need for guidance, supervision or assistance;
  3. (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 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) 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.

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 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—

  1. (a) the payment shall be treated as a payment of mobility allowance; and
  2. (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 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 moved Amendment No. 124B:

After Clause 72, insert the following new clause:

("Amendments relating to forfeiture of benefits.

  1. (1) The Forfeiture Act 1982 shall be amended as follows.
  2. (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)—
  3. (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. (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 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 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 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 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". 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.

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 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 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—

  1. (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
  2. (b) modifying the scheme with a view to achieving any one or more of those purposes.".")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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—

  1. (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
  2. (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—

  1. (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—
    1. (i) an earner's accrued rights to guaranteed minimum pensions under a contracted-out scheme;
    2. (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
    3. (iii) the liability for the payment of guaranteed minimum pensions to or in respect of any person who has become entitled to them;
  2. (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 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—

  1. (a) if it is carried out not earlier than the time when that person's pensionable service terminates; and
  2. (b) if and to the extent that it results in—
    1. (i) the requisite benefits; or
    2. (ii) short service benefit or an alternative to short service benefit, for or in respect of that person being appropriately secured; and
  3. (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—

  1. (a) the taking out or the transfer of the benefit of a policy of insurance or a number of such policies;
  2. (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—

  1. (a) as if the following paragraph were substituted for paragraph
  2. (b)-
    1. (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
      2. 735
    2. (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
  3. (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 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 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)—

  1. (a) the following paragraph shall be added at the end of subsection (1)—
  2. (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—

  1. (a) the following paragraph shall be added at the end of subsection (1)—
  2. (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 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)—

  1. (a) the following paragraph shall be added at the end of subsection (1)—
  2. (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)—

  1. (a) the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (a)(vii)—
  2. (b) the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (b)(viii)—
  3. (c) the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph(c)(vii)—

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)—

  1. (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
  2. (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)—

  1. (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
  2. (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 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)—

  1. (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
  2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.