Lords Sitting of 25 January 1988

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

Prison Governors' Association: Discussions
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to recognise the Prison Governors' Association.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): We are considering the new association's request for recognition and will take a decision as soon as possible.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that over 60 per cent. of the grades concerned are now members of the Prison Governors' Association? In the context of that situation, can I ask him to ensure that the decision is made as speedily as possible?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am aware of the number of people who have said that they wish to join this association, but the noble Lord will be aware that when there is a request for recognition one first has to go through certain channels of communication. That is the process we are now going through. We will make a decision as soon as possible.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is one of the matters which will appeal to the noble Earl as worthy of consideration the views of other unions to which exactly the same grades now belong?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, all matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, are of interest and concern. Of course, he is correct that those matters are being considered.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in considering this application, will my noble friend and his right honourable friend have in mind that this organisation consists of highly responsible people whose views could be of great assistance to Her Majesty's Government?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is perfectly true. It is one of the considerations which will be taken into account. However, my noble friend will realise that the Government have to satisfy themselves on such matters as financial viability, independence and other industrial relations issues.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the general character of his remarks. However, is he aware that although it is obviously right to consult the other unions concerned it would be quite wrong to allow them a right of veto given the fact—and I repeat this—that over 60 per cent. of the grades concerned are now members of the Prison Governors' Association?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is no question of a right of veto; but it is necessary to consult them. I would tell the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that the Prison Officers' Association's comments were received only on 21st January and those of the National Union of Civil and Public Servants on the Home Office trade union side have not yet been received.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, while respecting the right of these people to have their own organisation, and the job that they do, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, may I ask a simple question? Are those people members of any organisation now and, if so, why are they leaving it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, they decided to leave the organisation of which they were members, which used to be the governors' branch of the Society of Civil and Public Servants. That was then transformed into another organisation which they left because they felt their views were not being properly represented.

World TV News: BBC Proposal
2.40 p.m.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to allocate funds to help the BBC's external English speaking services to provide an adequate and appropriate television service for the developing Commonwealth.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we have received a proposal from the BBC external services to establish a world television news service which could be broadcast worldwide including to Commonwealth countries. Examination of the complex issues raised in the BBC's proposal is not yet complete, but it is being given considerable attention and priority.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, the idea of a BBC extension worldwide into television was put to Ministers in November 1986. Why has it taken so long for the Government to decide whether or not they want this development?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the whole matter raises some very complex issues which need careful consideration; namely, issues of cost and of policy. That is why we are undertaking this examination.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, can the noble Lord give any idea as to when a decision will be made?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot go further than I have said which is that we are giving it considerable attention and priority.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am sure that everybody is very glad that the matter is being given attention. But, in the light of what my noble friend has just said, it is certainly not being given priority attention. The noble Lord mentioned the question of cost. Does he not agree that the cost involved is relatively very small; that is to say, £1 million for three years? Given some of the matters on which the Government have spent a great deal of money—for example, £23 million to advertise BP shares—would not £3 million to enhance the good name of Great Britain be a good investment?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I believe it is important in all these considerations to compare like with like. The fact is that a revised proposal was brought forward from the BBC in August 1987. That followed the November 1986 proposal. As I said, the projects are complex. Satellite television broadcasting is neither simple nor inexpensive. It is not simply a question of extending radio broadcasting. The satellite technology involved is still evolving. We need to make sure that any investment is a sound way to spend taxpayers' money.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the proposition is well worth examining? Is he not aware that the BBC's world service is listened to by very many countries in and outside the Commonwealth and that it does great service? A television network of this calibre would enhance the spirit of freedom everywhere.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that the BBC's external services are widely acclaimed. The BBC estimates that it has about 120 million regular listeners abroad and that is excluding China. As I have said, this is a difficult issue and one which is being looked at at the moment, but the considerations are complex.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether this service is going to be ancillary to or instead of the ordinary sound service that one hears at one o'clock in the morning and other times?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, this proposal is in addition to the existing sound broadcasting.

F1–11 and F.15 Fighters in Europe
2.44 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what discussions they have had with the US Administration about the stationing of more F1–11s and F.15s in this country.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the number of United States Air Force F1–11 aircraft assigned to NATO and based in Europe is published each year in the Statement on the Defence Estimates. All these are in fact based in the UK. There are no F.15 aircraft based in the UK nor has the United States Government made any formal request to base any here.
Discussions take place all the time between the British and US Governments about the composition and deployment of United States forces in the United Kingdom; details of these discussions are confidential.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Has he heard of the most recent idea from the Pentagon called "the competitive strategy", which it intends to submit to the United States Congress without having discussed it with NATO and which would involve a vast increase of expenditure on Smart and Brilliant weapons designed for actually fighting wars in Europe? Indeed it looks as though they are celebrating the signing of the INF treaty as ushering in the age when fighting wars will become possible once again.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure whether that question exactly arises from the one on the Order Paper, but I can confirm that I have heard of the strategy to which the noble Lord refers.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm a report that NATO is planning to deploy 2,300 new nuclear warheads in Europe designed to hit the same targets as the cruise and Pershing missiles which are to be scrapped under the terms of the INF treaty? If this is correct, would not the Minister agree that such so-called compensatory adjustments would be contrary to the spirit of the INF treaty?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I may say so, I think the noble Lord is under a misapprehension. There has been a long-standing policy agreed by the NATO defence ministers which relates to a reduction in the number of nuclear warheads in Europe over a period of years. The recent INF agreement will not change that policy.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Lord take pity on the House by telling us what we are talking about? What is an F1–11? Is it a tank, a battleship or what is it? If it is a nuclear warhead, is it strategic or battle or of intermediate range?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said in the original Answer, the F1–11 is in fact an aircraft and it is what is known as a dual-capable aircraft.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, are we to understand from the noble Lord's first reply that the question of stationing F.15s in this country has been informally discussed with the Americans?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is not what I said.

Cancer Patients: West Midlands
2.47 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the provision for the treatment of cancer patients in the West Midland region, and at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, in particular, is adequate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the provision of services for the treatment of cancer patients is a matter for regional and district health authorities. I understand that, in recognition of the increasing demand on services, the West Midlands Regional Health Authority is carrying out a major review of the region's cancer services, to ensure that the facilities for the treatment of cancer patients are being used as effectively as possible.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a great deal of anxiety in the West Midlands among consultants and patients about the cutbacks in provision'? The Queen Elizabeth Hospital this year has suffered a cutback in beds from 68 to 41 despite the fact that is has improved productivity by 14 per cent.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I checked with the district health authority this morning and my figures are somewhat different from those of the noble Countess. I understand that 20 radiotherapy and oncology beds out of a total of 68 available beds at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital were temporarily closed in September. The bed closures were urgent temporary closures and health authorities are not obliged to consult over closures of this kind. However, I confirm that central Birmingham will be receiving £578,000 from the extra £65 million which was announced for distribution to the English health authorities in December. It will be for that district health authority to allocate the money where it feels it will be best used.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the decision to slash urgently needed beds at another regional cancer speciality hospital—namely, St. Bartholomew's Hospital in London— where a 20-bedded ward is due to close this very day because of a shortage of funds? Is it really good enough to say that it is a matter for the health authority when in fact the health authority is deprived of the resources? The Government know they already have those resources and the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State refuse to make them available for cases of urgent need like the treatment of cancer.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if the hospital which the noble Lord mentioned was in the West Midlands Regional Health Authority area, I would
410
comment. However, since it is not, if he would like to table a Question on the subject, I shall be only too pleased to answer it in due course.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he would consider answering the actual Question on the Order Paper, which is whether Her Majesty's Government believe that the provision for treatment of these cases in this area is adequate.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, looking at my original Answer, I said that what was important was that the West Midlands Regional Health Authority should have an overall provision for cancer patients. This is what it has got. I accept that it is overloaded in one particular place, namely the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which is why it is intended to transfer some patients to other hospitals offering this specialty in the region.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, will the noble Lord now answer the Question? Is the provision for cancer patients in this area adequate or not adequate in the view of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, so far as the question that the noble Lord specifically asked me to address is concerned, I have no reason to suppose that it is inadequate.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it really adequate for the Minister to say that it is entirely a matter for judgment by the health authority? From the very beginning is not the responsibility placed on the Secretary of State by the National Health Service to provide services for the welfare of the people, and that includes all people and people with all types of disease'? Is that not a specific responsibility upon the Secretary of State'? Why cannot the noble Lord answer the Question?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, it is a specific responsibility, as the noble Lord knows well. This responsibility, even in his time, was devolved through regions to districts, and that is exactly what is going on now.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, is it not true that the Secretary of State does not really have the power or the right under the Act to order regional health authorities to expend money in this way or that, unless he makes a special allocation, but only to provide a total grant?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, my noble friend, not for the first time, is absolutely right.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the circular issued in 1978, which laid down that per million population there should be 50 beds, two megavoltage units, four consultants and supporting staff is still effective? If it is, why are they failing so dismally in the West Midlands?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge and belief the circular is still effective.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the Stalker-Sampson investigations, directions by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland).
Duchy of Lancaster Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates, 3rd February
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Kilmarnock and the Lord Ezra set down for 3rd February shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order No. 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Local Government Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1–2,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3–16,

Clause 31,

Schedule 5,

Clause 17,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 18–29,

Schedule 3,

Clause 30,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 32–37,

Schedule 6.—(Lord Hesketh.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Bill
2.53 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is a short one but none the less important and covers a wide range of subjects. Most
412
importantly it provides the necessary social security legislation to fulfil our wider commitment to training for young people under 18 who have left school and have not found work. It strengthens the contributory principle for short-term national insurance benefits to provide a stronger link with employment and the payment of contributions and takes further steps to ensure that unemployment benefit goes only to those for whom it was originally intended, those who through no fault of their own move from employment to unemployment.
It also provides for a scheme of payments from next winter onwards towards the cost of heating in periods of exceptionally cold weather. Following recent judicial decisions it also restores the original intentions of the law on attendance allowance and on the treatment of a dependant's occupational pension as earnings. Finally the Bill makes a number of necessary amendments to tidy up the law, primarily in readiness for the introduction of the reformed schemes of social security benefits, most of which come into force in April of this year.
I should like to begin with training. The Government's commitment to training and the success of YTS is unquestionable. The figures speak for themselves. Over 1·6 million young people have been helped, and three-quarters of them have gone straight into jobs or into further education or training. The great majority of them have appreciated the quality of the training they have been given and have considered it worth while. We are currently spending over £1 billion a year on youth training.
I believe I have the agreement of the whole House when I say that the expectations of young people leaving school should never include unemployment. Not only is it demoralising but it usually leads inexorably into the so-called benefit culture. This is a one-way street leading to a dead end and we believe that the entrance to it should be sealed off. We owe it to our youngsters to channel them in the right direction and to steer them away from getting drawn into a benefit culture from which it can be difficult to escape.
That is why we said in our manifesto that we would guarantee a place on YTS to every school-leaver under 18 not going directly into a job and that we would take steps to withdraw entitlement to benefit from those who deliberately chose to remain unemployed. This guarantee, the benefit changes in this Bill and the arrangements for payment of a bridging allowance in the Employment Bill currently in another place provide a complete set of arrangements which will ensure that no young person under the age of 18 who is able to take up a YTS place need be unemployed or have the option of living on social security benefits. From the time this clause becomes operative in September unemployment will no longer be an option for most young people. What then will be open to them? To go into a job, to stay on at school, to go into some other educational establishment or to join a youth training scheme.
It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I now briefly explain how the arrangements, which are in Clause 4 of this Bill, will work. When a young

413
person under 18 leaves school but does not go immediately into a job his parents will be able to continue to claim child benefit for him provided he registers with a jobcentre or local authority careers office for employment or a YTS course. This child benefit extension period will run for four months—up to Christmas—for summer leavers and for three months for those leaving at Christmas or Easter. If the family are on benefit themselves they will also be able to get a dependency addition for the young person during this period. During this period the youngster will be able to decide whether or not to continue with his education, to take a job if a suitable one comes up or to go on a YTS course.
Child benefit will of course stop if the youngster takes a job or a YTS place before the end of the extension period. Of course there will be some young people who have special reasons for not living in the family home, for example those who run the risk of physical or sexual abuse. Regulations will therefore be made to enable them to be entitled to income support but only during the extension period. By the end of the extension period we guarantee that a YTS place will be arranged for any young person who wants one.
When the child benefit extension period comes to an end there will be no general entitlement to income support for the under-18s. Those who go on YTS will receive the training allowance of £28.50 a week in the first year and £35 in the second year, which is considerably more than the £19.40 they would get under income support. I said there would be no general entitlement to income support, but there will of course be some young people for whom YTS would not be appropriate; for example the severely disabled, the long-term sick and one-parent families. Regulations to be made under the Bill will ensure that they will continue to be able to get income support.
But we also realise that hard cases may arise from time to time where the regulations do not help. Clause 4 therefore contains an additional safety net which gives the Secretary of State a discretionary power to direct in exceptional cases that a young person is to be treated as in one of the special groups for whom income support may be paid. This power will be used where it is judged that severe hardship would result if income support were not paid to the young person.
I should also mention for completeness, though it is not part of this Bill, that where a young person leaves a job or a YTS place and he is still under 18 he will be guaranteed another YTS place. During the time that it takes to arrange another YTS place the youngster will be paid a YTS bridging allowance. Provision for this is in the Employment Bill, which is currently in another place. I should like to make it absolutely clear to the House that these proposals should not be seen as savings measures. It is true that there will be net savings to the DHSS expenditure of £84 million in a full year, but this will be more than offset by the additional costs to be borne on the YTS programme.
I should now like briefly to draw your Lordships' attention to some of the other provisions in the Bill. One of the objectives is the sensible targeting of
414
scarce resources. This is achieved in a number of ways. Under Clause 5 we are strengthening the contributory principle for unemployment and sickness benefits so that they will be based on a more realistic period of payment of contributions. It is currently possible for a man on average earnings to qualify for sickness and unemployment benefits from as little as nine weeks' work in the preceding tax year. Under Clause 5 it will be necessary to have a record of contributions or credits in the two tax years preceding the claim. The man on average earnings will then be able to qualify on the basis of nine weeks' work in each of those two years, so the conditions will still be relatively easy to satisfy.
Clause 5 also reinforces the original purpose of unemployment benefit, which was to provide a measure of income replacement during short periods of unemployment for people normally accustomed to earnings while they sought work. In order to provide for a closer link with recent employment the Bill therefore requires that the person must have actually paid contributions in one of the two tax years preceding the claim instead of in any year since he entered national insurance.
Clause 6 is also concerned with reinforcing the original purpose of unemployment benefit. It extends to the over-55s the arrangements for abating the unemployment benefit of those who have an occupational pension over £35 a week. These arrangements already apply to those over 60, and in view of the growing trend in the payment of occupational pensions to people in the 55 to 60 age group, we believe this is an appropriate time to extend the arrangements to that age group. It is not at all in line with the original intentions of unemployment benefit to pay that benefit in full to people receiving significant amounts of occupational pension in recognition of the fact that they have reached the end of their pensionable career.
Also on the subject of targeting, the Bill amends the law on attendance allowance and on dependency increases to ensure that they go to those for whom they were originally intended before recent judgments cast doubt on the relevant provisions. Clause 1 makes clear that, for one of the night time conditions for attendance allowance to be satisfied, active supervision of the disabled person is necessary—that is that the carer is required,
"to be awake for a prolonged period or at frequent intervals for the purposes of watching over him".
The Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Mrs. Moran seemed to be suggesting that it was only necessary for the carer simply to be on hand. Clause 1 is intended to put beyond doubt what had always been intended and accepted.
Similarly Clause 9 is intended to make clear that for the purposes of entitlement to an increase of benefit for a dependant, any occupational pension received by the dependant is to be treated as if it were earnings, whether or not the dependant also has earnings from employment. This had always been intended, but a decision of the social security commissioners brought to light unintended inconsistencies in the relevant provisions.
I should now like to turn to the subject of cold weather. Schedule 3 to the Bill provides, among other

415
things, for payments towards the cost of heating in exceptionally cold weather to be made on a regulated basis from the social fund from next winter. The precise form this help will take will be considered in the light of this winter's experience of the current scheme, but I should like to make it absolutely clear to the House that these payments will be a regulated entitlement in the same way as social fund maternity and funeral payments. They will neither be based on discretion nor be constrained by the budget for grants and loans.
Finally, the Bill is concerned with the necessary tidying up of a number of aspects of legislation and makes a number of amendments to complete the package of reforms to the industrial injuries scheme. The industrial injuries changes in Clause 2 and Schedule I provide for industrial widows to get the same pension as national insurance widows from 11th April and for existing industrial widows to be able to continue to receive their retirement pension on top of their widow's benefit. Provision is also made for a new benefit called retirement allowance to replace reduced earnings allowance for those retiring in the future. The Bill also provides new statutory bases for the welfare foods scheme and the arrangements for the remission of National Health Service charges and the payment of travelling expenses to hospital to coincide with the April 1988 social security changes. It puts beyond doubt that local authorities may make payments on account of social security benefits on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Security in any emergency. There are also technical amendments to the legislation for family credit and the social fund to ensure the smooth running of those schemes.
Tidying up includes the correction of errors, and I should also draw the House's attention to Clause 11 which was introduced on Report in another place. Following the discovery of an error in the calculation of the Retail Prices Index, my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled announced in another place on 18th December last that the Government proposed to make extra payments to social security claimants. The special payments will be made to retirement pensioners, supplementary pensioners, those receiving widows benefits, industrial injuries benefits, war pensions, invalid care allowance, invalidity benefit, mobility allowance, attendance allowance and severe disablement allowance. This will be followed by action to correct benefit rates for all recipients at the April 1989 up-rating. We also propose to make a second-stage payment to those losers who enter the special payment groups after the special payments are made.
I have gone into some detail as it is the first time the House has officially heard any of this as we rose for the Christmas recess the day before another place and it was on their last day that this announcement was made by way of a Statement. However, these facts are gloss on the gingerbread of the clause which merely validates the Social Security Benefits (Up-rating) (No. 2) Order 1987 and the Occupational Pensions (Revaluation) Order 1987. Suffice it to say for now, that the quickest and easiest way of correcting the
416
error was by the steps I have outlined, namely validating the two orders and making ex-gratia payments.
To sum up, this Bill contains a miscellany of prominent measures. Overall I think it can best be described as ensuring that our social security system keeps pace with the times and is relevant to the late 1980s and 1990s. In particular it fulfils the Government's manifesto commitment to take steps to prevent young people from going straight from school down the dead end street of unemployment and reliance on benefit. The guarantee of a YTS place for all under-18s is an investment in the youth of this country and demonstrates the Government's commitment to encouraging young people to make the most of their talents and acquire the necessary skills and experience for which today's employers are looking. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I must crave your Lordships' indulgence if anything I have to say today is rather inadequate. In spite of several requests I have not received the courtesy of being sent the Notes on Clauses on the Bill which in previous times have been sent to the Opposition spokesman. I shall have to do my best without the Notes on Clauses from the department. If that leads to any misunderstanding of what the department is trying to do, I suggest that it is not my fault.
In the Bill there are 17 clauses and five schedules, with scarcely a line of which we on this side can agree. The very existence of the Bill constitutes a criticism of the Government's handling of the whole question of social security. In fact the Bill would be better entitled the Social Insecurity Bill, because it will create great anxiety and considerable deprivation among the most vulnerable people in this country. If I may refer noble Lords to the Financial Memorandum, they will see how much money is being saved by this Bill. And when the Government say that they are saving money, that means they are taking money away from those who have previously had it, and who needed to have it.
Before going into detailed criticisms, I must put to the House our concern about the Government's failure to develop even their own flawed philosophy efficiently. There is no convincing strategy about the way the Government deal with social security. Here we are in 1988 faced with more legislation. Parliament and the country were told that the Green Paper and the White Paper, and all the discussions that went on around those two publications, were going to represent a fundamental comprehensive review of the whole field of post-Beveridge welfare and what have we got?
Since 1986, we have had an unending stream of regulations and statutory instruments which indicate a piecemeal and inefficient approach. They usually have indicated a mean attitude to the problems of society, and they have certainly not carried out the Government's promise that there was to be a new total look at welfare provision that once and for all would put things right for the present century.

417
Another problem which many people in this House feel is the way that the Government are trying to rule by regulations rather than by legislation. This criticism does not apply to the present Bill. It is the Government's own version of a sort of militant tendency. They take powers from Parliament, and transfer too much to the drafters of the regulations which, in their turn, are often incomprehensible.
I shall give your Lordships just one example. In passing this Bill (if this Bill is unfortunately passed) we are empowering the Minister to make this sort of regulation. Schedule 3, paragraph 2, states about the social fund:
"Payments may also be made out of that fund, in accordance with this Part of this Act, of a prescribed amount or a number of prescribed amounts to prescribed descriptions of persons, in prescribed circumstances to meet expenses for heating which appear to the Secretary of State to have been or to he likely to be incurred in cold weather".
That is government by prescription. Who is to have the power to call one of us a prescribed person, or to put us into a pigeon-hole of prescription? I shall say something later about the cold weather problems.
There are many points which will be taken up by my noble friends now and later at Committee stage, but I must refer briefly to paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 which amends the Social Security Acts of 1975 and 1976 in relation to industrial injuries. My noble friend Lady Turner will be dealing with that later. The changes will reduce expenditure to the National Insurance Fund by £2 million in 1989–90, rising to £10 million in 1991–92. It seems to us that the Government are more interested in taking money away from men and women injured at work, than in helping them over their difficulties.
We strongly oppose Clause 4. That takes away the right of people under 18 to benefit,
"except in circumstances … to he prescribed in regulations".
There is more prescription—by whom, to whom and what for? It might seem—and I appreciate what the noble Lord. Lord Skelmersdale, said—a rational argument to suggest that all school-leavers should have a job, training or further education, but that is totally an option. Since 1948, the qualifying age for social security payments has been 16.
I appreciate that the noble Lord referred to the Conservative manifesto and the promise that they gave then. However, I have to put it to him that that promise is different from what we have before us today. I have taken the trouble—though it pains me—to read the Conservative manifesto, and what that manifesto said was that those who deliberately choose to be unemployed shall lose benefit. But Clause 4 does not limit the deprivation to young people who deliberately choose to be unemployed.
I must remind the noble Lord that the Department of Employment had a research paper—in case he is too busy to find it, it is No. 61—called Youth Unemployment: Social and Psychological Perspectives. It found that only 0·2 per cent. of unemployed young people prefer the dole. It stated:
"It would not be correct to say that the young unemployed find unemployment attractive. It would seem that there are very few indeed who would rather not have a job".
That is not coming from a Labour Party leaflet. That is coming from the Department of Employment. I
418
hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how many young people are waiting to go on a course. Will they be denied benefit if there are no vacancies in their area?
Where there is abuse—and none of us wants to see abuse in these matters—why do the Government not use their power in Section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975? In that Act there is provision that claimants must be available for work and be willing to take up any reasonable offer of work or approved training. What are the Government doing about that Act and why are they not using it if there is a conviction that there are a lot of people lying around who ought to be at work?
Then I have to ask: what happens to young people who are intermittently unemployed? Among young people there is a lot of temporary and seasonal work. Will they be denied unemployment benefit in between jobs? I am worried about a school-leaver who has found a job, perhaps acquired some skill, and who after a year or so, through no fault of his own—perhaps the firm has gone broke—is made redundant or for some other reason loses his job. He will have paid national insurance contributions during the time he was at work.
He may be in an area of high unemployment. Is he to be denied benefit unless he goes on to a two-year course in something else, which might be different from the job in which he already has some experience? So it is not easy to say that all these young people have to go onto a training course if they do not have a job because they might well be in between jobs.
I appreciate that the Minister had a lot of ground to cover; and I might take even longer than he did because there is so much ground to cover. However, a very important question is: what will happen about young people in part-time education? At present, young people are allowed up to 21 hours a week without loss of unemployment benefit. This is to enable them to go on after they have left school to some part-time courses which might lead them—and I know in some cases have led them—to getting through their A-levels and to university entrance, so that they are making a really good start in life. Are the 21 hours to stay with us? This is a very important point.
I cannot understand why this Government seem to hate young people. They hound homeless young people around the country under the board and lodging policies, which do not allow them to stay longer than certain periods in various places. They pay people under 25 less benefit than than those over 25. They have removed the protection of the wages councils from young people under 21. I must point out that the YTS allowance does not automatically include any help with board and lodging. Therefore, a young person who has to leave home to attend a course, perhaps because he lives in the middle of a Scottish moor or on a Welsh mountain, is not sure (and neither am I) whether he will receive a payment that is more than that received by the young person who can continue living at home while he is taking his course. It is impossible for those who have to face market rents in city centres to manage on the allowance provided.

419
If the Government were sincerely concerned with the welfare of the family and children, as they keep on saying that they are, they would have uprated child benefit. I shall come back to that point.
Clause 5 requires national insurance contributions to have been paid for two years, instead of one year, as at present. The result is all in the Government's favour. According to the Financial Memorandum, they will save £60 million in 1988–89, rising to £380 million in 1990–91. The newspapers are full of how flush the Chancellor of the Exchequer is with money and yet we are confronted by a Bill which proposes to take £60 million to begin with, and then £380 million, out of the National Insurance Fund; that means out of the pockets of those who are in need.
Clause 6, which my noble friend Lady Turner will deal with in more detail, provides that people who are retired at 55 instead of at 60 (an increasing trend) will be at risk of losing unemployment benefit, as the noble Lord explained. They will lose one pound for each pound of pension they receive over £35. That figure was fixed in 1981. I understand that by now it should be £48, if only to keep pace with inflation. I should have thought that those are the kind of people the Government would cherish. They are hard working people who have saved up for their pensions and done their best to provide for their old age. It was acceptable that those people would not be on the unemployment market when they reached 60. But it is a different matter to tell all those worthy people at 55 that they are to be disadvantaged because they have saved for an occupational pension of up to £35 a week, which does not go a long way these days. The Government could at least have raised that sum in line with the indexed linked pensions which civil servants and many other people enjoy; that would have increased the amount to £48.
The Minister referred to severe weather. It appears from the regulations that payments may be made, as I said earlier, to "prescribed persons"—I wish I was a prescribed person—if they endure a seven-day period at a "prescribed temperature". I have a copy of the regulations and I see that the "prescribed temperature" is zero degrees Celsius; but that zero degrees Celsius must start on a Monday! Last week according to what I heard on the radio the severe weather started on Friday in some parts of the country. It may be a bit milder now but had the cold weather continued from Friday, claims would not have been acceptable, according to the regulations, until a week from next Monday, which is a long time. It seems therefore that one must only catch hypothermia on a Monday. That is something I cannot understand and I hope that when the Minister replies he can give a government warning which will explain to people how they can start hypothermia on a Monday but never on a Tuesday.
Furthermore, where is this temperature taken? It is not taken in the cold draughty houses of some of the people most likely to he at risk. Is it taken at the top of a hill or at the nearest airport? Is any account taken of wind chill, which most experts recognise to be a serious component of hypothermia?
I come to the social fund, about which the Minister did not say a great deal. We discussed it at great
420
length when the Social Security Bill was going through the House in 1986. Many Members will remember that the Government were defeated on the issue of an appeal. Noble Lords in all parts of the House, especially some of our most distinguished lawyers, felt that it was wrong for a citizen to have no right to appeal against a department's decision. Having been defeated on that issue, the Government came back with a so-called appeal machinery under someone called the social fund commissioner. A social fund commissioner has been appointed to work two days a week. The other day I asked how many social fund officers had been appointed and the parliamentary reply was, none yet. I understand that the scheme is supposed to start in April. It is a job for which people will need a great deal of training, expertise and understanding; but they have not yet been appointed.
I must go into a little detail on that subject because I think it is in principle most important. We were given to understand that appeal machinery would be set up so that people who felt that they had been wrongly denied grants or loans from the social fund would have an avenue of appeal. I have the social fund manual. It is heavy, long and costs over £9. I must again emphasise my complaint that the reality of the situation is contained in the regulations—in those pieces of paper which one can obtain from the Library but which are not easily available to the people who most need to appeal.
From a close reading of the regulations I understand that a dissatisfied applicant can have an interview with a social fund officer. It will be in the same office as that of the chap who originally did the person down. Whether or not it is an objective decision, it must leave some thought in the applicant's mind as to its impartiality. There is to be no oral hearing beyond that interview. That is outrageous. If the applicant is still dissatisfied, all that happens is that his file is sent to the inspector for him to read. There is no hearing by the inspectors. There is no face-to-face encounter. If the noble Lord should tell me that I have misread this £9.10-worth of literature I would be only too happy; but I cannot think of another situation where this would arise. A drunken soldier is allowed to go before a court martial in person and speak up for himself or get someone else to speak for him.
Will the applicant see the file which goes up to the next stage? That is very important. Many years ago I sat on tribunals of this kind. From time to time, when a man or woman came to the tribunal, we found that although we had all the papers from the office, we could work out through sympathetic discussion whether that person had done himself justice, whether he had a chip on his shoulder or whether the official had rubbed him up the wrong way. Occasionally we were able to put things right for the applicant, but not always. We had no predisposition to find in favour of one or the other.
However, it seems to me totally unfair and against any concept of British justice that a man or woman should not even be able to confront those who have decided that he cannot have access to the social fund. I should like to know whether MPs will be able to

421
raise cases of their constituents in the House or whether they will be told that that is not possible.
I speak very shyly because I am not a lawyer, but I have tried to work out a few points. There is a standard textbook which I have found—thanks to noble and learned Lords—by a gentleman called Wade on administrative law. It says that some statutory tribunals have power to dispense with oral hearings, but if they do so they must be careful to give a party a fair opportunity to comment on any adverse statement submitted. Will that happen to people who are appealing in these circumstances? If so, I feel it would be a dereliction of some of the best traditions of our law if that appeal were not allowed.
The social fund was foreshadowed in the 1986 Act. I understand that the budget for next year is £203 million. Perhaps I might ask the noble Lord how this compares with the single payments paid out last year. The cash is limited. The Social Security Advisory Committee said that in its view, £350 million—not £203 million—would be needed to cover the payments made last year. Now we face the fact that many of these people will have to pay 20 per cent. of their rates. And they are going to face higher electricity charges and other costs. To me, the amount of discretion given to the Minister is absolutely ominous.
Where loans are granted, who is responsible for repayment? Can family members be deemed liable? I have a piece of paper from the department which sets out how the loan can be repaid by deduction from future benefits. If these people are so poor that they are on benefit already and they then fall further into a poverty disaster where they have to borrow, how on earth are they to be expected to live on a benefit from which deductions are made? Anyone would think that a benefit had fat on it which could be sliced off without doing harm to any of these people.
Then, what if the person gets a job? Is his employer to be traced? Is he to be taken to court for repayment? None of this is clear. I do not want the noble Lord to tell me that it is on page 1001 of these regulations. That does not mean that the facts are before Parliament. It is Parliament which should have a say in all these things.
I think there will be a great disaster here. For one thing, the instructions to the local officers state that they must keep within their budget. What happens if there is a sudden disaster in a certain area where, for instance, a big factory employing a large proportion of the local population closes down, or has some other difficulty? Oh no, the social fund officers' instructions are, you keep to your budget. So, if the disaster comes at the end of the financial year, it is bad luck. The officers are instructed that they are not to keep a waiting list. They are instructed that the same person cannot apply again within six months. So you have to put up with your poverty and disaster for six months before you can go back again. I quote the instructions:
"Social fund officers should under no circumstances make an award which cannot be paid from the local office budget".
Can the Minister confirm that the chairman of the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee wrote to him on 15th October in relation to loans, and said:
422
"I place on record that this decision is without our support".
When the Social Security Advisory Committee appointed by the Government puts something on paper as clearly as that, I cannot think how any Minister can come before this House and propose to carry on this absurd situation.
Two other points worry me very much about these instructions. One is that social fund officers should tell the applicant to shop around; that there may be charities and other help available. Does that mean that the poor old lady must walk around looking for the family welfare association? She may not have a telephone in order to ring people up. Or will the official ring up all his local charities of which he has a list saying, "Can you help Mrs. So-and-so?" She might be old, infirm or arthritic. She might be inarticulate, not speaking very good English. But she is to be told to make sure whether she can get help from somebody else. If the Minister has not had his weekend ruined, as I have, by reading the social fund manual, he will find the exact words in paragraph 4058:
"Possible sources of help might he charities and benevolent funds which are known to be likely to provide the required assistance".
That is not only a difficulty for the applicant; I have not heard from one single charity which approves this statement. Some fear that the result will be a drop in contributions. I am sure that all of us give gladly so that voluntary organisations can help to supplement statutory benefits. But we are not going to be so willing if we think we are subsidising the DHSS and that these people, many of whom will have paid insurance contributions all their lives, are now to be shovelled off and that the public is expected to provide the assistance which is theirs by a statutory right. At least, it was one until this Government got busy.
There is another important question. It seems from some of the instructions that there is a possibility that some other person or body may wholly or partly meet the debt. To what degree of' consanguinity does that go? Does it mean that an estranged husband can be held responsible for money which it is believed the wife owes to the department? Can it be that a young adult who may have a job in a household where no one else does can be expected to take on that responsibility?
None of those points is clearly answered. They are of immense importance. But the main reason I have gone into some detail—I shall not apologise for taking so long because this is a long Bill—is that if the Government will bring us such a gallimaufry of a mix-up of a Bill they must expect us, in our duty of revision, to deal with it more seriously than some noble Lords opposite appear to be doing.
This is a Bill where the underlying philosophy is totally wrong. It suggests, like other social security legislation we have had, that this Government do not believe in the idea that we are members one of another, that the family idea of helpfulness should be spread to the wider community and that those who are well should help those who are in need. They believe that every man is an island, and good luck to him. They believe that a person should stand on his own two feet and that if he has only one leg that is too bad.

423
Today we have another example of the Government's basically uncaring attitude. This great, marvellous rationalization—simplification, as the Government called it at one time—of the social security system is totally wrong. It does absolutely no good at all. If the Government think that they have simplified social security since the time of Beveridge, let them read the social fund manual tonight. Beveridge never produced anything as sinful as this. The Government may think that they have done some good in the field of welfare; but I hope that they will begin to realise their total failure.

Northern Ireland: Stalker/Sampson Investigations
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General on Directions given by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) following the investigations carried out by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson. The Statement is as follows:
"In November and December 1982, in three separate incidents in County Armagh, six persons were killed and one person was seriously wounded by shooting by members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
"The circumstances of each shooting were investigated by the CID of the RUC and three files reporting the results of these investigations were submitted by the Chief Constable of the RUC to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland for his consideration and decisions.
"In relation to the incident which occurred on 11th November 1982 at Tullygally East Road, Craigavon, in which three persons, Eugene Toman, James Gervaise McKerr and John Frederick Burns, were killed, the director directed that three members of the RUC be prosecuted for the murder of Eugene Toman. These three members were subsequently tried for murder and acquitted.
"In relation to the incident which occurred on 12th December 1982 at Mullacreevie Park, Armagh, in which two persons, Peter James Martin Grew and Roderick Carroll, were killed, the director directed that one member of the RUC be prosecuted for the murder of Peter James Martin Grew. This member was subsequently tried for murder and acquitted.
"In respect of the other incident, which occurred on 24th November 1982 at Ballynerry Road North, Lurgan, in which Michael Tighe was killed and Martin McCauley was seriously wounded, the director concluded that the evidence did not warrant criminal proceedings and directed no prosecution.
"Upon consideration of the evidence and information in the files initially submitted to him,
424
the director required further investigations to be undertaken and the results of these reported to him. When the results of such further investigations were reported to the director it appeared to him that in certain of the statements of evidence furnished for his consideration material and important facts had been omitted, and that matters which were untrue and misleading in material and important respects had been included.
"In consequence of this on 11th April 1984 the director formally exercised his statutory power to request the chief constable to ascertain and furnish to him full information with regard to the circumstances in which false or misleading evidence was provided by any member or members of the RUC. He also requested him to investigate whether there was evidence to suggest that any person was guilty of an offence of perverting, or attempting or conspiring to pervert, the course of justice, or of any other offence in connection with the investigation of the three shooting incidents.
"On 24th May 1984 the Chief Constable of the RUC appointed Mr. John Stalker, Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, to conduct an investigation. Mr. Stalker was furnished with a full copy of the director's request dated 11th April 1984.
"On 18th September 1985 Mr. Stalker delivered to the Chief Constable of the RUC an interim report on the investigations which he had conducted up until that date. On 13th February 1986 the Chief Constable of the RUC furnished to the director Mr. Stalker's interim report together with the chief constable's observations upon it.
"On 4th March 1986 the director directed that further investigations be undertaken. On 29th May 1986 Mr. Stalker ceased to have responsibility for the investigation which he had undertaken. Mr. Colin Sampson, Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, then undertook responsibility for the continuing investigation, assisted by the same team of detectives and by an assistant chief constable from West Yorkshire Police.
"On 22nd October 1986, 23rd March 1987 and 10th April 1987, reports were delivered by Mr. Sampson to the Chief Constable of the RUC and on the same dates to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.
"The interim report by Mr. Stalker and the reports subsequently delivered by Mr. Sampson together provided the chief constable and the director with full results of detailed and thorough investigations undertaken by the investigation team of Greater Manchester Police, initially under the leadership of Mr. Stalker and subsequently under the leadership of Mr. Sampson.
"In regard to the shooting incidents to which I have referred, the director has considered all the facts and information ascertained and reported by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson and he has re-examined the original RUC investigation files. He has concluded that the evidence does not warrant any further prosecution in respect of those shootings which occurred on 11th November 1982 and 12th December 1982, which have already been

425
the subject of prosecutions. He has further concluded that the evidence does not warrant any prosecution in respect of either the fatal shooting or the wounding which occurred on 24th November 1982. I have considered the director's conclusions and I agree with them. He has given directions accordingly.
"The director has however concluded that there is evidence of the commission of offences of perverting, or attempting or conspiring to pervert, the course of justice or of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty and that this evidence is sufficient to require consideration of whether prosecutions are required in the public interest; and he has consulted me accordingly.
"I have therefore taken steps to acquaint myself with all relevant circumstances, including matters concerning the public interest and in particular considerations of national security which might properly affect the decision whether or not to institute proceedings.
"I have informed the director fully with regard to my consultations as to the public interest, and in the light of all the facts and information brought to his notice the director has concluded, with my full agreement, that it would not be proper to initiate any criminal proceedings. He has given directions accordingly.
"The director has arranged to discuss with the Chief Constable and Deputy Chief Constable of the RUC safeguards to ensure that in the future facts and information reported to the director are in all respects full and accurate, whether or not any security interest is involved.
"In respect of other matters arising from these investigations, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already informed the House that he would wish at the earliest opportunity to make a statement on those issues that affect his responsibilities. Now that the decisions on prosecution have been taken, I understand that he hopes to report shortly to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for repeating the grave Statement which was made in another place by the Attorney-General. The Statement which has been read out to the House discloses a most unhappy—that is putting it mildly—matter of public concern. This is a case involving grave allegations arising out of three separate incidents in which six persons were killed and one person was seriously wounded by shooting by members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
There followed first of all an inquiry by Mr. Stalker, the Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, into the circumstances of those tragic events. As I understand it, before the Deputy Chief Constable had concluded his investigation he was suspended from duty. Why? I think the House will be interested to know. However, it is only fair to say that later Mr. Stalker was reinstated. We do not know what happened to his initial report and what the nature of that report was.
426
Mr. Sampson, the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, took Mr. Stalker's place and conducted the inquiry. There followed a remarkable course of events. They were remarkable because, at the very least, they were unusual. It is unusual that the Director of Public Prosecutions, having considered a matter in which allegations were made (presumably against members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary) of perverting or attempting or conspiring to pervert the course of justice, should respond by saying that he thought there should be proceedings. That is as I understand it.
The matter then went quite properly to the Attorney-General. We see on page 5 of the Statement that:
"The Director has, however, concluded that there is evidence of the commission of offences of perverting, or attempting or conspiring to pervert, the course of justice … and that this evidence is sufficient to require consideration of whether prosecutions are required in the public interest".
The Statement then says that the Attorney-General has been consulted in those circumstances. Apparently, the Director of Public Prosecutions was at that stage of the view that there should be proceedings. However, the matter having been discussed and following further consultations, the Attorney-General concluded that there should be no proceedings in respect of those matters.
In my experience of the great office of Attorney-General, it is not without precedent for the Attorney-General and the Department of Public Prosecutions to disagree with one another. However, the matter has arisen against a most grievously worrying background of allegations which must inevitably put the standing and reputation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in some danger of being adversely viewed by the public. It has been running through my mind, against that background—which is unprecedented; I cannot think of any other episode in our criminal law which is quite as complex and unhappy—that the Government or the Attorney-General should review the circumstances again and take what is perhaps the safest course in the circumstances, and the one most likely to maintain the reputation of the RUC in particular, by ordering a wholly independent judicial inquiry into the whole matter.
I put that suggestion forward with hesitation. However, the situation is without precedent; and I fear that unless there is something more substantial than what we are left with at the moment—which is disagreement all round—the uncertainty and the remaining question marks will not have been satisfied. I put that suggestion forward cautiously because I appreciate that what I am suggesting may appear to be casting doubt upon the independence of the Attorney-General. I should not wish to imply that. However, in the exceptional circumstances which have arisen in this case of conflict between two senior police officers initially in this tragic and grim story, perhaps an inquiry by an independent member of the judiciary of the highest standing may be the better course.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that many of us in all parts of the House will be as

427
concerned as is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, about the character of the Statement? Is he aware that all of us recognise that the Royal Ulster Constabulary do a most difficult job in most dangerous circumstances and that it is imperative that we do everything we can to assist them in carrying out their duties? Is he also aware that there is a clear need for them to demonstrate that they conduct themselves at all times properly and within the criminal law?
Is the noble and learned Lord aware that many of us will be reasonably satisfied with one part of the Statement. That part concerns the changeover between Mr. Stalker and Mr. Colin Sampson in the earlier stages of the investigation. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that the general circumstances which are set out in the Statement make it fairly clear that the conspiracy theory which was prevalent a few months ago (that Mr. Stalker had been removed because he was getting embarrassingly close to the truth) has been demonstrated to be a fiction? It is quite obvious that Mr. Sampson continued to conduct the inquiry with great vigour. All of us who know him know perfectly well that he would never have been party to any cover up of the kind that was suggested in some parts of the media.
Having said that, is the noble and learned Lord aware that many of us will be deeply concerned about the statement made by the Attorney-General that the Director of Public Prosecutions has concluded that there was evidence of the commission of offences of perverting or attempting or conspiring to pervert the course of justice or of obstructing a constable in the exercise of his duties? I am sure the noble and learned Lord is aware that on conviction anyone charged with an offence of that kind would be rightly sentenced to a very long term of imprisonment. Is he aware that it appears to be clear that the only grounds on which the Attorney-General has decided not to pursue the prosecutions are public interest grounds? I recognise that those grounds may be compelling. However, is the noble and learned Lord aware that it would be quite remarkable if no further action was taken, given the view of the matter taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions?
I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord specifically whether it is intended to take action against the officers concerned under the police disciplinary regulations. I very much hope that he will reassure us on that point. Otherwise, I am afraid that the reputation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be seriously affected.
Finally, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord whether he is aware that the statement made in the penultimate paragraph of the Attorney-General's Statement—namely, that:
"The Director has arranged to discuss with the Chief Constable and Deputy Chief Constable of the RUC safeguards to ensure that in the future facts and information reported to the Director are in all respects full and accurate"—
is in itself a fairly remarkable statement? Is he aware that many of us would expect that in all cases such reports by the police would be both full and accurate? On this point as well, is it intended that those who did not make full and accurate reports should be
428
proceeded against under the police disciplinary regulations?
4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is important at the outset in seeking to respond to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that I should emphasise that I am repeating this Statement, which was made by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General in his capacity as an independent Law Officer with responsibility for prosecutions. The Statement deals with that as fully as it was in his judgment proper for him to do so.
I ought to make clear that the Statement is not exactly in accordance with the way in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, put the matter. I should like to read the precise terms of that part of the Statement for the sake of accuracy. I know that the noble and learned Lord received it only very recently indeed and I have some advantage over him in that respect, having had it for longer. However, the matter is important and therefore I want to be sure that all your Lordships understand clearly that the Statement says:
"The director has however concluded that there is evidence of the commission of offences of perverting or attempting or conspiring to pervert the course of justice or of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty and that this evidence is sufficient to require consideration of whether prosecutions are required in the public interest; and he has consulted me accordingly.".
The Statement does not suggest that the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) had himself concluded that there ought to be prosecutions. The Statement is careful about precisely what the situation was.
The Attorney-General goes on to say that he had taken steps to acquaint himself with all the relevant circumstances, and continues:
"I have informed the director fully with regard to my consultations as to the public interest, and in the light of all the facts and information brought to his notice the director has concluded, with my full agreement, that it would not be proper to initiate any criminal proceedings. He has given directions accordingly".
Therefore the Statement makes it clear that after all the relevant consultations had been carried out the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) and my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General were of one mind on the matter.
The noble and learned Lord asked me about the circumstances in relation to Mr. Stalker. As your Lordships will appreciate, that is not a matter which falls within the responsibility of the Attorney-General as the independent Law Officer responsible for prosecutions. So far as concerns the other matters that have been raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, as your Lordships will remember, the Statement concludes:
"the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already informed the House that he would wish at the earliest opportunity to make a Statement on those issues that affect his responsibilities".
It says that now that the decisions on prosecutions have been taken the Attorney-General understands that he, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, hopes to report shortly to the House.

429
The matters that have been raised, apart from those with which I have expressly dealt, are within the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I think that we may expect those matters to be dealt with in the Statement which he will make to the House in due course.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that it is clear from the Statement which he has repeated that evidence has been found that some officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have committed criminal offences in the way of attempting to pervert the course of justice or matters of that nature? In that case does he agree that it would not be practicable to leave the matter there? Those individuals may well find themselves in future giving evidence as witnesses for the Crown in serious cases in Northern Ireland. Is it fair to them to leave them in a position in which the substance of the allegations has not been tested independently? Indeed is it fair to the reputation of the courts in Northern Ireland? Is there not much to be said for the proposal of my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich that in some way or another an attempt must be made to resolve these allegations?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that the correct course for me to take is to undertake to bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the observations made by your Lordships about the matters falling within his responsibility including the matter to which the noble Lord has just referred.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, following what has been said by way of questioning the Statement, I think there is one aspect that ought to be taken into account if any message is to go from this House to the Government. Unless we accept the general guidance that the report gives, it appears that we are deliberately doubting the considered judgment of both the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General. Their words were very clear. They leave no room for doubt.
They said that they had examined and re-examined all aspects of this case. All of it may not have been brought out in earlier stages but they now have the benefit of everybody's views, both those of Mr. Stalker during the time that he was responsible and of Mr. Sampson when he carried on afterwards; they also have the results of conversations with the Chief Constable and all the other investigations. What amazes me is the immediate reaction from the Opposition Front Bench, from someone who is very learned in these matters and with past experience. The comment that ought to have been made to begin with is that the Statement shows that there has been no attempt to cover up anything from the point of view of the Attorney-General. The matter has been examined and re-examined and things that may have been disclosed by the turning over of stones have been taken into account.
The Lord Chancellor has said that he intends to report what has been said here. I think that in addition to what he may have had in mind to say, we
430
ought to find some way of letting it be known that we have confidence, and that we have no reason to have anything other than full confidence, in the way that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General have investigated every detail in this case as far as they can.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I was very heartened that in his response to the Statement the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, made it clear that he was in no way questioning the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions in their ultimate decision. I shall certainly indicate that as being the situation in any report of mine. What I was proposing to draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are the suggestions as to how the matters which lie within his responsibility should be taken further. I do not think that there is a suggestion from any noble Lord who has spoken so far that anything in the responsibilities of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) is open to further question.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I very much welcome the fact that he will discuss this matter with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? But is he also aware, as I am sure he is, that the Northern Ireland Secretary cannot himself prefer any charges or cause any charges to be preferred against any member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary because he is the ultimate appellate authority in any such disciplinary proceedings? As I understand it, the only decision that could be made would be made by the Deputy Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I repeat that we welcome the fact that these matters will be discussed between the noble and learned Lord and the Secretary of State but at the same time we recognise that the Secretary of State is not responsible for making a decision in such matters.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it has been made abundantly clear by my noble and learned friend, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has paid tribute to it, that no one in this House, as far as I know, would ever want to cast aspersions on the integrity of the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is not in issue.
What is in issue on the Statement is whether it has been made abundantly clear to those who ascribe all the praise that should be ascribed to the Royal Ulster Constabulary in their difficult duties will be satisfied with the results of these inquiries, which would appear from the Statement to show that the Director of Public Prosecutions first of all felt that there was evidence upon which a prosecution could be based. He then consulted the Attorney-General, who obviously as part of his duties is interested in matters of security and the public good, and came to a conclusion, in agreement with the Attorney-General, that no prosecution should be brought. The gap in the sequence is whether the evidence was found to be deficient in some respect or whether the evidence was there but matters of public importance and public

431
security dictated that no prosecution should be brought, even though evidence existed. That is the lacuna in the Statement.
The noble and learned Lord said that he was repeating a Statement made by the Attorney-General for which the Attorney-General is responsible. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord can fill in that lacuna. There is one way of doing so, which was suggested wisely by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. If a member of the judiciary, independent as he always is, was asked to conduct an inquiry into the matter, I think that many people who want to protect the Royal Ulster Constabulary (but only the good members of it, not the bad ones) would be satisfied. I believe some public interest would be served if that course were taken.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I perceive no lacuna in the Statement of the Attorney-General which I have read. The other matters fall outside the responsibility of my right honourable and learned friend and I undertake to report the suggestions that have been made to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that, with the exception of public figures important enough to be provided with bodyguards, and with the possible exception of police officers in the Basque region of Spain, RUC officers are unique in the Western world in being murder targets 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 52 weeks in the year? Is it not right that this fact should be taken into account in judging their actions and reactions?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that all Members of this House appreciate the circumstances in which the Royal Ulster Constabulary are called upon to act. I am sure that we all very much appreciate the personal dangers to which so many of them are for such a high proportion of the time exposed.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble and learned Lord has made it fairly clear that he considers this matter incomplete and that the Statement came to us as a matter of courtesy rather than as a matter of right, I hope that your Lordships, and in particular the Leader of the House, will appreciate that we shall not be able to deal with a further Statement made on behalf of the Secretary of State in another place unless that Statement is repeated here without question.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord's observations inevitably follow, but consideration of whether a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should be repeated in this House is a matter that we can leave until the problem arises.

Social Security Bill
4.15 p.m.
Second Reading Debate resumed.
Lord Banks: My Lords, perhaps we may now return to the Social Security Bill. I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his clear explanation of the contents of the Bill. It seems that after every major Social Security Act, we require further legislation in order to make the necesary corrections. This Bill, in addition to correcting the mistakes made in the Social Security Act 1986, introduces a number of measures, most of which seem designed to claw back money from claimants. In these circumstances, we find it difficult to welcome the appearance of the Bill in your Lordships' House.
I should like to look at one or two of the restrictive measures—restrictive, that is, of expenditure—which the Bill contains. I deal first with attendance allowance. The higher rate of attendance allowance is paid, as we have heard, when continual supervision is required through the night. The Court of Appeal ruled that continual supervision did not necessarily involve the supervisor being continually awake. This ruling was widely welcomed by the groups which represent the disabled, because all those needing standby supervision could now claim the higher rate. I should like to ask whether there was any other reason than the desire to cut cost which actuated the Government in deciding not to accept the law as interpreted by the courts? Is there any reason other than economy for arguing that those who require standby supervision should not receive the higher rate?
I discuss now benefit for 16 and 17 year-olds. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, reminded us, 16 has been the minimum age at which benefit could be claimed since 1948. This was reaffirmed by the Social Security Act 1986, which states that a person in Great Britain is entitled to income support if he is over the age of 16. The Bill raises the minimum age to 18 while allowing payments to 16 and 17 year-olds, as was described earlier, in prescribed circumstances or in individual cases of severe hardship.
Why is there no list of prescribed circumstances in the Bill? Why does that have to be left to regulations? The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, pointed out the degree to which government by regulation is increasing these days. Here it seems is another example of it. Surely the determination of severe hardship will place much extra power in the hands of the Secretary of State and there will have to be much invidious choice.
The Government's aim, as set out in the Conservative Party's 1987 manifesto, again to which the noble Baroness referred, was to remove eligibility for benefit from those under 18 who deliberately choose to remain unemployed, in particular those who do not enter a youth training scheme. There is no evidence that this is a sizeable group. In addition, regulations already exist to reduce the benefit of young people who unreasonably refuse the offer of a place in a YTS or who leave early for no good reason.

433
Between December 1983 and May 1987—that is, a period of three and a half years—25,697 persons suffered such a benefit deduction for voluntary unemployment: 23,453 of them were early leavers, and 2,244 only had refused the offer of a place on a YTS.
During that period more than one million people have entered the YTS. We should bear that figure in mind to keep everything in perspective. There are 1·4 million in the age group involved, so surely here the Government are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The provision makes YTS a compulsory service, yet the voluntary nature of the YTS has been one of its basic principles. This principle was restated at a meeting of the Youth Training Board as recently as 9th July 1987. There is a fear that if the provisions in the Bill are passed much of the success of YTS will be undermined.
The Bill deals with contribution conditions for unemployment and sickness benefit. As we heard earlier, the Bill makes the contribution requirements more stringent so that fewer people will be able to claim. As I understand it, 350,000 people are expected to lose entitlement to unemployment benefit. Of these, 300,000 may qualify for income support. So it would seem that what the Government are doing here is transferring people from benefits as of right to means-tested benefits. There are already about 16 million persons dependent upon means-tested benefits in this country. I believe that we should be seeking to discover how we can reduce that number rather than how we can increase it.
On these Benches we challenge the principle of basing entitlement on contributions paid. We would prefer to combine income tax and national insurance contributions in one rate on all earnings, coupled with a percentage social security tax on employers, and then to say that all who are accepted as unemployed or sick should receive the benefit for the prescribed period regardless of contributions paid but subject to residential qualification.
I come next to unemployment benefit for occupational pensioners. The Bill reduces from 60 to 55 the age at which unemployment benefit is abated to take account of an occupational pension of more than £35 per week. The introduction of the rule to apply to those over 60 formed part of previous economy measures by the present Government. The argument was that since many of those affected were not seriously looking for work it was a reasonable provision—and retired bank managers were much cited in that connection. However, the lower one reduces the age limit the weaker that argument becomes. For example, we have to consider the case of a person who is made redundant at 55, who takes an early retirement pension which would be lower than his normal retirement pension if he had remained with his employers to normal retirement age but who has by no means given up the idea that he can secure some other work. He is not regarding himself as permanently unemployed.
We would bear in mind that unemployment benefit in any case is paid for 12 months only. It is not continuously paid from then until the age of 65. Whatever may be thought of the principle, there can be no justification, as the noble Baroness argued, for
434
keeping the limit at £35 on the occupational pension, which is allowed without abatement. As she pointed out, to maintain the real value of the £35 as it was originally it would need to be at least £48 a week now. In my view the limit should be increased to that amount and be indexed.
With regard to exceptionally severe weather payments, the Bill enables the Secretary of State to operate a scheme of single payments to meet expenses for heating. It will permit the operation of a scheme similar to that which was in operation last winter and again this winter. All I would say about that is that it is essential to secure a more satisfactory method of triggering payment. Here again I agree with the noble Baroness. The fact that the temperature has to average freezing point or below for a week beginning on Monday and ending on Sunday is totally unsatisfactory.
The severe weather payments will come from the social fund and on these Benches our objection to that fund remains. We regret that the fund will be cash limited, although we understand that the cash limit will not apply to severe weather payments. We regret that most help will be given through loans rather than grants. We regret that the fund will operate on a discretionary basis; and we regret that there will be no right of appeal to an independent tribunal. We note that the Social Security Advisory Committee has said that the arrangements for the social fund are unfair and unenforceable and that it goes ahead without its support.
Finally, I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply when the Government intend to honour the commitment given by the Secretary of State to do something about the very seriously disabled people who need to pay for help to enable them to live in the community.
I have said enough to indicate why we do not welcome the Bill before the House this afternoon, although of course in accordance with convention we shall not vote against its Second Reading.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Swann: My Lords, as chairman of the Company Pensions Information Centre, a small organisation which I think will be well known to some of the Minister's officials and which provides information on the endless legislative complexities of every sort of pension not only to industry but to trade unions and others as well, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention briefly to some implications of Clause 6 about which I am concerned.
In the first place, I should like to enlarge on what the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, have said about the £35 a week limit above which unemployment benefit is abated. In 1980 that figure was described by the Government as substantial and therefore was a reasonable level at which to start abating unemployment benefit. Whether a pension income of £35 a week could really have been described as substantial even in 1980 seems doubtful to me. I am more doubtful still about so describing it today when the cost of living has risen by approximately 50 per cent. As the two previous

435
speakers have said, why should it not be index linked, as are so many other forms of benefit and tax allowance?
Incidentally, with the help of a pocket calculator and a page of Whitaker's Almanac, my calculations suggest that the sum should be more than £48 a week. I remind your Lordships of something the noble Lord the Minister said concerning this Bill about the Government wishing to keep up with the times. Where better to make a start than on £35 a week?
My next point relates to the date at which Clause 6 will come into force, assuming that it is passed. Since it takes time for people to become aware of the niceties of new legislation and since many people might very well opt to postpone their retirement when they discover that their unemployment benefit is to be reduced, it would be unkind to fix too early a date. Therefore, I am glad to see that the Minister in another place has indicated that the clause will probably not come into force until January 1989. I hope that the Government will not have second thoughts on that.
Lastly, Clause 6 relates specifically to occupational pensions, defined in the 1980 Act as pensions derived in whole or in part from moneys paid by the employer. That definition clearly excluded Section 226, pensions available to the self-employed and those in employment but for whom the employer makes no provisions for pensions. Now, following the Social Security Act 1986, there are about to be personal pensions, which will be available not only to the self-employed and those for whom the employer makes no pension provision but also as an alternative to occupational pensions for people in paid employment for whom the employer makes pension provision.
While Clause 6 refers to occupational pensions, it makes no mention at all of personal pensions, many of which will involve employer contributions, just like occupational pensions. When I first saw Clause 6 I was minded to ask the Minister whether I was right in seeing this as a curious discrimination directed specifically against the many people who will have only modest occupational pensions of £35 a week and upwards. However, I was glad to learn that the Minister in another place had mentioned the Government's intention to introduce legislation at some unspecified time in the future bringing personal pensions into line with occupational pensions in this and other respects. That surely is only equitable.
However, I point out to the Minister that someone could, as things stand, take a transfer value from part of his occupational pension, put it into a personal pension and straightaway draw his personal pension with no abatement of unemployment benefit. It seems to me that the discrepancy will occur quite soon. Therefore, I am led to wonder why the Government do not introduce a simple amendment into Clause 6 without more ado.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, may I first follow up what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Swann, who, as your Lordships know, speaks on
436
these matters with very great authority and practical experience. As I listened to him, I too could not understand why a distinction was sought to be made for the purposes of the clause between the occupational and personal pensions which are now, as the noble Lord said, being so very widely earned and organised. I should be very interested to hear from my noble friend, when he comes to reply, whether it is intended to introduce an amendment to the Bill putting personal pensions in the same category as occupational ones, or whether there is some subtle—and certainly to my mind incomprehensible—distinction in the Government's mind between the treatment of these two forms of pension.
As to the general merits of the matter, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Swann, I take, on the whole, the Government's view. I believe that where someone has retired at 55 on an occupational pension it is difficult to treat that person as being completely in the employment market. If they are living on an occupational pension or mainly supported by an occupational pension, their position is different from that of the rest of us who expect to earn our living at least until we reach retirement pension age.
I come now to one remark made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, in the course of a speech which she will not mind me saying was of some length. I do not put it more strongly, although I think from what I heard behind me one or two noble Lords may have been disposed to do so. I always try to treat the noble Baroness with the same courtesy as she treats me. But she said something to which I am bound to say I take great exception. She said that noble Lords on this side of the House did not take the proposals in the Bill seriously. Of course, she is completely wrong. Noble Lords on this side, as on the other side of the House, take a very serious and real interest in our highly complicated system of social security.
For my own part, I spent six-and-a-half years in the department covering pensions and national insurance which I believe is still a record period of service. I very much resent, as I would on behalf of my noble friends, any suggestion that, though our views may be and are very different from those of the noble Baroness and her noble friends, we have at least as keen an interest and concern for the system as she has.
Indeed, the speech of the noble Baroness had for me a certain nostalgic effect. It was so much the type of speech which others—perhaps including the noble Baroness—used to make in another place. The actual number of the clauses are different, but the general, somewhat querulous approach to the proposed changes was very familiar indeed. Whatever inconsistency the Labour Party can be accused of—and heaven knows, in the present situation, there are a great many—inconsistency in its attitude on social security legislation is not a charge which will lie. It seems always to have an extraordinary resistance to any changes which result in reduced expenditure in one direction, even though part and parcel of that reduction is an improvement in the provision in others. The noble Baroness showed this afternoon that her party has an automatic reaction against any reduction.

437
Those of your Lordships who have been concerned in the administration of social security, as I confess I have, know perfectly well that this is a living system which has to adopt, and adapt to, the different needs of the time. Part of the art or technique of social security administration is the technique of shifting resources from directions in which at one time they were probably quite appropriately expended into others where there is need to meet changing social conditions. It is really obscurantist—if the noble Baroness does not mind me saying so—to take the view that any reduction taken by itself must be wrong. If a living system is to operate, there must be a continual movement within it with an increase and improvement in some directions and a reduction in others.
The noble Baroness did not really touch upon what is the essence of our social security system and has been so since Beveridge—that social security falls into two different areas. There are the contributory benefits—unemployment, retirement pensions and sickness—obtainable as a right in return for contributions and fulfilment of the contribution conditions. Then, there is the other half, the area of provision for the relief of hardship. On the contributory basis, I believe there is little dispute between the sides of the House. Naturally, we argue as to what should be the exact rate. Of course, when we are in opposition we say it should be higher; that is an ordinary reflex of politicians. However, the main structure of the system has a considerable measure of all-party support. But when one comes to the relief of hardship measures, there is a real difference in philosophy between the two sides of the House.
Lord Ennals: Hear, hear.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad for once that I carry the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, with me. The shock to my system is almost overwhelming and conjures up the idea in my mind that I may well be wrong.
There is a difference in philosophy, and I am trying to put this seriously to your Lordships. For many years it has been the policy of Conservative governments in this area of the relief of hardship to concentrate as much as possible of resources on the areas of greatest need and to accept that the areas of greatest need themselves change with changing conditions in our society.
As an example of what is being done now in this Bill, perhaps I may quote to your Lordships what was said on 27th October last year by the present Secretary of State, Mr. Moore:
"Thus, more will be spent on families overall, hut the greatest emphasis will be on those with the greatest needs". [Official Report, Commons, 27/10/87; col. 181.]
That is the key approach to the philosophy. It is borne out, as your Lordships will be aware, by the fact that an extra £220 million is being spent on the new family credit. It will cost more than double the existing family income supplement and its associated benefits. Above all, there will be 470,000 low income families who will benefit from it, which is more than double the number being helped now. That is a very
438
good example of the operation of the philosophy to which I was referring—the philosophy of concentrating on where the need is greatest.
Lord Ennals: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me? Before the noble Lord leaves the point of the area of greatest need and the area of hardship, can he say what fairness there is in seeking to cash limit hardship? Surely hardship is a need which has to he met and it is not a matter which can simply be decided by the money that is available on a cash limited account. Is it not grossly unfair and not in any way linked with acts of hardship?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: With the greatest respect, I do not think the noble Lord has really got the point when he talks about cash limiting hardship. I know he is talking about the social fund. But there is no reason whatever to believe that the operation of that fund, with the alleviations and the concessions which have already been mentioned, is going to cash limit hardship. It may well be sensible to have in mind, in dealing with these matters, some idea of what the figure is going to be. It is foolish to go in for an acceptance of unlimited liabilities without any understanding of how the funds are to be obtained. With respect to the noble Lord I do not believe that his intervention really takes the matter, or his case, any further.
On the other side—the reduction of benefit entitlements—I very strongly applaud the provisions in Clause 4. These appeared in my party's election manifesto and therefore it would appear that the people of this country approved them. I believe that few things can be worse for young people than going on social security, income support, unemployment benefit, or whatever it may be, straight from school in order to be paid to do nothing. That must be thoroughly demoralising, not to say dangerous, for young people.
The Youth Training Scheme is successful and expanding. We have allowances paid under it which are higher than the amounts of income support that the young person outside the scheme would have obtained. So there can be no suggestion of hardship where fit young people are concerned. It is good to give them financial encouragement to take advantage of opportunities to acquire training which will fit them for a job when they leave the scheme. Nothing could be worse than to give them encouragement to remain without training, living on public benefit—a pointless existence without any of the ambitions or the incentives which they will obtain under the Youth Training Scheme.
I anticipate any intervention from the noble Lord opposite by saying that it has been realised that there will be some people—very few—who cannot go into the Youth Training Scheme because of' physical disability. It has been made clear that they will continue to receive benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, said "Why do this because only a few young people do not join the Youth Training Scheme?" If the noble Lord is right—and I very much hope he is—what harm is done by enacting this provision? If it he that it will only operate on a very limited number of people,

439
surely that is a matter for rejoicing and for congratulation. On the other hand, if even a few are to be tempted to the demoralising life of a young unemployed person—and in this House and in another place I have heard a number of speeches about the terrible demoralisation of unemployment and its effect on the young—and a limited number of them can be freed from that by this sensible and intelligent scheme, then it is a further argument for it.
The other points on the Bill are important but separate. The Second Reading stage is more an opportunity for your Lordships to discuss the philosophy of a Bill and the general approach, given that at Committee stage individual clauses, their merits or demerits, can be carefully looked at, as no doubt they will be. I stress again to the noble Baroness that they will be looked at very carefully from this side as well as from her own side of the Chamber.
The Bill is only one in a long series. It will be followed by many others. Social security is not only one of the biggest areas of public expenditure in this country; it is one of the major activities of the British Government. A British Government worth their salt are continually keeping an eye on it, seeking to improve it and to adapt it to the changing circumstances of a changing age. This Bill is one of that series.
No doubt we shall differ on many of the details but the approach and the philosophy seem to me to be right. I am very glad indeed that despite a very heavy legislative programme and a particularly heavy burden on the Department of Health and Social Security, the Government have come forward with this Bill to strengthen our social security system which means so much to a very large number of the least fortunate of our fellow citizens.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Basnett: My Lords, I wish to speak at no great length on one single issue; that is, the potential effect of the Social Security Bill on those suffering from industrial injuries. The effect of the changes proposed, with those already introduced, will weaken the support offered to those suffering industrial injuries; it will increase the amount of litigation in connection with industrial accidents; and it will undermine the purposes which lay behind the all-party support for the principles of the 1946 Industrial Injuries Act.
The debate in the other place in 1944 on the White Paper outlining the proposed industrial injuries scheme expressed a unanimous desire to introduce the new scheme to replace workmen's compensation. There was a desire for justice for injured workpeople and there was support for a new scheme which would remove the friction of litigation between employers and employees. They said that the scheme itself would promote the smooth working of industry and allow for the work of caring for dependants and rehabilitating the injured in cases of industrial injury. Less and less with the changes introduced are those objectives being achieved. The changes proposed in
440
the Social Security Bill will further distance us from that achievement.
The changes proposed are these: ending the entitlement to reduced earnings allowance when recipients retire from regular employment; replacing it with a lower payment; freezing its payment at current cash levels for those already retired, and abolishing the industrial death benefit. There were in 1985 147,000 people in receipt of the reduced earnings allowance, and 69,000 of those received their allowance with pensions.
The reduced earnings allowance has continued to be paid into retirement because it has been accepted that a reduction in earnings levels leads to a reduced pension entitlement. It is now proposed to pay a retirement allowance at the rate of 25 per cent.—one-quarter—of the retired earnings allowance, and to freeze the payments of current allowances. As my noble friend Lady Jeger said, these measures will cut expenditure on industrial injury benefits by £2 million in 1989–90, rising to £10 million in 1991–92. More important, they will cut the protection to those needing it.
Industrial death benefit is paid to the widow of a person who dies from an industrial disease or accident. Now it is proposed that the widows of men killed by work accidents or diseases will receive the same benefits as other widows. What needs to be recognised is that the compensation in fatal industrial accident and disease cases has always been inadequate. It has failed to provide for the widows of young men left to bring up children on benefits when they expected to be supported by a partner in work. In this area in particular improvements, not cuts, are needed.
However, the significance of these proposed changes is magnified when added to the changes already made. Since 1st October 1986 industrial disablement benefit has only been payable for new claims where disablement resulting from an industrial accident or disease is assessed at 14 per cent. or more. The result is that more and more people resort to litigation, which the Industrial Injuries Act was designed to avoid.
Other allowances have gone as well. In 1987, the hospital treatment allowance was abolished and the unemployent supplement was abolished. The need for a system to compensate people for injury or death at work remains strong. There has been a marked increase in the number of reported major industrial injuries for manufacturing and construction between 1981 and 1985. The industrial death rate from accidents at work was constantly high over that period, at somewhat more than 400 deaths a year. There were over 132,000 non-fatal accidents in 1985. The figures for 1986 further reflect this growth in non-fatal major accidents.
Our most precious asset is our workforce. Its protection and support from the ravages of its work must be one of our major concerns. That concern is not shown in the Social Security Bill.
4.55 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, it is not difficult to understand the reasons Her Majesty's

441
Government have brought this Bill before us. The demands made upon the National Insurance Fund have increased enormously, particularly during this Government's term in office. The elderly are living longer, and there are many more unemployed. It is the Government's policy to reduce public expenditure and thus the burden on the taxpayer. I cannot be critical of that objective. However. I find it difficult to comprehend the reasoning behind some of the measures put before us in this Bill. They seem to apply with unreasonble harshness to particular groups, especially the young.
It is clear that the Treasury does not approve of universal benefits. The debate about child benefit is a long-standing one, and I have no doubt that we shall hear more during the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. There have been emotive debates in another place about the payment of attendance allowance. There seems to be a lack of understanding of the difficulties of chronic and severe ill-health, and I find this depressing.
Clause 4 of this Bill is one of the least acceptable, as we have heard from other noble Lords. Unless a 16 or 17 year-old has the fortune to obtain work, is in full-time education or has an indulgent parent, he or she must attend a Youth Training Scheme. There are many objections to making the YTS compulsory, not least the fact that its success has depended on its being voluntary. Youngsters who attend colleges for further study on a part-time basis are not provided for in this Bill, and are thus deprived of an opportunity to improve their chances of obtaining satisfactory employment. It is the children of low income families who will suffer most from this omission.
The measures in this clause are complex, and as a result will deter deserving young people from claiming income support. One group which immediately comes to mind is those who suffer from a degree of mental or physical handicap which is not disabling to the extent of being sickness. They struggle to overcome the stigma of being handicapped, and may not perceive themselves as falling into that category. They may be unable to read, write or do simple sums; their ability to concentrate for any length of time may be impaired, or they may not be able to stand up to the physical demands of a full day at work.
They are not workshy. Many are deeply upset that no one seems to want them as employees, and they try incredibly hard to succeed. Their entitlement to income support is governed by regulations, and the list published during the Committee stage of this Bill in another place is exceedingly complicated. The need to prove severe hardship to civil servants in Whitehall will be an added deterrent, as they will he unable to present their case personally and there is no certainty that all the facts will be made known.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, pointed out, the use of regulatory powers by the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security is increasing, and needs to be questioned. I wonder why, in Clause 12, England warrants 13 "prescribes" while Scotland warrants only 11. Again, there is no reason why the list of groups of young people entitled
442
to income support should not appear in this Bill. It will then receive full discussion and will be capable of amendment. There is also a need for the Secretary of State to publish guidelines for his definition of "severe hardship", and for an independent appeal procedure to be retained.
Clause 7 has also caused some concern and needs clarifying. I should like to ask the Minister what is meant by "any other body" in subsection (1)(b). If it is to be voluntary bodies such as the Salvation Army or Help the Aged, can the Secretary of State be certain that they will have the facilities to make emergency payments and that they will be willing to do so?
I understand that after the recent hurricane disaster the manager of a DHSS office in Ipswich instructed claimants to go to the Suffolk County Council social services department for payment of benefits. This created some difficulties, as there had been no prior consultation between the departments, and they were already in dispute with one another over previous payments.
If the arrangement is to work there must be prior consultation between departments and other agencies. There must also he clear rules about reimbursement. I understand that the DHSS calculated costs at £1.50 per transaction, while Suffolk County Council says that its costs were nearer £5. What will "reasonable administrative expenses" include? Some local authorities are extremely short of staff in their social services departments. Cleveland is one example. Will they be able to engage temporary staff, or draft in staff from other departments; for instance, from the county council treasurer's department? Does the Minister consider it reasonable that a local authority should advertise the arrangements in its local press? As it is only in emergencies that this clause will he required. its terms should be clear.
The Minister will be aware of the anxiety expressed by the Social Security Advisory Committee. the Social Security Consortium and other bodies about the social fund. Noble Lords have also mentioned their anxiety. The Social Security Advisory Committee described it as,
"both unworkable and unfair In applicants".
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, also made that point. Claimants who have recourse to the fund are already on very low weekly incomes, and it is feared that deducting weekly loan repayments from their benefits will reduce their income below subsistence level. There have been a number of cases where elderly, chronically sick people or claimants with young children have been deprived of such essentials as beds and cookers since the single payment scheme came into force in August 1986. Charities have been unable to cope with the demands made upon their resources, and there has been an increase in serious debt. Will the Minister say what proposals there are for monitoring the effects of the social fund, and for avoiding hardship and poverty?
I wonder whether the Minister will give credence to a report in New Society of 22nd January 1988. The report is headed "Social funding", and says:

443
"Robin Birch, the affable DHSS undersecretary in charge of the social fund, happily declared at a recent seminar that no less than 18 per cent. of the money set aside for the fund would be spent on administration. No scrimping here, he assured his audience; there would he plenty of social fund officers to ensure fair play. But hang on a minute. Wasn't the whole point of the social security reviews to cut the cost of paying out benefits? In two short years the shame of the old system has become the pride of the new".
Can the Minister say whether that 18 per cent. will be deducted from money already allocated to local offices, or whether it will be in addition to that money?
I believe that the National Insurance Fund was originally created to alleviate poverty and anxiety for those unable, for reasons of age, unemployment or sickness, to provide for themselves. The foundations of a scheme which has provided security for our citizens for 40 years are steadily being eroded and the principle that those who are able should support those who are not has been replaced by "Let the strongest man win". Is this really what we want?
5.3 p.m.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I always find it
somewhat difficult when speaking on the subject of social security to refrain from lecturing the Government on my own pet hobbyhorse of the reorganisation of social finance, which would make it simpler, better and so on. This is not perhaps an appropriate occasion on which to do so but I could point out that simplification of the system has one overwhelming virtue. We would not have every 18 months, sometimes 12 months, or at even shorter intervals, yet another Social Security Bill to go through both Houses.
Simplification has one other massive virtue which is that people can actually understand it. I very much suspect that one of the problems in social security— not only in its uptake but in its uses and values—is that people frequently do not understand it and are certainly unable to comprehend their exact entitlements. This leads to the creation of yet another industry. In-house, as we have heard from the noble Countess, Lady Mar, there are large increases in personnel in the social security department to explain how people should fill in forms, what their entitlements are and so on, while outside there are other agencies fulfilling similar functions.
Those Members of your Lordships' House who sat in another place will remember that one of their major functions week after week was trying to understand and unravel the legislation before writing letters to the appropriate Minister. I should have thought that letters to the Department of Health and Social Security were by far the most common that one sent. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is nodding. He was on the receiving end of quite a large number of such letters; no doubt, he found the same slight irritation with the to-and-fro of that correspondence.
I was going to say a few words about the Youth Training Scheme and the loss of benefit to people under the age of 18. However, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has said nearly all that I intended to say, which has had two benefits. First, he has
444
expressed it better; and secondly, it has shortened my own speech. I would ask only one question. When the Minister comes to reply, will he explain the likely consequences of this provision to those in further education, allowing for the 21-hour rule and so forth? I am not absolutely clear what is the Government's position—even after the Committee stage in another place.
Bearing in mind the endless reports we have had over the years about the difficulty of the transition from school to work, and, if I may say so, the fact that the anti-work ethic has so often been promulgated in certain areas of our education establishments, I think it is true that the YTS scheme has a significant advantage and has been a great success. That is probably universally agreed. It is a useful undertaking. It provides people not only with work skills and training but with work experience which is so important for them in the many years, one hopes, after they become 18.
One would have greater anxieties but for the fact that numerous guarantees have been built in. Not least is the guarantee that each young person will have a place on YTS and that the disabled, one-parent families and various others who are likely to suffer from hardship will be taken care of. However, I shall not remain on this point; my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has already expressed much of what I was going to say. I shall therefore turn to the other matter I was going to address. I refer to the question of the attendance allowance.
I have dealt with more attendance allowance matters, questions and forms than probably any other noble Lord sitting in the House. On the whole I have not found the Attendance Allowance Board altogether ungenerous in the way that it approaches the granting of attendance allowance, whether at the lower rate—that is, day or night—or at the higher rate—day and night. It has always been understood by those dealing with the matter that those who attended at night but who did not actually carry out a specific medical or nursing function were not entitled to attendance allowance. That was the interpretation before Mrs. Moran took the DHSS to court and won; and all credit to her. However, it raises the point—and this has nothing to do with the question of hardship referred to by the noble Baroness and by the noble Countess—that it is almost impossible to define what is a higher rate attendance allowance on a standby basis when one considers the number of people who could then claim to require attendance allowance on a standby basis.
I would imagine that very large numbers of elderly people with dependants who were previously carrying on reasonably normally in the community in an expected, if not an ideal, circumstance, might then have a question of a claim. I do not say that this claim would necessarily be granted because clearly the next thing that would happen, following the Moran case, would be the introduction of various prescribed regulations to control any abuse of the system. But that, again, would make the system more complicated.
I hope that the attendance board, after the passing of this Bill, and with this change, will nonetheless

445
interpret the question of the full allowance with very considerable compassion. I hope that it will do so with the greatest possible allowance in favour of the applicant rather than in favour of the regulations. On the whole, in most cases that one comes across, this has fortunately in the past happened.
I am very sorry to see that the noble Lord who introduced the attendance allowance in 1971, who was sitting on my right just now, has left the Chamber. I recall very well how much I and some others welcomed the situation at that time. It has always been one of the more important and helpful aspects of social security. And, if I remember correctly, it had very considerable bipartisan support.
I do not believe that this particular change, had it been left unaltered, would have been beneficial to the system as a whole. This is one of those situations where— supporting again what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said—there may be a difference of opinion. I trust that that is not so with regard to the question of compassion or the relief of hardship.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, this is not the first time
that I have followed the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, in your Lordships' House and it does not embarrass me one bit to be able to say that I agreed with the sense of most of what he said, as I did on the previous occasion when I followed him. I should like to be able to say the same about the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but I cannot agree that the main reason for introducing the Bill is the changing scene.
I accept that there is a changing scene and that there will be changes in legislation; there will be Bills to follow Bills. That is accepted. What I cannot understand or accept is that that is a sound reason for the rapidity with which Bills are being brought before us under the present administration—not only rapidity, but sometimes they arrive on our Order Paper overlapping legislation that has not yet been implemented, as on this occasion. I suggest that that cannot be just because of the changing scene, I think that there are other reasons, and I shall mention two possible reasons for getting another Bill so soon after the introduction of the long, controversial 1986 edition.
That was an enormous Bill. As your Lordships will remember, it had 90 clauses and 11 schedules. It followed too the much vaunted review of the social security services carried out during Secretary of State Fowler's period of office. It made substantial changes to pensions, income-related benefits, maternity benefit, industrial injury benefit, funeral benefit, housing benefit and much more besides. The Bill was opposed in the other place and it was opposed in your Lordships' House, as it was by all informed and involved people outside Parliament who are concerned with the interests of the social security system.
I and many others on this side of the Chamber said then that it was ill thought out, it had been rushed and cobbled together, it was far too long and it should have been two Bills; perhaps even four. That Bill was guillotined in the other place; important new
446
clauses were introduced and barely discussed during the Committee stage there. In fact some were introduced after the guillotine had been imposed and that further prevented discussion of very important issues. Now it is necessary to correct errors in that Act, and that is no fault of the draughtsman, who must be working under intolerable pressure to produce these marathon Bills.
So the first reason for this Bill is to correct errors and the consequences of those errors in the 1986 Act. Almost half the clauses—Clauses 2, 3, 8, 10, 11 and 12—are in the Bill mainly to correct errors in the 1986 Act. Other clauses, as has been pointed out, introduce further changes.
The second reason, in my view, for the Bill applies to all other social security legislation since 1979. We can say this and repeat it as often as we possibly can, because it is true. The reason is to effect savings in public expenditure. The 1982 think tank report set the scene, and it is worth reminding ourselves of the relevant parts of the report as stated in the Economist of 12th September 1982. I kept my copy of that cutting. I shall not repeat all it said, but after reporting the origin of the think tank report the article went on:
"If the Thatcher government is serious about cutting public expenditure, argues the paper, then it must consider some radical alternatives in the four areas that account for the lion's share of public expenditure: education, social security, health and defence. The think tank deals with each one in turn.".
I shall not mention education and defence because they are not relevant to this debate but the other two are. The think tank paper said on social security:
"Big savings can be made, says the paper, if all social security payments—from pensions to supplementary benefits- no longer rise in line with inflation".
On health:
"The paper suggests replacing the national health service with private health insurance: this could save £3 billion £4 billion a year from a 1982 83 health budget of £10 billion. The problem is that the less well-oft might underinsure, so the paper suggests that there might have to he a compulsory minimum of private insurance for everyone. In the meantime savings could he made by charging for visits to the doctor and more for drugs".
Those two are relevant and justify my reason for saying that the Bill is to effect public expenditure savings.
It was against the background of that document that the then Secretary of State announced his wide-ranging review of the social security system. The position was pretty evident to all and the Social Security Consortium summed it up adequately for me when it said:
"The review was doomed from the outset by the Treasury's stipulation that it must not increase spending on social security, regardless of what unmet needs were identified, and regardless of the resources devoted to the 'other welfare state' of tax reliefs and allowances. The Treasury regarded the review as a way of finding money through benefit cuts, in order to fund further reductions in taxation".
I think again that that adequately sums up that part of it.
But the result of that review was the 1986 Act, which was rushed through against all opposition. Only in the past few months have we been able to study and debate some of the regulations and benefit rates arising from that Act, and there are more to

447
come. These regulations and rates have not even yet been implemented let alone monitored, and we have this other Bill, the 1987 version. You cannot justify that by saying that the scene is changing rapidly. That cannot be possible.
I wish that I had time to go through the whole Bill but I shall content myself with comments on one or two of the proposed changes. Other speakers have mentioned them, so I shall be able to cut down my speech quite a bit. To me Clause 1 clearly shows the extent to which this Government are prepared to go to find money through benefit cuts. This clause reverses the ruling of the Court of Appeal on 13th March 1987 in the case of Mrs. Moran, an epileptic, who was claiming the higher rate of benefit because her condition was such that she came under the provisions of the Social Security Act 1975. The Court of Appeal agreed that she satisfied the night condition as well as the day condition and was therefore eligible for the higher rate of benefit. That ruling obviously affects other cases.
I am not saying that that is the reason—or is it a possible reason?—for the Government deciding so quickly to rush through another piece of legislation in order to reverse the court ruling. Or is it normal procedure for this Government to ignore court rulings? If the courts get in the way, then they will change the rules: "If they do not satisfy us and will cost us public expenditure, we must change the rules and when we change them we will worsen them at the same time, if we can possibly get some more revenue from the deal".
I thought that that was fairly shabby. I think that most people who read that judgment and who were involved, as we were, in the details and in the run-up to Mrs. Moran's case, felt at the end that it was a good judgment which benefited many disabled people. It was possibly the greatest advance for some of them for many years. Any Government who dare to reverse that decision deserve all they get.
As has been said, Clause 4 raises the minimum age at which income support benefit can be claimed independently. It is raised from 16 to 18 years. The position outlined in the National Assistance Act 1948 has been mentioned. I refer to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who always seems to get my hackles up. There was a period of comparative full employment in 1948. There was not much unemployment in 1948. The National Assistance Act provides:
"No application for assistance shall be made by a person who has not attained the age of 16 years".
and yet the noble Lord says that he can justify the change in conditions.
In other words, the change is that there is now mass unemployment; more young people are unemployed and in more difficulty than ever before. He says that we can change the conditions because there is the possibility of a place on a training scheme. As yet there is no assured place and no assured job at the end of training. He says we can now change the conditions because of the changing scene.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it has been stated that YTS will cover all those who desire to take part in it; therefore the only fit people who would be left drawing benefit would be voluntarily unemployed young persons?
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I do not accept that what the noble Lord says is entirely true. However, I hope we shall go into that in Committee. By that time rather than skirt over this, perhaps we shall be able to see the size of the problem and the exact nature of the proposals that are before us.
It has long been the Government's intention to change the age from 16 to 18. It is not a question of it happening because of a changing scene. Let me give a few examples. When YTS was first announced in a 1981 White Paper on new training initiatives, the intention was to remove the right to supplementary benefit from 16 year-olds. Those proposals met with considerable opposition. The Manpower Services Commission was afraid that YTS would be undermined by reluctant recruits. That is nothing to do with us; that was the MSC. The CBI and the TUC argued that YTS would only work if it was voluntary, and the Government accepted that.
The current situation, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, is that there are penalties and restraints upon youngsters who refuse a YTS place. There is now a 40 per cent. reduction in benefit entitlement for 13 weeks. There is also a complete ban under the 1975 Act for a youngster who refuses to go on a course without just cause. Clause 26 of the Employment Bill now before Parliament reinforces that disqualification. We understand from all our research that those restraints are being implemented and they work. Therefore, as we have said, there is only the minimum left.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who said that this was a steamroller to crack a nut. Or are the Government hedging their options against future youth mass unemployment; or are they merely removing at least 110,000 or 120,000 people from the unemployment register? Are we preparing for another massive reduction in unemployment by the massage method? It could be any one of those, but it is not as some noble Lords opposite have said.
The 1984 reviews of the social security system did not mention the change, or said little about it. The Green Paper and the White Paper that emerged from those proposals said nothing about the position of 16 to 17 year-olds. The 1985–86 Bill was debated. There was a long discussion on an amendment to remove this benefit from 16 to 17 year-olds in Committee in the other place. The amendment was opposed by everyone, including the Minister of State, and at the end of the debate—that is as recently as 1985–86—the amendment was defeated by 25 votes to one.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and others, mentioned the manifesto. I read the manifesto and the Queen's speech. The Queen's speech stated:
"My Government will consult the Manpower Services Commission with a view to providing a comprehensive employment service for unemployed people. There will be guaranteed places on the Youth Training Scheme for school leavers under 18 who do not go into employment. Legislation will he introduced to enable benefit to be withheld from those who refuse a place".

449
That is different from saying that legislation will be introduced to enable benefit to be cut from everyone over the age of 16. That is what is said in the legislation. It is not saying what the manifesto said. I hope that we shall argue that issue in Committee because it is important.
The Government estimate that in removing the general entitlement to income support from the 16 to 17 year-olds, as the Minister said (our figures vary) they will save about £95 million, with some minor offsets (and they can be argued) on the income support and child benefit side. If the provision is passed, the raising of the age to 18 will take effect from September 1988; that is this year. That would be in time to affect this year's 75,000 summer school-leavers. I suppose they will disappear from the unemployment register. Perhaps there will be another speech.
There are grave doubts in my mind as there must he in the minds of others given the rapidity and the complexity of the changes. They are not easy to administer. Therefore there must be grave doubts as to whether they can he in position and functioning before September this year. I doubt it, because I am still aware of the housing benefit changes. They were cobbled together and rushed through in similar circumstances. They misfired and caused tremendous hardships, and they still do, to thousands of people who are in need. There were delays and difficulties in implementation because of the bureaucracy that was arranged around them.
Clause 5 also concerns me. It tightens up the contribution conditions for unemployment and sickness benefit. My noble friend Lord Barnett also mentioned this. The clause makes it harder for people to satisfy the contribution conditions. Again I hope we shall discuss the details in Committee. But, if the provision is passed, the restrictions will affect married women returning to work. What is laudable about that? As has already been said, it will again affect young people because they will not have had time to build up a record of several years' continuous work and thereby qualify through their contributions. No one can understand such an attack on youngsters and married women.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, said that 350,000 people could be affected and would lose entitlement to unemployment benefit. If they lost entitlement to unemployment benefit, they would automatically drop off the register and again those numbers would disappear from the unemployment register—if those figures are correct. It is true that if they satisfy some other conditions they might qualify for income support instead. However, income support for them would be at a lower level than their previous benefit; and the provision also contains a capital rule which does not obtain for the other benefits. There is a capital rule for income support, as I understand it. We know that at least 10,000 people will lose all benefit and will drop off the unemployment figures.
The clause will result in public expenditure savings, after allowing for income support payments, of £10 million in 1988–89, rising to £70 million in 1990–91. Should the Minister think I have the figures wrong, they are in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill.
450
Therefore, I assume that they are at least only half right.
If I had the time to go on further, I should like to speak about the changes which worsen the conditions of occupational pensioners and others, but that subject has already been mentioned. We shall have further opportunities to discuss it.
I conclude with a few words about the most controversial part of the Bill, Clause 10 and Schedule 3, the social fund. From what I have read so far I share the concern expressed in Committee in another place and by all the voluntary organisations involved with social security issues, including the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee. After thorough consideration of the effects of the draft manual of the fund, it had this to say:
"A wholly regulated scheme and one which is purely discretionary both have their drawbacks. The Draft Manual attempts to mitigate the problem of local variation in the use of discretion by imposing binding directions on SFOs and by the use of very detailed guidance. We believe that the result is fettered discretion"—
lovely phrase—
"importing some of the rigidity of the regulated system but without the advantage of certainty of entitlement and accompanying appeal rights and without ensuring that similar cases will he treated in a similar way".
The Government's Social Security Advisory Committee has now made it clear that the social fund proceeds without its support. It should have been enough for the Government to say, "Well, let's have another look". But no, they are battering on ahead. I certainly share the concern.
I have tried to justify my contention about the two main reasons for the Bill's appearance in the House. Government spokesmen have said that these measures are intended to simplify the system. The noble Lord, Lord Trafford, was on the same point: they certainly will not. On the contrary, the further involvement of local authority and social services departments will make the situation even more complicated because we envisage a completely new role for social workers. I do not know whether they have discussed this, but they will be in a very difficult situation with some of the cases which will naturally go to them as a result of this legislation. So it will certainly not simplify the system, and it may well complicate it.
The Government say that the legislation will make the system fairer. I do not see that any case has been made out for that whatsoever. They say they are intent on targeting the needs. I cannot believe that they are in tune with the needs of claimants when I read some of the clauses in this Bill. The new Secretary of State in another place, Mr. Moore, said in a recent speech that his ambition was to encourage individual independence. The Minister described the new social fund as a way of reducing dependency. Of course the social fund, as I read it, may well reduce dependency on the state because it reduces access to state benefits. But it is likely to result, as has already been said, in other forms of dependency; on charities, on moneylenders and on loan sharks, with all the problems that that will entail. I hope that we shall make considerable and constructive changes during the Committee stage.
5.30 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, of the many noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon most are very concerned about one aspect or another of this Bill. Clause 1 worries organisations of and for disabled people. They have argued since the passing of the Social Security Act 1986 that it did not do enough for disabled people. Some severely disabled people claiming for the first time in April 1988 will receive considerably less financial assistance from the benefits system than they would have done under the present system. In some cases, their needs are so great that, if no help is given, their lives could be in danger. The Secretary of State for Social Services recognised that there were some people who would not benefit under the new system. In the Official Report in another place on 27th October 1987, he is reported as saying:
"Clearly, those who register after 1st April 1988 will come under the scope of the new system, but we must find a way of targeting more effectively those few people whom we have not been able to recognise in the system".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/10/87; col. 191.]
The Government initially argued that any financial gaps could be plugged by voluntary and social services and by help from the social fund. But organisations for disabled people believe that there is no way in which local social service departments who are already making staff cuts can be expected to fill the gaps in care which it would seem the new income support scheme would create.
It would also seem unreasonable to suggest that overstretched and under-resourced voluntary organisations would be able to take on extra duties. This brings me to Clause 10, the social fund. What happens if a disabled person applies for a grant after a particular office has exhausted its budget for that financial year? It would seem that under the proposed social fund regulations if a loan is turned down then the applicant must wait six months before reapplying. Furthermore, all loans and grants made by the social fund are discretionary. Disability organisations therefore do not believe that the social fund is an acceptable way of distributing benefit.
The Social Security Bill offers the Government the ideal opportunity to show compassion and understanding by looking at the situation again, especially for the severely disabled. One way in which such people could be helped would be by a supplement to the attendance allowance. Would the Government consider this? It would give severely disabled people the help they need.
The National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association and the Royal National Institute for the Blind are two charities which are concerned with the social fund as defined in Clause 10. There are two areas of concern to them: those who are deaf-blind and living at home who require both parents full-time at home simply to maintain a family situation. Likewise, the multi-handicapped blind living at home in the family need all the help and benefits they can get. Then there is the problem of single parent families. Not only have they to contend with the disabled child but with loneliness as well.
The social fund regulations which come into force in April 1988 embody a principle which is a
452
significant departure from the practice since 1948. This means that the claimant will be advised by social fund officers to seek help from relatives first—that is, supposing they have any. I wonder how members of the Government as individuals would feel if they had to do so. Then, after their relatives, claimants are to apply to charities before a loan is made from the social fund. The regulations of many charities required them to try to ensure that before making a grant available to an applicant all statutory benefits have first been claimed. The Social Security Act coming into force in 1988 seems to reverse this. Moreover, many people would quite naturally feel chary of approaching their relatives for assistance.
The trouble with the loan from the social fund is that those who it is felt will be unable to repay it will be refused a loan, thus causing poor families to become even poorer and to be caught in the poverty trap. There is a possibility of their being able to get a grant, but only in certain category cases. Would the Minister please agree to ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to look again at this situation? Many charities are afraid that as they will very often have to say that they are unable to help, not only will this mean social workers having to write letters on behalf of their clients to many charities which they feel might be able to help, but for the charities themselves there will be a knock-on effect. People will say, "Oh, that charity did not help me, why should we help it'?" Hence a fundraising effort could be a disaster for the charity.
I have grave misgivings about the principle of loans in place of grants. Of the £200 million in the social fund, £140 million—nearly three-quarters—is earmarked for loans. If one approaches a bank manager for a loan he will immediately ask about collateral. In this case loans would be made to people who are not likely to have any collateral. In their desperate state they may well accept loans without the slightest possibility of repayment unless they are to encounter severe hardship—for instance, having deductions made for the payment of fuel bills. It is known that many families are forced to economise on food and are frequently at a dangerous low nutritional level. This can put the health of both children and parents at risk. It would seem to me that the social fund loan system would enhance that risk.
The most disastrous aspect of the social fund appears to me to be that many of the poorest members of the community will get no help at all from the social fund. Where the social fund officer judges that an individual is too poor to repay a loan, that individual will be turned away empty-handed unless a no-repay loan is made. This mocks the Government's alleged principle that assistance is to be targeted on those most in need.
The Social Security Advisory Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has said, is intensely concerned about Clause 10 and the social fund. Perhaps I may hope that the Government will listen to the Committee and also that the Government will subscribe to the principles of the Good Samaritan.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have two confessions to make today. First, I have never spoken in a social security debate before; and, secondly, I am not sure that I know a great deal about social security itself. However, I have chosen to talk today because this is a very important sector of government policies and it is a major cost to the taxpayer. It is relevant to all of us, and not least to those people who receive benefit today. My contribution will be small because I am here to listen to what is said, and I have very much enjoyed doing so.
I particularly wish to talk about Clause 4 and the role of young people. I was a youth not so long ago, so perhaps it is appropriate for me to talk about that. I very much welcome the proposals under Clause 4, for several reasons. First, I have always felt that it is extremely sad for us as a modern, civilised nation to allow young people over 16 to simply leave school and opt for the dole. That is a negative option and, so far as I can see, creates a lower level of young who exist entirely from benefits. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said earlier about young people not wanting to be unemployed, but when they become unemployed they sometimes get used to it and find it very difficult to get out of it. I think that these proposals avoid that trap.
Secondly, these young people often leave school with the most rudimentary of skills, sometimes not even the essential scholastic skills, and have neither the incentive nor the ability to find a worthwhile job which could suit them.
Thirdly, in the longer term it creates a group who have no experience of disciplined, regular work and who will come to terms with that discipline only with great difficulty. I do not know the figures but I suspect that there must be a fair proportion of young people who have not held a job for some years, are now used to living on unemployment benefit and would find excuses to refuse a job if it was offered to them.
I believe this situation is untenable, and the Government would not be acting responsibly if it were allowed to continue. Many people condemn the YTS as purely being cheap labour for jobs no one else wants to do, but it is a scheme which has helped over 1 million young people, which costs the taxpayer over £1 billion and in which over 100,000 employers participate. It is perhaps not surprising that some people have not succeeded in seeing the benefits of the scheme and therefore condemn it as being a glorified form of cheap labour.
Furthermore, it has been suggested that jobs under the scheme lack any sort of quality; but I believe that with the virtual abolition of unemployment for 16 to 17 year-olds companies participating in the scheme will see their trainees as being their future lifeblood and produce the quality of jobs and training that we all so much desire. I am also pleased to see that the Government are giving those on the YTS a training allowance which has been set above the basic supplementary rates. Young people will therefore have an additional financial incentive to find work on the scheme. That can only be beneficial to their future development.
454
I also commend the Government for allowing a safety net for those young people who for a variety of reasons, such as disability or single parenthood, will still be eligible for benefit. These proposals show this Government's continued concern for young people. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said earlier that the Government did not care for young people. I do not believe that is so, because they have a desire to see young people back in worthwhile work. I know that there will be many comments to make on this Bill in Committee, and I look forward to that. In the meantime, I support this Bill's Second Reading.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, this Bill, although short, is a very important one. It follows hard upon the heels of the comprehensive and far-reaching Act of 1986 and is based on very similar principles. I believe that it is a thoroughly bad Bill with very few, if any, redeeming features.
It seeks to make savings at the expense of the young, the disadvantaged, the disabled and, in the main, underprivileged people. Basically its philosophy is one of so-called targeting of benefits. Here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that there is a difference in philosophy between our side of the House and his side of the House on this issue, because in my view the targeting is really a euphemism for the kind of means testing so hated by previous generations of poor people, and with good reason. That is why there is a relatively low take-up of means-tested benefits, even now. It is low compared with child benefit, which is a universal benefit, where take-up is of the order of around 100 per cent.
We on this side of the House are concerned about the Government's attitude to child benefit as a result of the refusal to uprate it. We would remind the Minister that child benefit has a very substantial degree of support in the country, where it is fully understood that it has taken the place of child tax allowances, which were not targeted but which were applied across the board to all who paid taxes.
I should like to deal with the Bill in a little detail because I want to give the House an idea of the areas where we shall be seeking amendments in Committee. First, I shall deal with Clause 1. As we have heard, this seeks to amend existing legislation about entitlement to attendance allowance at nighttime in order to come to terms with the Moran judgment. The Minister claims that the clause has not been introduced to save money, although it is clear that there will be some small savings. One wonders therefore why it is necessary to bother with it at all. Could the Government not have accepted that the Court of Appeal in the Moran case had interpreted the law in a compassionate and humane way and allow that to stand?
I think that the wording in Clause 1 will lead to all kinds of difficulties in practice. Some of these points have already been raised by other noble Lords this afternoon including the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and my noble friend Lord Stallard. We shall certainly be seeking to explore this further in Committee.

455
I now come to the clause dealing with industrial injuries benefits. It is fairly clear to me after some two and a half years in your Lordships' House that the Government do not much care for the industrial injuries scheme. The Social Security Act 1986 removed entitlement to disablement benefit for cases where disablement is assessed at less than 14 per cent. We on this side of the House opposed that at the time when the Bill was before your Lordships. I myself moved a couple of amendments, but without success. We now have a further erosion of the scheme; an ending of entitlement to reduced earnings allowance when recipients retire from regular employment and its replacement by a new benefit, retirement allowance, at the rate of 25 per cent. of the previous REA entitlement. Further, industrial death benefit is to cease for deaths after 11th April 1988 and there are other restrictions and cuts to which my noble friend Lord Basnett has already referred in some detail.
Provision for injured workers has had a somewhat chequered history in this country. Before the industrial injuries scheme was introduced by the Labour Government after the war there had been the Workmen's Compensation Act, under which an injured worker had to decide whether to opt for very small weekly compensation payments or whether he would sue his employer at common law for negligence. That was a pretty iniquitous system and it meant that in practice many employers got away with unsafe conditions because workers simply could not afford to forego the weekly payments and run the risk of not getting anything at all if they sued. I speak with some knowledge of that scheme because I started my working life working on employers' liability for a very large insurance company.
The industrial injuries scheme was an attempt at a no-fault system of compensation for industrial injuries, since an injured worker did not have to make that choice. Provided the accident arose out of or in the course of employment he or she could secure benefit under the industrial injuries scheme and could also sue at common law if it was believed that the accident was the result of negligence. However, the scheme has gradually been eroded. The replacement of the reduced earnings allowance by a retirement allowance of 25 per cent. of the maximum level of £25·80 per week will mean a benefit loss of around £19·35 per week for injured people. That is quite unacceptable to us.
The claim is that the changes will cut expenditure by £2 million in 1989 to 1990 and by £10 million by 1991 to 1992. Those savings are being made at the expense of people who have had accidents or suffered diseases at work. It is generally accepted that there are risks in going to work. That is why employers have to carry employers' liability insurance, although it must he said that only 10 per cent. of all accidents at work result in successful common law claims. Some work environments are hazardous no matter what the Health and Safety Executive does to improve health and safety standards. Moreover, the scheme is part of a separate insurance for which contributions have been paid. There is no case for a cutback of this nature. That is an area in which we
456
shall be seeking revision when the Bill is in the Committee stage.
I turn now to a clause which a number of your Lordships have described as the most controversial in the Bill. That is Clause 4, which seeks to remove entitlement to income support for persons between 16 and 18 years of age. That matter has already been discussed quite amply this afternoon. One of the aims of the clause appears to me to be not so much to encourage but to coerce young people into YTS schemes. However, as has already been said, it has always been the desire of the Manpower Services Commission that participation in YTS schemes should be voluntary. That is also the view of the TUC and the CBI.
Efforts have been made by many employers to improve the quality of YTS schemes, and we welcome that. However, the image of a cheap labour scheme with nothing very much at the end of it still clings to YTS. If that image is to be dispelled, we must ensure that the schemes provide high-quality training and proper opportunities for achieving recognisable qualifications. YTS should be able to attract young people. Coercion will be counterproductive. In any event, employers themselves are not happy about poorly motivated trainees, which is one of the reasons why the CBI has taken the view that it has over voluntary participation. Moreover, as a number of noble Lords have said, recent research appears to indicate that 91 per cent. of all unemployed school-leavers would actuall prefer some employment to receiving benefits. There is already substantial provision to prevent abuses of the benefit system.
There are other aspects of the proposals which give us cause for concern. Although the Minister says there will be protection for some young people suffering from severe hardship, that is to be a discretionary power in the hands of the Secretary of State. There is no indication that there will be any mechanism for appeal if a hardship application is rejected.
Subsection (3) of the clause seems likely to cause problems, since the net result would appear to be to make young persons entirely dependent on their parents. Moreover, there is a substantial difference between the amount of child benefit which will be payable and the current supplementary benefit—£18·75 per week at current levels, compared with £7·25 per week of child benefit. That in itself could place some strain on low income families. We believe that the Government's proposals in that part of the Bill are based on populist inaccuracies of the kind that have appeared in a number of newspapers and have been aired from time to time in the less reputable parts of the media. We are unhappy about that and we shall be seeking revisions at the Committee stage.
I turn now to Clause 5 and the proposal to tighten up contribution conditions for entitlement to unemployment benefit and to sickness benefit. In general, those provisions extend the period for which a person has to work and pay contributions both after first entering employment—for example, school-leavers, students, immigrants and so on—or on re-entering the employment market after a period

457
of absence such as is experienced by parents bringing up children and those caring for others at home. Most of those people are women, and indeed it is women who are most likely to be hit if the provisions become law unamended. They, more than men, are likely to have had an interrupted work pattern. In the main, they care for children and for the sick and disabled in the family. They will lose their right to unemployment pay in many instances and they will he forced on to income support instead of receiving unemployment benefit.
Clause 6 extends to people aged 55 or over the provisions first introduced in 1981 under which an unemployed person with an occupational pension suffers a reduction in unemployment benefit. That has already been dealt with to some extent by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Swann. It is estimated that such an extension to people of 55 would extinguish unemployment benefit for 27,000 people and would reduce benefit for 7,000 more. As several noble Lords have said, it would save £15 million in 1988–89, rising later to £65 million.
However, most people who take early retirement at 55 do so as a form of compulsory redundancy. I can speak with some knowledge of that matter because in my time as a union official I was responsible for negotiating a number of voluntary redundancy schemes. Few people of that age regard themselves as not being available for work. Most people would be only too happy to work if work was available for them. In many parts of the country it is not. They suffer reduced pensions because in most occupational schemes they have not reached normal retirement age and they therefore are not entitled to a full pension. If the Bill goes through unamended, it will make it more difficult for unions and employers to negotiate voluntary early retirements, particularly in areas where the prospect of obtaining alternative employment is slight.
Moreover, unemployment benefit is not a charity. It is a benefit for which payment has been made. The employee who retires early has paid both for his occupational pension, which in any event would be reduced, and for his unemployment benefit. If he or she can satisfy the condition of being available for work, he or she should be entitled to receive that benefit. I emphasise that the scheme is an insurance scheme. One wonders how a private insurance company would fare if it reneged on insurance contracts in that way. Again, that is an area where we shall he seeking amendment.
Turning to the social fund, there has been much criticism of the social fund concept, not only from our side of the House. In the main, our concerns are that the social fund will be cash limited, will give help through loans rather than grants, will be discretionary and will give no right of appeal to an independent tribunal. My noble friend Lady Jeger dealt with that matter at length. Concern about the Bill still remains. Since those who will be applying for assistance from the social fund are from the poorest in our society, how is it to be expected that they will be better able to cope if they are given loans which they must repay? We voiced our dissatisfaction with that provision when the Social Security Act was debated and we still oppose the whole idea.
458
Schedule 3, dealing with the social fund, indicates that further assistance will be available to those persons who require help with heating during the winter. The wording of Schedule 3 is very unclear. While I welcome any improvement, clearly it would be better if older people were entitled to a prescribed heating allowance to cover the winter months. That would remove the element of doubt and the insecurity which still remains with the wording that appears in Schedule 3. That has long been the policy demand of organisations with special concern for the care of the elderly. The Government should have heeded that, and Schedule 3 presented an opportunity to do something about it. We shall attempt to do that when the Bill is before your Lordships.
All the proposals in the Bill would effect savings, except that it is alleged that the extension of YTS will cost more. However, I do not think that investment in training, which should be undertaken anyway, should be set against social benefits affecting in the main poorer people and those least able to look after themselves. The Government's proclaimed philosophy is that people should be encouraged to stand on their own feet. The proposals in the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said, will have the effect of removing the benefits for which people have contributed and forcing them on to income support or means-tested benefit. That does not seem to me to
be necessary or desirable, particularly in circumstances in which we are constantly being told that the economy is improving, that the Chancellor has money to spare, that we are in surplus and that tax reductions could be on the way. That makes it even more imperative that we look after the disadvantaged and do not remove, in a quite exceptionally mean way, quite small benefits which nevertheless mean a lot to people who rely on them. I regret that the Government have seen fit to introduce this Bill and sincerely hope that it does not leave your Lordships' House without substantial amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I said in my opening remarks, this is a short Bill but it is wide-ranging. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, described the Bill as a gallimaufry. I must confess that I could not spell the word "gallimaufry" and so I looked it up in the dictionary. One definition is that it is a heterogeneous or, in other words, a diverse matter. I certainly agree with her on that point. I rather suspect that it is the last point on which I shall agree with the noble Baroness on the Bill.
Nonetheless, I found the debate most interesting. Not surprisingly, a wide number of points were raised. One set of points—having absolutely nothing to do with the Bill—I do not propose to answer today. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, was the first of many speakers to devote what I considered a disproportionate amount of their speeches to general aspects of the social fund already found acceptable by this House—on a division, it is true. I accept that they are important points that deserve answers. But, as I said, they have nothing to do with the Bill. Therefore, unless any of your Lordships objects, I propose to

459
write an encyclical answering all the various points. I shall circulate it to noble Lords on all sides of the House who have taken part in the debate so that we all know exactly what we are talking about. Any noble Lord wishing to come back to me as a result of that letter is perfectly entitled to do so. Following normal practice I shall make a copy available in the Library for those noble Lords who have not received the encyclical. I hope that that procedure will be sufficient.
As I said, a vast number of points have been raised. I think that perhaps it would be best to go through the Bill clause by clause if there is time. Under the new provision of Clause 1 disabled people qualify if, in order to avoid the risk of substantial danger, someone else is required to be awake and watching over them for a prolonged period or at repeated intervals during the night. The daytime and alternative night time conditions of entitlement remain unchanged.
My noble friend Lord Trafford, for whose words of wisdom I am extremely grateful for the second time today, described himself as very experienced in the matter of attendance allowance. He said that he had always understood that standby attendance did not entitle a claimant to attendance allowance. That is absolutely true. He went on to say that the board has always interpreted the matter fairly, which I also believe to be true. Our intention and that of the Attendance Allowance Board is simply to return to the position as it existed before the Moran judgment. The board has assured us that it will not seek to tighten its interpretation and that the same sorts of people who qualified before the Moran judgment will continue to qualify.
I should make the general point that as a result of the Moran judgment the law is in a considerable amount of uncertainty. What constitutes continual supervision for the purposes of Section 35(1) of the 1975 Social Security Act has been considered in various social security commissioners' decisions since the benefit was introduced in 1971. Some supported our understanding that continual supervision required the overseeing or watching over of disabled people by someone else, the frequency or regularity of the need for supervision being factors to be taken into account. In other commissioners' decisions, however, it was held that anticipatory supervision, in other words, someone being available to intervene if and when a dangerous event occurred, might he sufficient to satisfy the continual supervision criteria.
Not only is that an anomaly in the findings of the commissioners; there is also an anomaly in the finding of the Court of Appeal. In the case of Regina v. The Secretary of State for Social Services ex parte Connelly in 1986 (AER 998 is the reference) the court considered continual supervision at night and considered that the real basis of decision in that case was whether the risks involved to the claimant gave rise to substantial danger. Although the court considered the possible effects of the claimant being left alone by night, the decision did not comment on or over-rule previous law.
460
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that in the Moran judgment, the court did not award higher rate attendance allowance to Mrs. Moran. The court made clear in its judgment that it had no power to decide entitlement to the allowance. Satisfaction of the medical conditions for entitlement is a matter for the Attendance Allowance Board and its delegates. The court said that the board's interpretation of the law in respect of the night time supervision condition—an interpretation based on the decision of a tribunal of social security commissioners—was wrong. The court set out its interpretation of the law and returned the case to the Attendance Allowance Board for further consideration in the light of that interpretation. The board has done so and its decision has been notified to Mrs. Moran.
It was, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, particularly who zeroed in on Clause 2. The noble Lord mentioned the relationship between the industrial injuries scheme and levels of litigation. I am advised that there is no evidence linking any increase in litigation with the introduction in October 1986 of a 14 per cent. threshold for the payment of disablement benefit, and I can see no reason why that should be so. However, the. noble Lord has made the point and I shall consider his remarks in my general reading of the Official Report. Claims for damages at common law can only succeed when an employer is shown to be negligent whereas the industrial injuries scheme is based on a "no fault" principle.
The noble Lord suggested that the number of occupational accidents is rising. I believe this to he untrue. Although accident trends were rising during the period from 1981 to 1985, the latest report from the Health and Safety Executive shows that this movement has been arrested and that there are signs that the number of accidents in construction is now declining. I am advised that the number of fatal accidents during 1986–1987 is the lowest on record. It is believed that the incidence of occupational disease has also been substantially reduced.
Many noble Lords majored on Clause 4 and the Youth Training Scheme—not surprisingly, as I did so myself in my opening speech. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde whose contribution I very much welcomed. He is quite right in stressing the value of training for young people. He claimed to be the youngest of those who have spoken. I think that that is probably true but looking at the Front Bench opposite, there may be some dispute as to whether or not I am the second youngest.
Many of your Lordships will have children and grandchildren who are in the 16 to 17 year-old age group and may, I suggest, be closer to what those young people think than either my noble friend or myself. However, YTS provides a guarantee of a good quality training place to all young people under 18. With such a guarantee for the able bodied and a safety net for those who are not able to take up a place, there is no longer any reason to continue paying income support to the under-18s. That is our aim in Clause 14.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, pointed out that the Government's philosophy is that people should be encouraged to stand on their own feet. I suggest

461
that you do not proffer such encouragement by allowing young people to go straight from school into the benefit culture.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, suggested that the new rules went beyond what our manifesto commitment said. The Government have decided that the best way to avoid youngsters becoming accustomed to and reliant on state benefits when there is no need to be so is to remove general entitlement to school-leavers from the outset. The YTS guarantee is open to them, and child benefit and other dependency additions as appropriate will be available, as the House knows.
I accept that there is another, reverse, way of doing it; namely, the existing situation could be kept and one could excise from it. What the Government have chosen to do is to do away with the existing procedures and then add to them for particular groups of people. I accept that it could he done either way, but this is the way that the Government have decided to do it.
The severe hardship rule places an extra power in the hands of the Secretary of State. That was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. The Government are removing part of the safety net by disentitling people under 18 except in prescribed groups. It is reasonable, therefore, to place in the Bill a discretion to re-entitle people. The power will he exercised by the Secretary of State in cases not prescribed in regulations where severe hardship would otherwise arise.
The very existence of the power demonstrates that the Government are being realistic in acknowledging that it is impossible to legislate for every conceivable situation that could arise. The power has been given to the Secretary of State as centralisation of such discretion will result in standardisation of treatment, as it has with the exercise of such discretion in relation to boarders who claim exemptions from the time limit rules. In 25 per cent. of such referrals the Secretary of State's decision is, I am advised, in favour of the claimant.
It is our intention under Clause 4 to extend the treatment of the child as dependent on his parents up to the end of the calendar year for summer school-leavers and an extra three months for leavers at other times. The only exceptions will be children living away from home with good reason, as will be specified in regulations; for example, those at risk of physical or sexual abuse, married couples with or without children, cohabiting couples with children and those who are not required to be available for work, such as the long-term sick and one-parent families.
I understand that this year there are likely to be 600,000 school-leavers, of whom 200,000 are expected to go straight into a job and 360,000 on to the YTS. Thus what we are talking about are 40,000 extra places to be made available on the YTS. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked about the training allowances given to the YTS people. A supplement can be paid on top of the YTS allowance to cover board and lodging costs, and in appropriate cases income support would also be available. That will
462
also cover the problem when young people have to move away from home.
The 21-hour rule and the impact on part-time study was another point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. The principle behind the change comes from the manifesto commitment that the Government will take steps to ensure that those under 18 who deliberately choose to remain unemployed will not be eligible for benefit. Young people studying under the 21-hour rule are first and foremost unemployed and seeking work, even though they are filling some of their time with part-time study. It is right that they should be treated in the same way as all other unemployed 16 and 17-year olds.
Those genuinely seeking to improve qualifications have the option of staying at school or going to a college of further education on a full-time basis. Part-time study may equally be undertaken at night school while in employment or on the YTS. Study without restriction on the hours of attendance can still he undertaken during the three-month or four-month period during which child benefit will continue for those seeking employment or YTS placement. Those aged 18 and over will not be affected.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, mentioned the opportunities for mentally and physically handicapped young people. The YTS has been designed to cater for all young people, including those with mental and physical handicaps or learning difficulties. As I pointed out, additional funding is available for employers to provide specially designed training programmes for disabled young people, or those who require sheltered training. Some 12,000 special grants were available in 1987.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked: what are the Government doing about using their powers to disqualify a person from unemployment benefit, if it is decided that he or she is voluntarily unemployed? At present the maximum disqualification period is 13 weeks. In the light of the increasing incidence of voluntary unemployment the Government intend increasing the maximum disqualification period to 26 weeks from April 1988. The same periods apply to a reduction of supplementary benefit and income support, normally a reduction of 40 per cent. of the claimant's benefit.
We recognise that in so far as voluntary unemployment is a problem we should take steps further to extend the period of maximum disqualification. However, it is maximum disqualification. On our view it is the right approach, bearing in mind the choice and advice given to young people. We prefer the positive approach of encouragement to train, gain skills and experience for a career which this will give.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, suggested that children from low income families will suffer in all this. During the child benefit extension period those parents in receipt of income support will be able to claim a dependency addition in respect of any 16 or 17 year-old child who has registered for a job or a YTS place. There will, therefore, be no reduction in such a family's income during the child benefit extension period. After that period there will be

463
money coming in from the YTS training allowance, and so the family as a whole should not be disadvantaged.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, suggested that Clause 5 will result in a large reduction in the count of unemployed. It is expected that a large majority of those affected by the contribution changes will continue to register in order to qualify for other benefits or national insurance credits. Therefore to that extent it is unlikely that it will affect the figures. However, some married women are not entitled to claim income support, and people over 60 may leave the register. It is estimated that the count may be reduced for these groups by about 10,000 people.
Savings on Clause 5 were mentioned. The gross savings on unemployment benefit rise to £380 million by 1990–91, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said. But there are increased costs on means-tested benefits such as income support. The net savings are £68 million. I shall have something else to say on savings a little later—perhaps quite rapidly, looking at the time!
I was interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Swann, who declared an interest as chairman of the company pensions information system. I can confirm to him that the changes in Clause 6 will not come into effect until January 1989. I can also tell him that it is our intention that personal pensions should have the same effect on benefits as do occupational pensions.
For most people the new arrangements to facilitate their taking up personal pensions or to enable them to transfer from occupational pensions to personal pensions will not come into effect until later this year. I understand that it will he some time thereafter before any significant effects are felt. We shall be introducing the necessary amendments to legislation in due course. This is a very complex area which we do not wish to rush. Although I shall he interested in the noble Lord's assessment of the problem, I do not think it would be practical to make amendments in this Bill to cover that eventuality.
There was a suggestion, among the many others made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, that those aged 55 to 60 are being unfairly disadvantaged under Clause 6. This clause is an extension of the abatement arrangements for the over-60s introduced seven years ago. It is likely that many in this age group will not wish to take a further job but I accept that some will do so. If they do, and if they unfortunately should become unemployed, they will suffer total withdrawal of benefit only if substantial amounts of occupational pension are in payment. A married man claiming for his wife at current rates continues to receive benefit until his occupational pension exceeds £85.90 a week for a single man. His pension would have to be £66.50 before benefit is withdrawn.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, asked me what is meant by "other bodies" in reference to emergency payments. In certain circumstances, for example when a local authority is unable or unwilling to enter into an agreement to make emergency payments on behalf of the Secretary of State, an agreement could be reached with any voluntary body which has
464
regular contact with a particular group of social security claimants. Inevitably there will be occasions when it is more appropriate for the Secretary of State to use a voluntary body as an agency rather than local authorities. This stipulation provides for that.
I said that there were two parts of Clause 10 and Schedule 3 which I would respond to now because they refer to exceptionally cold weather payments. The provision gives us power to make payments from the social fund in respect of extra heating attributable to cold weather. The word "extra" is particularly important because in so much of what we have heard it is suggested that this concerns just cold weather payments. It is indeed for exceptionally long periods of severe weather, and whether it starts on a Monday, a Sunday, a Saturday or any other day of the week does not matter. Effectively what it means is that an exceptionally long period of weather varies between seven and 13 days.
As I understand the position, this has always been the case, even under the last Labour Government. But, looking at the noble Baroness's face, I should like to check that and perhaps write to her. I hear her say that perhaps I had better. I have given the offer and I will do it. I have already said that these payments will be made on the same basis as maternity and funeral payments, and they will not have to be funded from the budget limited section of the social fund.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, also referred to the regulations in force this winter which relate to cold weather payments under supplementary benefit regulations. We have yet to decide the details of the scheme for exceptionally cold weather payments from the social fund.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked about the severely disabled living in the community. As the House will know, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has given a commitment to meet the special needs of very severely disabled people living in the community, who are in the very small minority of disabled people who lose from the introduction of income support. He is still considering this matter in consultation with organisations representing disabled people and he will make an announcement in due course. Of course I shall make sure that your Lordships also have the benefit of that announcement.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, also raised that point. We shall be considering a long-term solution once we have the report of Sir Roy Griffiths on his overview of care in the community and the result of the OPCS survey on disability. In the meantime we are considering how best to find an interim solution.
There is one more point that I should like to make. It is absolute nonsense, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out rather in advance of the speech of the noble Lord, I was amused to see, for the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, to say that the purpose of the Bill is savings. I do not deny that it accounts for some modest but necessary and worthwhile savings in expenditure. On the social security programme it will save some £80 million in the coming year, rising to £222 million in 1990–91, although, as the noble

465
Lord himself pointed out, these savings will be substantially offset by increases in the cost of YTS. But the saving should be seen in the context of social security benefit expenditure as a whole.
This has risen from around £16 billion in 1978–79 to £44 billion in the current year, an increase in real terms of about 38 per cent., and it is set to rise to around £46 billion in the next financial year, at a time when unemployment benefit is being reduced because the number of claimants is less. So I think that the figures speak for themselves.
This is a heterogeneous Bill. This Government are not prepared to sit back and leave young school-leavers to sink into unemployment and dependence on benefit. It is not fair to them, and equally it is not fair to taxpayers that they should have to subsidise those who deliberately choose unemployment. We are instead guaranteeing them an opportunity of good quality training to equip them for the future and to help them lead independent lives. While undergoing this training they will get a YTS training allowance, which is worth considerably more than income support rate for the under-18s. Deliberate unemployment at the taxpayer's expense need not and will no longer be an option for those who are able to take up a YTS place.
For all the reasons that I have enumerated in my winding-up speech, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I know we are not going to get any answers to our questions about the social fund, but his excuse that it was not relevant to this Bill does not hold water as far as I am concerned. Clause 10 might be just one sentence. Schedule 3 has 10 paragraphs in it. A number of them deal with financing, and our questions were about the financing of the social fund. I know that we are not going to get any answers to our questions now, but I think the noble Lord was perhaps wrong in saying what he did.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Countess can hold that view if she wishes, but I have already spoken for 28 minutes and it would probably take me another seven minutes to respond to the various points on the social fund, which we have accepted is a discrete subject. Therefore, as I said at the beginning, I should prefer to respond to all the points globally by letter to make sure that they are properly answered rather than give a gabbled and garbled response, which I am frightened of doing at this moment.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Australian Bicentenary
6.30 p.m.
Lord Willis Lord Willis rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, on the occasion of the Australian Bicentenary, whether they will use their influence to secure the renaming of one of London's major streets in honour of Australia.
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Perhaps I should first say that I have just heard that the "Young Endeavour", which was built with a subsidy of £¾ million from Her Majesty's Government, £¾ million raised by public subscription in this country and £¾ million given by Arthur Weller, an Australian living in this country, has just won the Tall Ships Race.
I believe I am qualified on two counts to ask this Question. First, I live in Chislehurst, where Lord Sydney of Chislehurst preceded me and his name was given to that great city which now exists on the east coast of Australia. In fact in Chislehurst we have a Botany Bay Lane and my local pub is the Sydney Arms. Therefore, I have a special affection for Australia.
The second reason is that in 1956 I sailed as a £10 emigrant to Australia under the government's scheme. I was really a phoney emigrant because I was there to write a film on emigration, but I did everything else that the emigrants did. I lived on the emigrant ship as an emigrant and my cover story was that I was going to he a tram driver in Melbourne. When I arrived in Australia—it was my first visit—I spent four months going round every state as far as Albany and Broome in West Australia, Cairns in Queensland and all over Victoria, New South Wales and so on. I came to love that great sunburned country.
A lot is said about Pom bashing in Australia. Let me give your Lordships an illustration of what happened on that first visit. I went into a small pub in Western Australia and was standing at the bar chatting to the barman when three huge men from the forestry works came in, all tattooed with "I love Lucy" and everything else on their arms. Suddenly I heard a deep Australian voice say, "That's a Pom up there, ennit Bert?" I quaked in my shoes a little. The reply was "Yes. Where are they getting them from?" The voice said, "Oh, they're scraping them off the keels of the ships in Fremantle Harbour".
I thought that I should do something, so I said to the barman, "Would you ask those three gentlemen to come and have a drink with me?" They did so and once we got talking it turned out that they were all Poms. They had been there for 30 years and had rather forgotten it. All I can tell your Lordships is that I was supposed to travel on that day but I spent another night there because Australian hospitality is fabulous. It originates from the old bush country where if you saw a traveller coming through you did not let him pass; you bought him a drink and gave him a meal.
It is impossible to imagine today when one goes to Australia—I have just returned from a recent visit—the hardships that those early settlers we sent there had to endure. In Western Australia last November I was shown what was called a saw pit. It was about as long as these Benches. A tree was placed on it. They had no mechanical means of operation in those days, so one man had to get down under the log, one man stood on top of it and they sawed in into planks. They did that for 12 hours a day. The man

467
underneath got all the sawdust on him and was standing knee deep in mud, but that was how they carved out of that country the nation that we have today.
Two hundred years ago we sent to Australia not only criminals but some good people. We sent good trade unionists like the Tolpuddle Martyrs and people who had been deported simply because they had stolen a chicken or poached one of the lord's rabbits. They laid the foundation of that stern, sturdy, wonderful, independent spirit which I and I believe most other people admire so much in Australia.
The Australians have no side. I do not know how many of your Lordships have seen "Crocodile Dundee" but the film sums up the Australian spirit. He is driving around New York and winds down the window and says, "How do you? I'm Crocodile Dundee from Australia". That is the spirit that I find all over Australia.
The flow from this country has never really stopped. About 2 million Britons have gone to Australia since the end of the last war. They still make up the greater proportion of the inhabitants. Last year about 23,000 Britons went to Australia. There has of course been a higher proportion of emigrants from the Pacific region because that is the area in which Australia is set. Nevertheless, it is still basically a British country in its outlook and in its base. It is a country which still thinks of this place as "the old Dart", as I have heard the Australians affectionately call it. Australians ask, "Do you come from the old Dart?" or they say, "We are going home to the old Dart".
We must remember that we remain an important trading partner of Australia. Exports of Australian goods to the UK increased from about £353 million to £500 million last year and our exports to Australia have increased from £650 million to about £1,000 million. We are still the third biggest investor in Australia.
Britons are not only going to Australia; we have a flow of Australians coming here. Apart from His Excellency the High Commissioner, who is sitting in the guest seats below the Bar, I have some Australian guests here who are part of that constant flow of people. From April onwards my phone never stops ringing with Australians calling to say, "How are you?" and "Are you free for a drink?" I know that the same has happened to the noble Lord, Lord Parry.
Most significant—and to be really serious—is the debt we owe to Australia from the First and Second World Wars for the ANZACS; and not only to the Australians but to the New Zealanders and the Canadians. That country, 12,000 miles away, in 1914 and 1939 did not hesitate, did not even blink an eyelid, but came to our support. What doughty fighters they were. It is an established fact about which nobody can argue that in the greatest battles of the First and Second World Wars the Australians, the Canadians and the New Zealanders were in the heat of battle because they were the best fighters.
They were an undisciplined mob. There is a classic story from the First World War: the Australians found a British soldier tied to the wheel of a gun carriage undergoing a 48-hour field punishment. They just cut him down and said, "Oh, we do not stand for that sort of thing". Nothing that the British command could do could persuade them to tie him back up again and there were too many Australians to discipline. That was their attitude. However, once they were put into battle, they were fantastic.
There are changes taking place. Australia is in the Pacific region. It has been taking in non-European migrants and we for our part have joined the Common Market and our links with the Commonwealth are of necessity growing thinner. It is important that we maintain our links with our ancient friend, this old friend that sprung from our loins. It is important that we keep the mateship and the friendship which have sustained us throughout the years.
In view of our movement towards Europe and Australia's essential movement towards trade in its region, it is more important than ever today that we maintain these links. Tomorrow is Australia Day. I should like to think that from this House we send our love and greetings to our brothers and friends in Australia and thank them for all they have done for this country in the past and all that I know that they will do in the future.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Willis: How appropriate it would be—and I know the Government have no power in this—if we could mark it by naming a street. I have had some facetious suggestions like Hawke Highway and so on, but it should not be beyond the bounds of possibility to persuade Westminster Council to rename, for example, Northumberland Avenue ANZAC or Australia Way. "Northumberland" does not have a particular significance, or at least not the significance of "Australia" or "ANZAC".
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Would it not be more appropriate in view of the young and up and coming continent that Australia is to build a new road instead of revamping an old one?
Lord Willis: My Lords, nothing would please me more and nothing would please the Australians more. The occasion ought to be marked because we owe them so much, as I say, from the First World War; thousands of their dead lie in Flanders. We owe them so much from the Second World War. Therefore it is appropriate to make such a gesture.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I confess that I had not worked out in my mind what the noble Lord had planned until I heard his speech. I am most interested in what he said and thrilled that from Ted Willis we have got an imaginative idea.
I feel compelled to support any step designed to celebrate the bicentenary of our association with

469
Australia. I feel particularly justified for various reasons which are not altogether the same as those of the noble Lord. A great-grandfather of mine was a pioneer and explorer 150 years ago. As a boy of 19 he took his patrimony and saw a vision of the Australia of the future. He went there, stayed there and bred there.
He established the settlement of Port Essington, which has now disappeared. It was cleared out by malaria—we have been talking of hardships—and it is now the Port of Darwin. George Windsor Earl was his name and he was a friend of Darwin. Among other things he took a share in the reduction of the Aborigines' language to writing. Indeed it was his knowledge of Polynesian languages which led him to accompany Darwin on some of his voyages in "The Beagle".
He was also an advocate of a telegraph link between London and Sydney and I have seen his plans in the Mitchell Library. The only part he was not sure of was an area he said would be under water and where the natives would take the copper. As I have said, his plans are to be seen in the Mitchell Library today. He had a voluminous correspondence with Mitchell himself.
George Windsor Earl's daughter (my grandmother) was born in Wooloomooloo, and now one of my daughters has produced a daughter in Melbourne who has been graciously pleased to refer to me as "Grandpa Pom".
I have many pleasant memories of Australia. I shall never forget my first sight of Sydney, which was from the flight deck of an aircraft, with the bridge below me. I have raced in the harbour, but I shall not continue with that because this is not an occasion for personal recollections. I love Australia and I shall never forget that view from the aircraft.
A cousin of mine has settled there with an old friend and they have a large family. A niece of mine is running an air company of her own. How could I resist the urge to support the noble Lord in this debate? I am not sure that his proposals will meet with the desires of Australia. It is for the Australians to say, but that can be left to the future or to the noble Lord.
There is the point of view of London. I am a Scot and although I love London I do not feel competent to make any suggestion. I have turned over names in the watches of the night stretching from "Anzac" to "Southern Cross" to "Wooloomooloo". There are thousands we can choose from. I agree with the noble Lord, and I hope your Lordships will too, that this is an occasion to send out affectionate and friendly greetings to that great country and to the people who live in it. I served in the Army with a number of Australians and one cobber has recently died, ending a friendship of 50 years. I commend this Question to your Lordships and I look forward to the debate which is to take place and to my noble friend's reply from the Front Bench.
6.47 p.m.
Earl Grey: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble, Lord Willis, for raising this matter. After
470
hearing his description of Australia and its people he has given the strongest possible argument for his request to be granted. I obviously support him; it would be a worthy recognition of Australia's celebrations if a part of London could be named in honour of this event. I am a firm believer in the Commonwealth and strongly support its continued existence. To me it is a unique and most valuable club. People from all over the world who choose to live in Australia, on being granted citizenship, swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen which strengthens the bond between our countries.
I believe a word or two should be said regarding the Aborigines, who after all claim quite emphatically that Australia is not 200 years old but has been inhabited by them for 40,000 years. I suggest that if Australia is to be recognised in this manner, respect can be shown to the original inhabitants by naming a street after them. Doing this would go some way to give a satisfaction that is deserved.
If the Government are at a loss in deciding where a street should be named, may I suggest that a part of the new Dockland area would be very suitable? I hope that the Minister is willing to take on board what is being said this evening.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, in a disciplined response to the Motion on the humble Address I took a moment or two of the time of the House to speak of at least one famous London Welshman who had made a major contribution to the history of Australia. I do not propose to repeat tonight the words that I used then, but I believe it would be fairly apt if the somewhat badly named M.4 that leads to Wales were to become New South Wales Way since it would link old South Wales and, through London, New South Wales. I believe that is at least as good a suggestion as one that was made to me that the Inns of Court should be named Kangaroo Court.
The serious point that noble Lords make today in this debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Willis is that we as a House wish to associate ourselves with the joy, happiness and seriousness of tomorrow's Australia Day and the celebrations that Australia is holding.
We have all enjoyed friendships with Australians; we have all respected them for what they have been, as has already been said, in war and in peace. Some of us have had the great privilege of seeing a great deal of Australia and something of the parliamentary systems which are so close, so akin, to our own and which still uphold democracy in that part of the world.
One of the most exciting aspects of the present time—I speak now of the moments immediately before the financial collapse which has caused echoes to run round the financial systems of the world is that Australia is establishing itself in South-East Asia as a confident nation in its own right.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment? The noble Lord, Lord

471
Harmar-Nicholls, appears to be indicating that he wishes to speak for a few moments before I rise. Perhaps I should inform him that another noble Lord has also said that he wishes to speak in the gap.
Lord Parry: My Lords, happily today we are free of some of the restraints and I think there is time to develop a theme. Here is Australia, confidently taking its place as the leader of South-East Asia. In my own particular spheres of interest—the growth and development of international tourism and all that that means—Australia has placed itself firmly in the forefront, and the developments that are taking place there are exciting in the extreme. All down the coasts of Australia there have been developments which will make it the sunshine coast for the world, and we rejoice in that.
I pointed out that the people who originally went out to Australia went not of their own volition. It is inevitable that at this time there should be some reference to the difficult beginnings of that nation. In reading the literature (which is now copious) on the subject of the early development of Australia, one finds evidence of people from all parts of Great Britain—the Scots, the Irish, the Welsh and the English themselves—who, finding themselves in an environment that was strange and difficult. nevertheless thrived.
One of the things which always excites and interests me in the folk literature of Australia is that the women who found themselves with their men in Australia setting up home, giving birth to families in that difficult territory, contributed to the development of the nation in a substantial way and in a similar way kept the apron strings with home strong and tied. There was one case that I read about of a mother who, every Sunday afternoon, used to take the chair from the kitchen to the extreme point of their piece of land, the nearest point to Great Britain, and her children grew up with a feeling of a home beyond the sea. Perhaps in some ways that both helped to develop the growth of the native Australian and at the same time limited that growth in a way which took some years to put right.
It is now a fact that while Australians look to Britain, and those who came from Western Europe to Western Europe, as home, they also know that their true home is in Australia. While they reach hack for the heritage that they share, while they take pride in their origins as a family, now much more than ever the native Australians see themselves as a part of, and contributors to, the development of the whole of South-East Asia.
That is part of the dream that Phillip had. When the first fleet, having, as he said, touched on the African continent and the American continent, eventually arrived off the shores of Australia, Phillip said that they were about to create a society in that part of the world which would take its place among the great nations; and tonight that is true.
Australia is an independent nation within the commonwealth. It has now broken some of the ties which restricted its growth. It is confident. Given the
472
difficulties that we are all facing in the economies of the world at the present time, its economy is optimistic. It is also conscious that some of the wrongs have to be righted. Australians do not need to be told how they should react to the social history of their land, because they react in the same robust way now as they have done to all the difficulties of the ages.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Willis, not simply on the technical issue of whether we name an old street anew, or whether we name—as has been so aptly suggested—a new street in favour of Australia in its third century, but because he has given this House a chance to show that here there are people who realise that Australia and Australians have devoted so much of themselves to the country from which they came that it is a joy for this country to congratulate them now on what they have become.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not putting down my name to speak. I simply subscribe to all the eloquent things that have been said by previous speakers about our association with Australia and our debt to that country. Just as the noble Lord, Lord Parry, has said something about the Welsh contribution to Australia, it occurs to me that the nation which has exported more of its people to the Canadas and Australias of this world than any other country is Scotland, for obvious economic reasons as well as for the great zest for pioneering and adventure of those people.
I take this opportunity of putting on record a few words about one of the early emigrants to Australia. I refer to Thomas Muir of Huntershill. He will not be known in this House but he deserves to be placed with the Tolpuddle Martyrs among the great pioneers of the struggle for democratic liberties who found himself on a boat and shipped to Botany Bay.
Thomas Muir was an Elder of the Church of Scotland, and a distinguised young advocate in Edinburgh. He distributed the works of Thomas Paine among the people of Edinburgh and addressed a meeting at which he expressed the view "that the spirit of freedom should move across this nation of Scotland." For these seditious words, and for spreading of the works of Thomas Paine, he was sentenced to be shipped to Botany Bay.
That is not the end of the story by a long chalk. The young Edinburgh advocate's fame had spread, and the Americans sent a frigate to Australia to rescue him because even there he had become a well known radical. Leaving Australia after three years, he was shipwrecked off Havana which, at that time, was in Spanish hands. The Spanish authorities recognised this great radical clutching his Church of Scotland Bible in his hand. Such a seditious character, they decided, must be shipped back to Spain. He was put in prison and only finally rescued from his Spanish gaol by the French Directorate who declared him an honorary citizen of the new French Republic.
When I think of Australia I like to think of people like Thomas Muir and two or three of his

473
colleagues—farmers from the Borders in Scotland—who made their way out there, or were sent out there, because of their witness for freedom. I like to think that some of the inspiration and spirit of people like Thomas Muir, who were punished for their advocacy of democratic rights in 1794, flourishes in the present Australian democracy.
Thomas Muir of Huntershill had a small suburb of Sydney named after Huntershill where he had established a small community. It might be a good thing if some of the radical convict pioneers of Australia were recognised in any street-naming. I notice that the city of Glasgow has called a square Nelson Mandela Square; it might be appropriate to name some place Huntershill Square in honour of this great man.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the historical references and reminders of the past are fascinating and interesting, but to me Australia is the future. The importance of the inspiration behind the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is the fact that it has such a part to play in the future. There was one part of the noble Lord's speech which alerted me to a point which ought to he on the record. He suggested—and of course he is right—that the Common Market, and our movement there, had to some extent given the appearance of weakening the Commonwealth ties and links. That may have happened. We must see that that does not go on, if indeed it has happened.
It is absolutely vital not only this country but for the whole of Europe to recognise the important part that Australia can play in future development, because of its geography. There is no doubt that the ocean of the future will be the Pacific Ocean. Russia, China and America all have borders there. We see that the interest in the great America is rapidly moving from the east coast to the west. We do not have any direct foothold in the Pacific, except through our partners in Australia and also in New Zealand. It is important to let the whole of Europe know that it is vital to maintain a link which will give us that foothold, so that we in Western Europe can continue to play our part in world development through the ocean of the future, the Pacific.
I was a Member of the European Parliament along with my noble friend who is to reply to the debate. As part of a delegation, and for my own business, until last year I had to go to Australia once a year. I am so sad that I have lost my chairmanship, which means that I cannot continue to do so at their expense. I so looked forward to it.
To begin with, the European delegation—made up of people of all political groups from the other European countries—was a little disdainful that we had decided to go to Australia on an official basis. However, when we returned its mood was very different. It could see the Atlantic as an ocean of the past. The Mediterranean, for all sorts of reasons, is the ocean of the present. But the ocean of the future is the Pacific. If we wish to maintain a foothold, and to play an important part in ensuring that any
474
development will be for the world's good, it has to come through Australia.
It is therefore the future of Australia that interests me. I have intervened to suggest that if we are going to name a street we should name a new one rather than revamp an old one. My noble friend Lord Ferrier, who is always full of bright ideas gave the answer. We have this great development in the Dockland Area. We are very proud of it. It is reviving a part of this country that looked as though it was fading away. If we were to name part of that new developing, important Dockland Area—whose name will spread throughout the world because of its general position as a port—to let the Australians know how deeply we feel about our continued partnership with them, it would not be a bad idea. I hope that when my noble friend is talking about and considering the matter she will keep such an idea in mind.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from these Benches perhaps I may first congratulate my noble friend Lord Willis on seizing this timely opportunity. His good luck has meant that we are able tonight to discuss this Question. The words "joy", "pride", "pleasure" and "satisfaction" have been used in this debate. I feel all those emotions when I think of Australia. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, said that he visited Australia for the first time in 1956. But I had to wait until 1986 before I visited it. I went there for 10 days and came hack as enchanted in 1986 as he was in 1956. I cannot believe that anyone from this or any other country, who may be borne down by worry, despair and a great many of the other feelings that can beset us, can return without having become a friend of Australia for the rest of his or her life.
When I look around the House and listen to those who have spoken, I see many reasons for us to feel satisfaction about the nation of Australia, whose bicentenary celebrations we are discussing. Many people for many good reasons think of Australia with humility and a great deal of emotion. I can certainly recall the Second World War, although not the Great War. Perhaps some can remember that too. But no words can adequately describe the emotion that many of us felt in 1939, 1940, 1945, and throughout the war. We have the medium of film, which is well known to my noble friend Lord Willis. We have documentaries. There is a programme called "Neighbours" which is televised now. I cannot abide it but the rest of my family think it is marvellous! The medium of television portrays Australia as a country and as a nation. Individuals who are known first and foremost as sportsmen or personalities are also Australian personalities, and one warms to them.
We are all taking this opportunity to reminisce. Without one sad note perhaps we can remember some of the beginnings of the nation. My noble friend set the scene very fairly by pointing out the way in which we are tomorrow celebrating the events of 200 years ago and some of the history such as the Tolpuddle Martyrs. That is part of our history.

475
We have also had reference to the sad plight of the aboriginal indigenous population of Australia. I am delighted to note in recent years some of the utterances of the statesmen of Australia. It is quite clear, as my noble friend Lord Parry said, that they may not need any lessons on how to deal with their affairs. However, I am delighted to note a tendency in speeches by their statesmen which leads me to believe that grievances which have been held by the aboriginal nation and others appear to be about to receive some redress.
The House will be aware that the British Parliament has celebrated this great event in two ways. There were the events in this House and in the other House during the last two weeks. Fine words, well said, well meant and true, were uttered in respect of the presentation to Australia of the vice-regal chair. That must bring great joy and satisfaction to those, unlike myself, who have been inside their Parliament. We then had the debate last year on the Australia Bill. Perhaps I may say a word about that.
We are asked in this Question to consider whether it is a good idea to name a street or streets in London in commemoration of the bicentennial celebrations. I for one say hallelujah, if it is possible. I realise that it is not within the gift of the Government to say that these streets shall be so named because it is up to the local authorities, councils and other bodies.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has already indicated, some authorities have decided to name streets after individuals of other nations. There is absolutely nothing wrong in London boroughs such as Westminster, Kensington, Camden or, if it is to be the Dockland area, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich or Newham, taking that initiative. I hope that those who wish to mark this year for Australia, besides considering a range of options such as the naming of trees or other places, can celebrate the bicentenary in that way.
My noble friend Lord Willis referred to Botany Bay and Chislehurst. Coming from Tottenham, from my part of the world, he will know that there is a Botany Bay just outside Enfield. I do not know which comes first.
Lord Willis: My Lords, Chislehurst always comes first!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The last shall be first; and where there is a Willis there is a way!
We come up against a problem with the naming of places. My noble friend suggested that one of the great London streets should be renamed. He asked about Northumberland Avenue. I come from Northumberland. I imagine that many people will have even stronger views than I have about changing a name. If the suggestion were made to change the name of Regent Street or The Strand people would say no. I think the answer lies with new developments, wherever they are, which must be grand and prestigious. They would benefit from having such a name.
476
When looking at the map of Canada or Australia it is a joy to see the names of places in this country. Emigrants have gone out from this country and have wanted to attach some feeling of the places they come from. I come from Newcastle-upon-Tyne and there is a Newcastle in Australia. There is an Enfield, a Southgate and a Peterborough. Every place one can think of is replicated by people who want to remember.
We are celebrating the end of one era and the beginning of a new one. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, epitomised Australia not as a nation of the past but as one with a great future. I remind the House that our relationships cannot he dictatorial or formalised. They are all about trust and confidence. I repeat the words of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn on the Australia Bill:
"However, Clause 7 holds out the hand and the hope of friendship and mutual trust. This is not the 'farewell Australia' Bill, as a few have described it, but a Bill passed in a spirit of co-operation and understanding by two equal and friendly countries which have almost as many things in common as there are miles which separate them".—[Official Report, 16/1/86; col. 1171.]
Those were prophetic words which presaged what we are about tonight. My noble friend Lord Willis has given us a first-class idea. I hope that the Minister is kind in her response but more importantly that those outside the House will take to heart what we have said and give substance to the words of my noble friend.
7.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, perhaps I may also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willis, on his timing and say how grateful we all are to him for introducing this entertaining but short debate. I know that in addition to all those who have taken the opportunity this afternoon to join in wishing the Australian nation well there are many more who would wish to he associated with the remarks that have been made. In particular, I should like to mention the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who has been prevented from attending only for the very good reason that she is even now in her native Australia attending the celebrations there. I can assure your Lordships that she has no inconsiderable influence on the Lord Mayor of Westminster. When she returns I undertake to draw to her attention the many suggestions that have been made in the course of this debate.
Many of us have happy recollections of Australia and of Australian friends, so perhaps I may also be permitted some personal reminiscences. My own first visit to the country of the Southern Cross was in 1984, so I beat the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, by two years. Little did I think then, as I visited Liverpool in Australia and as I viewed the commemorations of the first centenary celebrations in the Botanic Gardens in Sydney and the foundations of the new Parliament House in Canberra, that I would be privileged some three years later to reply to this debate.

477
Despite our common roots and shared ideas, a form of tyranny has dulled our relationship for many years. I speak of the tyranny of distance. Many a family felt that they were to be split forever when a member emigrated to Australia. The great distance meant that our perceptions of developments in Australia were also limited. For the first centenary celebrations I think it took something like six weeks to travel there, and that is nothing in comparison to the rigours of earlier voyages about which we have heard this evening. But thanks to technological advances, all that has changed.
When we can see Australia on our television screens, speak instantly over the telephone—and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Ferrier's ancestors in this respect—and when we can travel there in a day (we are promised that it will soon be possible to travel there in six hours by HOTOL) we now feel that we know Australia and Australians so much better. The broad and rapid exchanges of people, information and images brighten our relationship today. We probably now have a greater appreciation of the changing nature of Australian society and the cosmopolitan mix which makes up that modern country. But we continue to have a special feeling for a country which still has such a large proportion of its people who trace their roots hack to these islands of ours and who take the trouble to come hack and visit those roots with vigour and enthusiasm.
Australia's bicentenary celebrations are therefore of particular significance to Britain and we look forward to our participation in a wide range of events both in this country and in Australia. As has been said, Britain's bicentennial gift to Australia, the sailing training ship "Young Endeavour", has been widely praised as an excellent choice. As the noble Lord, Lord Willis, clearly realised in arranging for this debate today, it was actually handed over to Mr. Hawke a few hours ago by our High Commissioner in Canberra in the presence of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. I am sure that it will serve the young people of Australia well, and I hope that it goes on to win many more tall ships races.
The Lord Privy Seal announced to your Lordships last week the joint gift from both Houses of Parliament of a vice-regal chair to the Australian Parliament. The chair will stand in the Senate Chamber of the new Parliament House in Canberra, which is to be opened in May by Her Majesty the Queen as one of the major national projects commemorating the bicentenary. Perhaps the largest single event of the celebrations will he the world Expo 88, to be staged in Brisbane from April to October. Its theme will be "Leisure in the Age of Technology". Britain, I am happy to say, was the first country to accept the Australian invitation to participate and we have secured an excellent pavilion in a central position. Our display will feature the very best of British design and high technology in the field of leisure. The Government are sponsoring the pavilion, with additional contributions from the private sector.
The Britain-Australia Bicentennial Committee has endorsed about 150 other national and regional
478
bicentennial events to take place both in Australia and in this country. They include, as well as the visit of a group of 60 or so schoolchildren and teachers from Lincolnshire (of which I am aware in the context of the Department of Education and Science), tours by the Royal Shakespeare Company, the Royal Ballet and the exhibition, which I warmly commend to your Lordships, First Impressions—The British Discovery of Australia, currently on display at the Natural History Museum in South Kensington. I cannot contribute to this debate without in this respect paying a warm tribute to Sir Peter Gadsden, chairman of the Britain-Australia Bicentennial Committee, and to the many others involved in Britain's participation in the celebrations.
As we have been reminded, our trade with Australia remains healthy, despite Australia's current economic difficulties. We see Australia as an attractive and valuable market for British exporters. In the course of 1988, the Department of Trade and Industry is sponsoring 21 trade missions to Australia by United Kingdom companies. Furthermore, the Government have been making a particular effort recently to strengthen our political relations with Australia. We are convinced that we can learn a great deal from Australia as we work together on international political problems.
The Government are totally in sympathy with the affection for Australia that prompted the noble Lord, Lord Willis, to ask his Unstarred Question. The natural and spontaneous affection of the people of this country for Australia and Australians has been evidenced in this debate.
The proposal which stimulated our debate, however, is not one which, as we have been reminded, Her Majesty's Government have it in their power to carry out. The power of assigning street names in London is vested in the City of London and the London boroughs. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that, when Parliament has given a discretion to a local authority in a particular matter, it is for that authority to make up its own mind on it. But I feel sure that the many suggestions made by your Lordships will be taken on board by the boroughs; for example, the appropriateness of the new London docklands, as suggested by, I believe, the noble Earl, Lord Grey, for a special association with Australia.
In fact, I have to say that it is not only in this country that people might wonder about changing the name of a major London street. I believe that many Australians would object if, for example, we re-named Piccadilly "Australia Way", and where would they stay if there was no longer an Earl's Court?
However, it may interest your Lordships to know how widely Australian names already feature in the role of London streets. Sydney features no less than 19 times, Melbourne 18 times, Canberra six times and Brisbane five times. Austral, Australia, Hobart and Tasmania, among others are also represented.
These Australian names of our streets are a reminder of the enduring nature of our warm and friendly tics with Australia. Most of them, of course,

479
come from this country. Since the arrival of the first fleet in Botany Bay in 1788, our histories have been, and are still, very closely linked. We have naturally had some differences over the years but these have never been great. How much more often, as we have been reminded, have we stood side by side. On the field of battle we have both paid dearly to defeat together tyranny and totalitarianism.
Australia started her modern history as an outpost of Empire, a branch of Europe in the South Pacific. She reaches her bicententary as a major Pacific state with which the United Kingdom is on the very best of terms. Tomorrow, 26th January, is Australia Day and the 200th birthday itself. Among the many
480
celebratory parties will be one at Australia House here in London, given by the High Commissioner, Doug McClelland. he will be well known to many of your Lordships, who, I am sure, will agree that he and his staff do a tremendous job here for Australia and for relations between Britain and Australia, as indeed does our own High Commission in Canberra. I am sure that all your Lordships will join me in hoping that the Australian people will continue to flourish and prosper. We now look forward to the next hundred years.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past seven o'clock.