Lords Sitting of 22 June 1989

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Prisons: Overcrowding
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What specific measures they are taking to reduce and eliminate overcrowding in the most overcrowded local prisons.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, we are providing 2,000 new prison places at existing establishments during this financial year. We have invited the private sector to produce proposals for the design and construction of three remand centres. We have given approval to proceed with two of those and negotiations are continuing in respect of a third remand centre. Nine of the new prisons which are currently planned or are under construction around the country will be local prisons.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Earl is clearly trying to be helpful and I am grateful for that. Does he agree that the problem of overcrowding is particularly acute in a hot summer and that it is also geographically concentrated? Is it not the case that one-third of the deficit of places—about 5,500—is concentrated in Leeds, Birmingham, Bedford and Manchester? Will he tell us what specific relief can he expected in those places?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that, if there is overcrowding, it is obviously exacerbated in hot weather. But the fact of there being overcrowding is bad in the first place, whatever the weather, and we are taking a great deal of action to prevent it. With regard to the particular places that the noble Lord mentioned, the worst are Leeds, Leicester, Bedford, Birmingham, Manchester and Reading. We are doing a great deal of additional building. By the mid-1990s, 25,000 new prison places will be available. In the last financial year, £911 millon was spent on the prison service and £205 million was spent on prison building. During the forthcoming year, £405 million will be spent on prison building, so a great deal is being done to rectify the problem about which the noble Lord is correctly concerned.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I welcome what the noble Earl has told us about the three new remand centres, but can he give us any information about additional provision for after-care since a reduction in recidivism would obviously go a long way to reducing overcrowding in gaols?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I think that that is a somewhat wider question. What we are concerned with here is how to get over the business of immediate
302
overcrowding, but I shall certainly look into the point that she has raised and write to her.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, perhaps I may thank my noble friend the Minister for the letter that he has written to me today concerning Hull prison, where there is serious overcrowding of young remand prisoners. Perhaps I may also thank him for, and indeed congratulate him on, the action that has been taken there. However, is he able to tell us whether the various recommendations that he has made concerning the buildings could be brought forward? He says that B wing, for instance, will be improved within three years. Would it not be possible to bring that forward?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can only tell my friend that all those matters are being dealt with with the greatest expedition. I shall certainly see whether it is possible to bring that forward, but I would doubt it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it not the case that a large building programme may be of little value unless it is combined with a determined attempt to reduce the number of prison sentences that are being passed? In view of the wide variation between one court and another as to whether, upon conviction, a sentence of imprisonment should be passed, might it not be time to review and tighten up the relevant statutory provisions so as to reduce the unnecessary use of prisons, particularly remand prisons, in our country?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will know full well that sentences are a matter for the courts. It is a matter for the courts whether they decide to place people on remand. We have promoted and encouraged the use of non-custodial alternatives to prison sentences such as probation and community service. We have also done a great deal to encourage the use of bail hostels. About 98 approved probation bail hostels in England and Wales provide about 1,850 places. An additional 500 bail places are to be provided at approved hostels by April 1991, so there is quite a lot being done to meet the point made by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House something about the standard to which the new places are being constructed? For instance, will he undertake to confirm that none of them will make necessary the disgusting habit of slopping out in cells which accentuates any degree of overcrowding that there may be?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, slopping out is a practice which I think is offensive to most people. We are taking every step to remove slopping out from existing prisons and that will be done over the course of the next few years. But there has to be a programme. New prison buildings will not require slopping out.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in view of the very serious situation regarding the rise in the

303
number of suicide attempts among young remand prisoners, can the noble Earl say whether there are any new cases of suicide attempts in the overcrowded local prisons to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, suicide in prison is always a distressing event, and we are taking all possible steps to prevent it. There is careful screening on reception to identify those who may be at risk; and thereafter there is constant vigilance by staff. We are constantly seeking to improve the procedures. Last month new instructions on suicide prevention were issued.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, following the questions put by the noble Baronesses, Lady Faithfull and Lady Ewart-Biggs, is the Minister aware of the disgraceful conditions in which young prisoners aged between 15 and 21 years are held not only in Hull Prison but also in Leeds Prison? Is he further aware that in Hull Prison numerous attempts at suicide have been made and in Leeds Prison no fewer than seven suicides have occurred in the past 18 months? How do the Government reconcile that situation with a constructive and humane penal system?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows very well, this is a matter which concerns us greatly, as it has concerned all governments. One can never prevent suicides. All that one can do is to take as much action as one can to see that the chances of it happening are as small as possible. As I explained to the noble Baroness, we have taken further action just recently. The real trouble is the overcrowding in those remand centres. The only way to get over that problem is to build new ones. We are doing that at a far greater rate than ever before; but it is bound to take a certain amount of time.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister give me a figure of any attempted suicides in the prisons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have no figures for attempted suicides; but I shall see whether figures are available and, if so, let the noble Baroness have them.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the Minister of a debate that took place in this House on some of these topics about seven months ago in which he outlined certain proposals. Can he report any progress on three of them: setting a limit on dates for trials; electronic tagging; and tightening the criteria for the remand of juveniles in custody?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have introduced a pilot scheme to test the viability of electronic tagging on remand prisoners. Of course it will be necessary to see what success that achieves before we can comment upon it. I am afraid that I failed to hear the noble Lord's last question.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I realised that the Minister was interrupted by his friends. One of the other two proposals concerned fixing a time limit for trials, on which some progress had been made. Speaking on 30th November, he held out hopes of more trials. He also said that consideration was being given to tightening up the criteria for the remand of juveniles in custody.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with regard to the fixing of time limits, I shall have to acquaint myself with the exact position. I shall get in contact with the noble Lord.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I should like to put a small practical question to my noble friend regarding the slopping out system that was mentioned. If an aircraft with its limited space and all its problems can overcome the situation as efficiently as it does, why cannot that system be applied in the prisons?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may say so, I thought that that question, coming from my noble friend, was a rather naÎve one. On the whole, an aircraft carries perfectly law-abiding human beings who do not normally do nasty things when they are let out of their seats. That is not always the case with the prison population. Care has to be taken about what happens when they are allowed out of their cells.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the House will agree with the Minister that sentencing is a matter for judges. However, where there is an absolutely scandalous situation as regards overcrowding of prisons, does he not agree that it is the job of Parliament to set out certain principles of policy? Does he not further agree that one of those principles of policy is the reduction of the time within which many remand prisoners stay in prison? Will he confirm that the figure of 80 per cent. of those offenders who are put on community order schemes together with probation order schemes successfully complete those schemes? Is that not an indication that those schemes ought to be expanded and used more often by the courts?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Of course Parliament has to set the parameters (which it does) within which the courts may carry out their sentencing. The difficulty is that when there are many people being sentenced, and crimes are getting worse, there is quite a clamour of opinion for the sentences to be heavier. We have ensured that, so far as possible, those who ought not to be in prison do not go there. The noble Lord may be quite right; I do not have his exact figures but the indication that he gave is quite right. However, that is only to be expected. Those who are given probation orders or community service orders are specifically chosen as being those who are most likely to succeed and not to abscond.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware—
Lord Denham: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? We have spent 12 minutes on the first Question. Through a Procedure Committee Report which has been accepted by the House, it is on record that, if possible, Questions should be limited to 20 minutes for the four of them. Thirteen minutes is rather excessive. Perhaps the House would think it right now to go to the second starred Question.

The Disabled: Discharge from Hospital
3.20 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they plan to implement Section 7 (about discharge from hospital) of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Government cannot at present indicate when they will implement Section 7 as they are still in discussion with the local authority associations about the cost.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am not sure whether or not to thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that on 8th July we shall see the third anniversary of the failure to implement this section? Are the statements in today's newspapers true that the Government are slowing down the discharge of patients into the community from long-stay mental hospitals? Does it mean that the Government have at last realised that their avowed policy of care in the community compared with care in hospitals cannot be carried out without the powers of assessment and notification provided in this section for this precise purpose?
Lord Henley: My Lords, yes, I am aware that 8th July will be the third anniversary of this section being passed. However, the Government made it clear from the outset that implementation of the Act could take place only as the necessary resources were identified and made available. On discharges from hospitals, as I said on another occasion, it is for consultant psychiatrists advised by professional colleagues to decide whether a patient could benefit from a move to more independent living outside hospital or whether he needs continuing in-patient care.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, can the Minister say whether or not the reports in today's newspapers are true?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have not seen those reports. I shall have to let the noble Lord know.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind that the unimplemented sections of the Act—namely, Sections 1, 2, 3, 7 and 11—are fundamental to the provision of community care, is consultation with regard to these sections being undertaken in association with the current Government's review on the Griffiths Report which we are very anxious to see published?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am well aware that the noble Lord would like to see our response to the Griffiths Report. I can only repeat that our response will be coming soon.
On the other sections, as required by Section 11, a report will be laid before the House before the end of this year. We accepted the view of the local authority associations that work on Section 7, which is now in hand, should take priority over detailed work on the remaining sections; that is, Sections 1, 2 and 3.

Channel Tunnel Link: Infrastructure
3.23 p.m.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that the essential infrastructure needed for the United Kingdom to take advantage of the commercial benefits arising from the Channel Tunnel is in place by the time the tunnel opens in 1993.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, plans for the necessary road and rail infrastructure are well advanced. The Government have given approval in principle for expenditure of over £600 million by British Rail. There are a number of major schemes in the road programme to provide good access to the tunnel and Channel ports.
Lord Cornwallis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the concern felt by some British commercial companies that there may be a shortage of suitable industrial and warehousing space near the Channel Tunnel when it opens in 1993? Is he further aware that in consequence some British companies are seeking facilities further afield, in particular in the Pas de Calais region where French and British commercial development is already under way?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on commercial development, the recent report of the Kent impact monitoring study shows encouraging progress, with, for example, schemes to accommodate producer services and high-tech industry, a business park, a distribution centre and hotel developments. The Kent impact monitoring study made a comparison of the competitors of Kent and the Pas de Calais. The conclusion was that for growth activities Kent should be at least as competitive as the Pas de Calais, and perhaps more so.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, how soon after the opening of the tunnel is it expected that direct rail services will be able to reach the North of England? What progress has been made to have on-train Customs and immigration facilities?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, direct rail services to points north of London should start when the tunnel opens. There is sufficient capacity on the existing lines to accommodate them. The noble

307
Lord—I cannot remember at the moment the current name of the Benches from which he speaks—will remember that when this Bill went through your Lordships' House we made provision for on-train Customs services to be provided on trains to the north of London.
With regard to London trains, the Government's present intention is for the Customs control to be at the terminals. Arrangements for immigration controls are under review.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, despite the answer that he has given to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is it not correct that the Bill provides that British Rail must submit its plans for both international passenger and freight transport for the tunnel by the end of this year? Irrespective of the plans of British Rail, will the Government insist on there being an adequate number of properly sited transhipment centres with adequate roads to those centres in order to achieve the maximum benefit from freight traffic?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we shall have to see British Rail's proposals, which under Section 40 of the Act are indeed due by the end of this year. There are already plans for developments in a number of places in the country in advance of those plans.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the Government insist that such facilities are provided? That is the important point.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is up to British Rail and those interested—the local authorities and commercial interests—to come forward with plans. We shall have to see what they propose.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, are the Government satisfied with the steps being taken by British businessmen to take advantage of the Channel Tunnel? What help are the Government giving to them?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there has been a substantial programme of events to highlight the benefits of the Channel Tunnel. Most recently there was such an event in Scotland which was most successful. It may interest my noble friend to know that in Kent, for example, the proportion of firms who expect the tunnel to benefit their trade has increased from 18 per cent. to 59 per cent. as the project has progressed and confidence has grown.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, has the Minister resolved the problems of the people who have the misfortune to live on the route of the Channel Tunnel?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is talking of the new proposed high speed line to the Channel Tunnel, that is a matter which will have to be resolved by Parliament when British Rail comes forward with its Bill.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, is there any proposal to build a trunk road from the neighbourhood of the tunnel in the direction of Portsmouth along the north side of the South Downs?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I refer my noble friend to the most recently published White Paper. It will give details of all the road schemes in the area.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the need for essential infrastructure also applies to the port of Dover? It handles now, and will continue to handle, large volumes of cross-Channel continental traffic. At present the area is somewhat inadequately served, certainly in the last few miles, by single-lane and sometimes dangerous roads.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the M20 will be the main route to the entrance to the tunnel. It will continue as a dual carriageway into Dover, and it is very much hoped that it will be complete by the time the tunnel opens.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the main freight depot for the North-West is to be at Crewe? Can he further confirm that British Rail has so far done nothing to modernise or expand the facilities at Crewe?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot confirm that the depot is to be at Crewe. I suspect that we shall have to wait until British Rail comes forward with its Section 40 plans.

Community Charge: Social Security Budgets
3.32 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they can estimate the cost of the community charge to the social security budgets (a) in Scotland and (b) in England and Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the most recent estimates were that if the community charge had been in operation across Great Britain in the year 1988–89, the cost of the rebate scheme would have been £165 million in Scotland and £1,585 million in England and Wales. However, we expect to revise these estimates shortly. Actual expenditure next year will of course depend on the actual levels at which the charge is set and on the uprating of benefit levels.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he agree that these are considerable items in the social security budget? Can he indicate how much of these sums represent the cost of administration, and therefore whether that is a useful method of robbing Peter to pay Paul?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, they are certainly substantial sums. It may help the noble

309
Earl to know that provision has been made available by the Department of the Environment for the authorities' preparation costs for the community charge as a whole, including benefit. I believe that capital allocations, for computers and accommodation, for example, of £135 million and £25 million have been made available to authorities for 1988–89 and 1989–90 respectively. A further £100 million has been distributed through the rate support grant settlement for administration purposes.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what arrangements are being made for this money from the social security budget to go to the local authorities, which will be looking for the money from the community charge in order to carry out their services?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, rather like housing benefit, the money from the rebated community charge will be in the hands of the local authorities in the same way.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many people would be interested to know exactly how he arrived at his figures? From indications that I have received from Berkshire County Council, which is Tory controlled, my community charge—I am supposed to be one of those who will benefit—for two people will be as much as my rates are at present and for my family of four the sum will double. In those circumstances it seems to me that the Minister's figures may not be as accurate as we should like them to be.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, £246 a year is the most recent illustrative estimate of what the community charge would have been in 1988–89 had it been in operation. That compares with an average rate bill of £480. Two community charges are roughly, as the noble Lord indicated, equivalent to one rate bill. But clearly the objective of the Government's policy is to spread the financing of local government rather more widely across all adults. Therefore another two adults in a house will mean another two adult rates of community charge.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, my Lords, but is the Minister aware that Berkshire County Council has given figures which will show the average charge to be not £265 but £500 a year?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I think that must be per couple. But if the noble Lord would like to send me the evidence he has of these figures, I shall certainly look at it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is it the case that everybody is expected to pay one-fifth as a minimum of the community charge? On the figures that the noble Lord has given, does it mean that the poorest will be bearing a bill of about £400 million?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on the figures I have given, they will be bearing an amount of 94·5p per week. Having said that, I should point out that
310
people have been given more money in income support to help towards the payment of this 20 per cent.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, do the Minister's figures include inner London estimates, because no borough in inner London will be charging less than £500 each for the community poll tax?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my figures are the expected averages across the whole country. We expect all authorities to be submitting estimates of community charge levels for next year, when the community charge will be coming in, and therefore we shall be able to do a more precise calculation of benefit expenditure later this year.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I appreciate the reply that the Minister gave to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that the objective was to spread the financing of local government wider. Does the circular process that he has described contribute anything towards achieving that objective?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if fewer people were to pay the community charge, clearly the community charge bills would be even higher. I think that the answer to the noble Earl's question is yes.

Business
3.35 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Social Security Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the International Parliamentary Organisations (Registration) Bill will be taken.

Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Lyell to advance the Second Reading of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill from Friday the 30th to Wednesday the 28th of June.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hearing Aid Council (Amendment) Bill
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Allen of Abbeydale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Bill
3.38 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Abolition of Treasury supplement to contributions]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 34, (numbered 18), at end insert—
("(2) A review shall take place on or about 31st March 1992; should it then seem necessary to reinstate the supplement in order to maintain or improve benefits, appropriate action shall be taken.".
The noble Baroness said: As the Committee will know, Clause 3 abolishes from April 1989 the existing provisions for a Treasury supplement to be paid to the National Insurance Fund. My amendment is to some extent probing because I want to know what the Government's intentions are about the system of social insurance that we have.
The scheme that we have had since the war, which was based on the Beveridge Report, is essentially tripartite, with contributions from employers, from employees and from the state. The intention was that there would be a basic system of insurance for everyone so that the hazards of working life could be effectively insured against on a social basis. Everyone would pay contributions. When unemployment, illness, death or other disasters occurred benefits would be received as of right because they had been paid for.
This Government have gradually eroded that scheme. The supplement from the Treasury has been reduced to 5 per cent., as it is now, from 18 per cent., which is what it was in 1979. The Bill proposes that it should go altogether. At the same time, benefits have been cut. The first to go was the earnings related unemployment pay. The industrial injuries scheme has been gradually eroded. There have been reductions in the number of people entitled to claim unemployment pay, and further steps in that direction are contemplated in the Bill. We shall no doubt be talking about those later in Committee.
There appear to have been two aims in that progressive disqualification process. First, there has been an attempt to save money; secondly, I am sure that it is intended to drive people into lower paid employment. We shall deal with that matter later when considering other clauses.
Now we have the proposal to do away altogether with the Treasury supplement on the ground that the fund is in surplus. I believe that it is in surplus
312
because there has been a cut-back on benefits. Of course, it would have been possible for the Government to deal with the surplus in another way. They could have reduced the contributions paid by employers and employees, or they could have increased benefits. However, according to the Bill, they have now decided to cut back on the Treasury supplement altogether.
My amendment envisages an opportunity for a review of that situation. In other words, I should like to know whether it is the Government's intention that there will never again be a Treasury supplement to the National Insurance Fund. Do they envisage a situation in which the system of social insurance will be gradually run down? I hope not, because we on these Benches favour a comprehensive system of social insurance. However, if that is the Government's ultimate aim, they should say so. If it is not, there should be support for the amendment because it envisages a review in 1992. Should it then appear necessary to reinstate the supplement in order to maintain or improve benefits, appropriate action will once again be taken to provide for a Treasury supplement. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: The amendment does not place a duty upon anyone to carry out the proposed review. The Treasury supplement which is to be abolished by Clause 3 would not be revived by the amendment because it makes no provision for that. Neither would the review revive the supplement. That would require primary legislation which we have before us. It is just as well that the noble Baroness said that her amendment is probing because I am sure she does not wish the Committee to divide on the issue.
Looking round at the Members of the Committee I appear to be the only one present who was a member of the Standing Committee of another place which considered the National Insurance Act 1946, the foundation of the Bill. It was then agreed by all concerned that in order to make the national insurance scheme effective and worthwhile, and to provide the kind of security that everyone wanted for the country as a whole, taxpayers would have to supplement the insurance contributions. They were made by people in their various capacities—employers, employees, self-employed and so forth—towards the cost of the scheme.
The reason for that Treasury supplement was perfectly clear. It was that after the war the economy was in a low state and people had a low standard of living. Even the best wages were quite modest. People could not afford to contribute enough from their earnings, nor could industry from its gross takings, in order to make the scheme worthwhile. We are glad to find that since then the economy has expanded and the standard of living has greatly improved. Dare I say that it has improved especially during the past 10 years?
Until 1980 the Treasury supplement remained at a constant 18 per cent. of the total amount which had to be found for the scheme. Since then it has been reduced annually and the present supplement is only 5 per cent. of the total. Therefore, the noble Baroness is not asking for a great deal, but we should not look at the matter in that way.

313
The National Insurance Fund is now solvent and the taxpayers have supplemented our general system in various helpful ways. For example, I agree that these matters are outside the scheme, although closely connected with it, and the two impinge upon each other. However, all income-related benefits —such as mobility allowances, attendance allowances and so forth—are now financed by the taxpayer. I do not know the total amount but it is considerable; I believe much more than the 5 per cent. Treasury supplement made on behalf of the taxpayer.
This is a natural part of the evolution of our social security system. The Treasury supplement towards the National Insurance Fund should be abolished, as provided for in the Bill. An attempt to revive it would not be sensible.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before responding to the two points which have been made in relation to the amendment I should like to welcome back to his place the noble Lord, Lord Banks. It would be very strange to talk on this subject without his presence and I am delighted that he is here at least to listen to us after his illness.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Skelmersdale: I was grateful to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, say that this is a probing amendment because I must confess that when I first saw it on the Marshalled List I was rather shocked. The clear intention behind it is that in March 1992 the government of the day should be bound to reconsider the decision embodied in Clause 3 to abolish the Treasury supplement.
I must point out that the proposed amendment is defective. It does not specify who will be responsible for the "review". It does not define what might make it "seem necessary" to reinstate the supplement and, as my noble friend so cogently pointed out, in passing Clause 3 there will be no supplement left to review. However, I understand the spirit in which the amendment is made.
I must confess to some surprise that Members should feel it necessary to insist that we review the state of the National Insurance Fund in, of all periods, 1992. The Government review the levels of national insurance contributions annually in accordance with the requirements of Sections 120 and 121 of the Social Security Act 1975. It does not need the inducement of an amendment to this Bill to lead us to take any action which we decide to be appropriate. Without stressing the point, I hope that the noble Baroness does not have her eyes on the next election.
I reject the suggestion that the Government have been responsible for an erosion of benefits. Social security spending now amounts to a massive £51 billion—10 per cent. of gross domestic product; one-third higher in real terms than the level we inherited ten years ago. The Bill, including our proposals to do away with the pensioners' earnings rule, bears witness to our commitment to make
314
improvements to social security where that is justified.
It might surprise the Committee to learn that at the end of the financial year 1989 the balance in the fund will be £10 billion, equivalent to about 37 per cent. of benefit expenditure. Therefore, even with the enormous expenditure from the National Insurance Fund as a result of passing Clause 1 of the Bill and reducing the income into the fund, as suggested by the noble Baroness, there will still be a sufficient amount in the fund to pay for the benefit expenditure going out of it.
I can also dispel any suggestion—I accept that no suggestion has yet been made, but no doubt it will be made during the course of today—that there are demographic pressures lurking round the corner a few years away waiting to throw the state of the fund into the red. The ratio of working age population to that over pension age is set to remain remarkably steady at around 3·3 or 3·4 workers to pensioners throughout the whole of the next decade. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness sufficient fuel for thought and that she will find that a satisfactory answer to her probing amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I should like to thank the Minister for his reply, and also the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his intervention. Of course, I am aware that the contribution to the fund now only stands at 5 per cent. It was concern lest the cessation of the contribution altogether could involve some designs upon the whole system of social insurance for the future that led me to table the amendment. I shall consider very carefully what the Minister said.
I accept that the wording of the amendment is defective, which is why I said at the beginning that this is a probing amendment—to try to find out what is at the back of the Government's mind in making a proposition in this Bill that the Treasury supplement should finish altogether. There was nothing very special about 1992 except that that is a date in everybody's mind at present. However, as I said earlier, this is a probing amendment and of course I shall withdraw it.
Before I do, perhaps I could add to what the Minister said and to say how pleased we are on these Benches to see the noble Lord, Lord Banks, back in the Chamber. We have always appreciated the great contribution he has made to social security debates in this Chamber and we are glad that he is now able to rejoin us for this debate. Having said that, I shall withdraw this amendment and look carefully at what the Minister said in Hansard to see whether there is any point in bringing something back on Report.
Baroness Phillips: Before my noble friend withdraws her amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether there is any further hope for my Bill on age discrimination. He mentioned the possibility of earning money over the age of 60. Perhaps that means that he is going to encourage people back into the labour market, in which event, therefore, I hope that my Bill will receive his commendation.
Lord Skelmersdale: That was a very clever parliamentary fast ball, one which I hope I can hit back towards the noble Baroness by saying that I made the Government's views on her Bill perfectly plain on Second Reading and at present I have nothing further to add.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Russell: Before I discuss the matter of the clause, I should like to thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for their kind words about the noble Lord, Lord Banks. Of course, we too are quite delighted to see him here today.
On this clause, I concede a number of matters which were said by the Minister and by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I concede that at present the fund is in surplus. What concerns me is that this clause has the effect of slamming doors. I concede that there is a certain superficial tidiness in the argument put before us. In Standing Committee in another place the Minister said:
"There is sense, logic and tidiness in having a system whereby the contributions that are made to the National Insurance Fund pay for the contributory benefits and then the taxpayer pays for the non-contributory and income-related benefits. I cannot say that demographic movements in future years will enable the principle to hold for all time".
The Minister may not be surprised that I intend to begin with the Minister's last sentence. I concede what the Minister said, that a demographic crisis is not just around the corner, but it should be one of the advantages of the constitution of this Chamber that it is capable of thinking a little bit further than the next election.
It seems likely that the age ratio will deteriorate significantly sometime during the first quarter of the next century. When that happens, the possibility exists of a quite significant crisis in the financing of the fund. I am sensitive to that because I happened to be in the United States in 1980–81 when that country experienced a crisis in the financing of a strictly contributory social security scheme. That country would have been very glad indeed to have had this option available to them. I do not see why the Government need to rule that out and force their successors to sit through a hot summer day reversing this piece of legislation.
The Minister may say that in a sense this is a notional question as to who pays. He may say that it is a question of either we pay, or we pay. That is not quite the case. There are some people who contribute to taxation and not to national insurance. I have in mind the wealthy pensioners to whom the Secretary of State very recently drew our attention. Indeed, he was generous enough to say that modern pensioners have a good deal to contribute. There may be a certain scope for argument about whether there are quite as many wealthy pensioners as the Minister suggests, but there are certainly some. I do not see why they should not contribute to the financing of our social security system.
316
There is also a possibility that at some future stage we may be in a position to consider seriously the integration of tax and benefit schemes. That matter has been discussed before. It is the sort of measure which some people feel may be too good to be true but such measures have, in the end, come into being. If that were to happen this clause would be a very substantial obstacle to it and I do not wish to make that road any more difficult than it is already.
Another door that this clause slams is the door towards using the existing surplus for uprating existing benefits. Here, we have something very much equivalent to the overall surplus on the revenue account and to the question of whether we use that for public sector debt repayment or to provide more immediate benefits for those living on social security. Therefore, that is a fourth door which this clause slams.
I know that the Minister knows his Belloc and he will understand what I mean when I say that I am sorry that he should be given to this furious sport.
4 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am not sure that slamming stable doors is a furious sport, but never mind. This clause embodies in legislation the contributory principle that the cost of benefits to which contributions give entitlement should be met from those same contributions.
Surprisingly I do not recall the noble Earl mentioning the scheme envisaged by Beveridge back in 1948. He envisaged taxation contributing about one-third of the income of the National Insurance Fund. But we have not heard about why Beveridge was forced to compromise this pure contributory principle by introducing this Treasury supplement to his scheme in the first place. Other aspects of the national insurance scheme have changed so much over the years that, happily, we need continue that compromise no longer.
Beveridge's scheme was based on a flat rate contribution. Once an employee earned above a minimum level, the level of those earnings made no difference to how much each employee paid. On the contributory side of the fund's income, therefore, better off employees contributed no more to the cost of benefits than those who were less well off. If it had been funded purely through flat-rate contributions the cost of such a contribution would have had to be set too high for many lower paid employees to manage. Given that all but those on the lowest incomes were to benefit from contributory benefits, the contribution to the fund from general taxation was the only solution. It provided an earnings-related element to the fund. Indeed, I am almost picking up what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said a few moments ago. But we now no longer have a flat-rate contribution system, and I pay tribute to the Labour Party for that.
Since 1975 liability for employee's contributions has depended on the level of earnings up to an annual limit. As the level of the fund increased it has become increasingly anomalous to have two earnings-related sources of income. The buoyant yield of contributions has permitted a progressive

317
reduction of the Treasury supplement. Last year it stood at a mere 5 per cent of fund income. It is now no longer required at all.
We are now reforming employees' contributions still further and Clause 1 of this Bill, to which the Committee has just agreed, will mean that the level of contribution for the most lowly paid employee entering the scheme will be a mere 86 pence a week. Above that, lower level contributions are to be levied as a percentage of earnings. They are, in a word, still earnings-related. I might observe at this point that the Opposition's desire to fund some part of the fund from income tax in addition to contributions seems at odds with their proposals for contributions themselves. Their policy review document, I believe misguidedly, proposes that contributions should be structured along the lines of income tax with a contribution-free allowance and no upper earnings limit. In that context their adherence to a Treasury supplement as well seems somewhat strange.
That is not, of course, to say that the taxpayer will no longer meet the cost of benefits. Non-contributory benefits are met entirely from general taxation and will continue to be so. Last year they accounted for a massive £20 billion. That compares handsomely with the £26 billion met from the National Insurance Fund.
It has been argued that the Treasury supplement ought to be retained so that we can build up an even larger balance in the fund to spend on improved benefits. The fact is that our expenditure on benefits is enormous—£51 billion on social security as a whole this year, which is a real terms increase of a third over the decade. The abolition of the pensioners' earnings rule will give further substantial help to pensioners. But the fact is that money from general taxation does not have to go through the National Insurance Fund to improve benefits for pensioners. I can confirm, in answer to an earlier question from the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that we firmly believe in the contributory principle for that set of benefits which really ought to be contributory. Taxpayers will also be making a further very considerable contribution to assist pensioners who are less well off. General taxation will be footing the bill for the additional £200 million to be added to the pensioner premiums in income support from this October.
All pensioners are not liable to pay national insurance contributions. We believe that people of working age should pay their contributions and pay for the cost of benefits. Well-off pensioners pay towards the cost of non-contributory benefits through taxation—this is in answer to the noble Earl—because pensions have, of course, always been taxable in the same way as any other income.
The noble Earl also asked about the abolition of the supplement being a barrier to tax benefit integration. I should not like to speculate on what legislative changes would be necessary to bring about tax benefit integration—an objective with, I believe, as I have said on other occasions, some rather severe drawbacks. The presence or otherwise of a Treasury supplement strikes me as the least barrier to such a change. It would be necessary to re-vamp the entire National Insurance Fund and it would not be this
318
clause we would be debating but a completely new structure of paying for these benefits.
Finally, I see no reason why we should increase benefit expenditure with the sole object of reducing the balance in the fund. I remind the Committee that the previous government left office running a balance in the fund at a comparable level, as a proportion of benefit expenditure, to the present one. Of course we have not, in anticipation of this clause being agreed to, put any extra money from the Treasury into the National Insurance Fund this year. The Treasury supplement is no longer needed in practice and is wrong in principle. As for slamming the stable door, it is not exactly that but more a gentle closing. If one subscribes to the zig-zag theory of politics, as I do, the noble Earl will appreciate that no government can bind their successor. I am sure that neither the noble Earl nor I would want to try.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I should like to add to a point on this clause which has only been touched upon. In debating the amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, gave us a quick description of the origin of the national insurance scheme which is based on the Beveridge Report. My noble friend Lord Renton gave us the benefit of his experience on the Standing Committee in another place in 1946. Both drew attention to the fact that what Lord Beveridge and his colleagues were considering was everything to do with employment. The scheme was based on whether or not a person was in work. Only people who were in work or available for work were contributors. Benefits were mainly for people who lost work or had retired.
About 20 years after my noble friend was on the Standing Committee some of us in another place were going into the fact that there was no provision in the scheme for people who had been born with serious disabilities or who had suffered severe disabilities from early youth. It had not been realised that such people were not in the scheme because they were not available for work and did not have national insurance numbers. They simply did not exist. They were being coped with in the community, often by parents and friends, and that brought in the whole question of new benefits for the severely disabled.
My noble friend touched on attendance allowances and mobility allowances as examples of allowances which came in later and in which I was involved in one way or another for people who were not in the national insurance scheme. Those allowances were paid for by the taxpayer. That is a development of which I believe everyone in public and political life approves, but it has meant that the taxpayer plays a much larger part in those circumstances because the national insurance scheme did not cover them.
Therefore, it seems to me that the way in which the Government are proceeding through this clause is completely consistent with the fact that the taxpayers are covering an area which was not even thought of when the national insurance scheme was initiated.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: I should like to make one small comment on the demographic point made by the noble Earl. I understand—and I think my noble friend will agree—that the Government Actuary's recommended holding of benefit expenditure at about £4·4 billion represents about nine weeks. I assume that an actuary is a man who is accustomed to forecasting what we are to expect in the future. I assume that his view takes into account the demographic curves we expect. As we stand currently I understand that we have 20 weeks of benefit, which compares very readily with the benefit which existed in 1978–79 of about £4·1 billion whereas today's figure is £9–9 billion.
Lord Skelmersdale: My noble friend is right. The £4·4 billion is the Government Actuary's advised figure of nine weeks of benefit of, so to speak, extra insurance. This means that if there is a sudden rise in, for example, unemployment or a sudden rise in pensioners, there is enough money in the fund to pay the expenses which flow therefrom. There is way and above the nine weeks of benefit, as my noble friend points out; there is a surplus of around 20 weeks of benefit and that is another reason why we no longer need the Treasury supplement. However, as I pointed out earlier, we are also reducing the income to the fund by the operation of Clause 1. We are increasing the expenditure, or the expected expenditure, because of the abolition of the pensioner's earnings rule, which was widely welcomed in all parts of the Chamber.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for those very careful replies, to which I have listened with interest. I shall read them with interest. I wish to quickly reassure the Minister on a couple of points. First, I did not suggest that any parliament should bind its successors. I would not have dreamt of any such thing. All I was suggesting was that a parliament might possibly think of saving its successors the task of passing unnecessary legislation. Secondly, I also wish to reassure the Minister that I did not suggest increasing benefits simply in order to reduce the surplus in the fund. I am not that kind of an accountant. It seems that we are constantly being told that we cannot afford to do various good things. I wonder whether this might be an opportunity for saying that just once in a blue moon we can afford to do them. With those two caveats, for the time being I shall not oppose clause stand part of the Bill. I thank the Minister, and I shall read his reply with a great deal of care.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Increase for child benefit.
In section 63(2) of the Social Security Act 1986, after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa) which increases the sum specified by virtue of section 5(1) of the Child Benefit Act 1975 by a percentage not less than the percentage by which the sum prescribed for the purposes of section 21(6)(a) above in respect of a child aged less than 11 years is increased by the up-rating order; and" ").
The noble Baroness said: As the Committee knows, the uprating of child benefit has been frozen for two years. It stands now at £7·25 per child. Many people in this country are concerned that child benefit, if frozen every year, will eventually be eroded. Because of the freeze these past two years many people surmise that eventually child benefit will go. I am sure that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be able to reassure us on this matter.
The purpose of this new clause is to require the Secretary of State to increase child benefit each year from 1990—not this year, but 1990—by at least the same percentage as the under-11 child credit in the family credit scheme. I use the formula of under-11 because in family credit the child credit varies with age. For convenience we have chosen the under-11 rate. This formula would not tie child benefit to the index of prices or earnings but it would ensure that family credit was not allowed gradually to replace child benefit.
With all its virtues, family credit is not an acceptable substitute for child benefit. At present child benefit is of right and 98 per cent. of mothers with children receive it. In contrast, family credit is means-tested, and until very recently it had only a 50 per cent. takeup. The Government have spent £5 million on advertising family credit; this has raised the takeup percentage to possibly 60 per cent. But it has also left many thousands of families bitterly disappointed because, having filled in a very complicated claim form to prove their poverty, their claims have been turned down.
The advantage of child benefit is that it is given to the mother specifically for the children. Men are persuaded to take low-paid jobs supplemented by family credit. That is a good thing. Therefore the man regards the benefit as part of the family budget and not specifically for children. I concede that those in receipt of family credit—namely, those who are working—may not gain from an increase in child benefit because of the convention of the Department of Social Security that any increase in that benefit is knocked off the family credit rates.
I wish to make a plea to the Committee for those families who are just above the family credit level, in work, but managing with very great difficulty, as well as for the 40 per cent. of those entitled to family credit who have not obtained or claimed it. For instance, let us consider the young curate on a low stipend; the young teacher, married, and just out of college, and teaching; the young social worker and the young lecturer. I have visited all these categories of people. They tell me that they would not apply for family credit, even if they were eligible, as many of them are, because they would not want to be means-tested. I have to say that being means-tested is a very unhappy experience.
I know that £5 million has been spent on advertising family credit and that a proportion of those eligible have applied. Many will not apply and that is not hypothetical but factual. Tax allowances are being increased with inflation while child benefit is frozen, so that families without children are benefiting at the expense of families with them. Since 1979 the value of child benefit has fallen by 12 per

321
cent. in real terms. On the other hand, tax allowances have increased by 22 per cent. It may be argued that the rich should not receive child benefit as of right, though nobody argued about the child tax allowances which the child benefit replaced.
How this question may be dealt with I shall leave to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, who, as a banker and financier, can better explain how it can be done. He will also point out the effect of the rising cost of living on families with children, based on the Department of Employment's general index of retail prices.
I have given great thought and study and made practical grass roots inquiries before writing this speech. Since then my noble friend the Leader of the House, Lord Belstead, has seen me. That was after my lunch today but before his, I regret to say. In fairness, I wish to thank him for dealing with this amendment. I believe that underlines its very great importance. He has pointed out three things to me. In fairness and loyalty to the Leader of the House, to my party and also in fairness to the three Members of the Committee who are supporting this amendment, I should make to the Committee the points that he made to me. The first point concerns the unintentional effect of this amendment. He pointed out to me that if child benefit were tied to family credit, then it would be not only very costly, but it might stand against the very poor families because it might not be possible to raise family credit.
The second point concerns one that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, will speak about. It relates to the very wealthy drawing child benefit. That is not covered by this Bill. It is a finance matter and as such can be dealt with only in another place. Nevertheless, it was a point which my noble friend Lord Belstead made to me.
The three points made by my noble friend the Leader of the House concerned the wealthy being paid child benefit, the cost of the payment and the effect of the family credit scheme. It is right that I should put these points to the Committee. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Belstead for also doing so. I think it is right that supporters of the amendment should know of these points. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of the Committee have listed carefully to the noble Baroness and appreciate that she speaks with wisdom, experience, understanding and sincerity. I should like to thank her for passing on a message, if I may put it that way, from the noble Lord who failed to give her lunch.
Baroness Faithfull: He did not fail.
Baroness Jeger: I was rather amused that the noble Lord seemed to think that we were unintentionally going to cost the Treasury a good deal of money. This follows the news that the Treasury supplement to the National Insurance Fund is to be abolished. I found that somewhat inconsistent. I am sure that we shall hear more about that later.
322
I cannot understand why the Government seem to be turning their back on views that have long been held by all parties on the issue of child benefit. I remind the Committee that it was only in 1985 that we had that enormous government social security review. It was supposed to put everything right for ever. In the review it was said:
"It is right that families with children of all income levels should receive some recognition for the additional cost of bringing up children".
That is what child benefit is about. It is a recognition of the additional cost of bringing up children compared with the cost of living for people with no children. Now we have this strange upturn which puzzles many people.
Those involved at the beginning of the child benefit scheme did not look on it as a social security handout. It was part of the Government's overall fiscal policy which recognised that there must be some policy for families with children. Before the 1975 Act there were income tax reliefs for children: £305 for a child over 16 if in education; £275 for a child aged 11 to 16; £240 for a child under the age of 11. I cannot remember a single Conservative spokesman protesting that this tax handout was going to people who did not need it. This should be set side by side with the fact that people below the tax threshold were receiving only five shillings a week for a child. We decided to pull this all together. I do not know why the Government are now taking this carefully thought out scheme to pieces. I cannot see who it will help.
Unlike France and many other of our EC friends we in this country have no coherent government policy for the family. We have heard rumours that the Government think that we ought to do something about the family. I should like to give the Prime Minister, through the noble Lord opposite, my advice. She should start with uprating child benefit. That would do more for the family than more bureaucracy or any speech that she might wish to make. Child benefit is the only recognition in the tax and social security system of the extra cost of bringing up children. We have heard a good deal about targeting—how right it is to take from the rich and give to the poor. But that is not what happens. What is being proposed is that only people with children should help other people with children, and that people with no children should not share in this process.
The Government must accept this and save themselves £7 million—the noble Baroness gave the figure of £5 million—on advertising this targeted group of poor children. The British people do not like being targeted. They do not like their children being targeted. They do not like the setting aside of one group from another in their schools where they are playing, and earlier in their nurseries. Many people are suffering because child benefit has not been uprated in line with inflation. At the same time all this money is being spent on trying to find people who will fill in that enormous form and probably in the end be refused the benefit.
I do not want to sound patronising but a very respectable man came to see me the other night. He said that he could not possibly fill up that form

323
because on the last occasion he went to the social security office he was required to give details to a bit of a girl—I told him that that was very chauvinist of him—of his most private affairs to do with his marriage, his mortgage and so on. He said that with child benefit the old lady got it and she could spend it on the children. This is a severe difficulty for many people who need the help. I hope that the noble Lord can tell us how much money has been saved by not uprating child benefit in line with inflation, and how much of that has already gone to these targeted children.
I can only assume that the Government are bad at finding their targets. Most of us on this side of the Committee do not want them to continue trying. We want to see child benefit uprated, perhaps even above the cost of living. People will then feel that there is genuine public interest in the future of our children and that they will not be denied their share in the standard of living which for many people is rising. Support for the failure to uprate child benefit in line with inflation comes strangely indeed from noble Lords sitting in the Committee who may be receiving index linked pensions, tax concessions on mortgages and increases in personal income tax allowances. Not one voice has been raised to say that such handouts from the taxpayer are not needed. I must ask: is it only children that this Government want to penalise in their fiscal policies?
Those are but a few of the reasons why I support the noble Baroness opposite; I hope that we shall both be supported later this afternoon.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may first express the hope that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has now been able to have some lunch. It is, I think, the basic principle of the social security system that one must eat. It would be a great cause of regret to me if a social security debate deprived a Member of this Chamber of the chance to have his lunch.
I was much impressed by the speech made on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm. I listened to his speech with care and, indeed, I read it with equal care. I must confess that I have been exercised by the Government's argument that some of this money may go to people who do not need it. I have never in my life protested at the rate of tax which I have paid and I do not mean to begin now. However, I think that the principle of graduated taxation—that is, that people on the same incomes pay the same tax—is of considerable importance. But, if we consider incomes per capita, as I think we should, the consequences are interesting.
I understand that the Government have a hostility towards tax allowances on the grounds that they distort the market. But, when we look at the per capita income of a couple with children and a couple without children, on the same salary, we may well ask just who is distorting the market. There is no doubt that a childless couple is much better off than a couple on the same income but with children. That fact is not merely true, but is indeed becoming truer.
324
The pattern of government policy is shifting the costs further towards falling on parents.
I shall give but two examples. One is the matter of income support for teenagers, and the other is that of the parental contribution towards student grants. Therefore, if we are not to have a child benefit regularly up-rated, there would then, I think, be an almost unanswerable case for a child tax allowance. That would be very much worse targeted than child benefit. The objections the Government make about the money going to the wrong place would apply a fortiori. Thus I think that the Government may get away more lightly if they accept our case in this connection.
I can see a certain obvious attraction to the concept of targeting. However, the trouble is that when we talk about the Secretary of State indulging in targeting, we find that he is like the young man of Madrid in the limerick: his aim is very bad. The young man of Madrid was told to practise awhile; but, in this case, the Secretary of State's hands have not improved. If your aim is bad, to hit a target you will need a shotgun and not a rifle. In other words, you need to achieve a very considerable scatter.
As regards the problem of targeting, there is a very real difficulty in communicating with the public. I do not think that we always face up to quite how difficult the problem is. The public now receives a vast flow of information. I am sure that all of us find that there is a point beyond which information comes to us at such a rate that we cannot continue to take it in; we reject it. That seems to be happening with much of the information which the public is receiving as regards means-tested benefits. That is perhaps not quite so surprising when we remember that a considerable proportion of the public believes, for example, that Mr. Nigel Lawson is a trade unionist.
There is a further difficulty. Where we are dealing with means-tested benefits, which are very rightly and necessarily uprated, potential claimants often have information which may be a year out of date or even, in some cases, two or three years out of date. In other words, you may pick up your figure after it ceases to apply. I think that that will always be a difficulty with regard to means-tested benefits.
However, there are further difficulties beyond that one. Reading the London labour market survey, I was quite shocked to notice that unprompted only 5 per cent. of the London unemployed knew that those on low earnings may sometimes be entitled to family credit. I appreciate that the Government have undertaken an advertising campaign to tackle the problem. I am glad that they have done so. However, I shall be even more glad when I see that principle applied to other benefits. But, such a campaign is expensive. Further, it is conveying complicated information, which takes time. We do not all instinctively remember financial limits; but we all know what a child is.
Child benefit is a comprehensible benefit. It meets the test of comprehensibility which the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, enunciated on Second Reading. Moreover, it is paid to the mother, and that does matter. In some situations it may matter

325
considerably; for example, in situations such as a sudden matrimonial break-up or a failure to meet maintenance payments, a situation more common than perhaps we would wish. Further, because it comes immediately it may avoid quite alarming problems.
I recall a case which occurred just recently in a social security office in the borough of Brent, where I live. A woman was applying for what I think must have been income support. She was told that it would take three days to process and post the cheque. She had absolutely nothing left and a young baby with her. Finally she exclaimed, "Well, you feed her then!" She plonked the baby on the counter and walked out of the office. That is the sort of situation from which up-rating child benefit may perhaps serve to relieve us.
I also think that there is a great deal of force in the argument which Lord Beveridge used as regards child benefit and the poverty trap. We want to achieve a situation where families with children have enough to eat and where there is also a substantial gap between the benefit level and wage levels. Lord Beveridge argued that unless there are substantial benefits for children paid both to families in work and those out of work, this objective cannot be achieved.
Finally, there is the argument of trust. I have read the Conservative Party manifesto on this issue many times. I appreciate that what has happened is within the plain and literal words of that document. However, it may possibly be misleading. When such a situation arises, I think that the resulting reactions rub off on all of us as a profession. On Second Reading I noticed that when the Minister spoke about Clause 22 he said that,
"Social Security benefits will continue to be paid as now".—[Official Report, 25/5/89; col. 566.]
For a second I almost jumped out of my skin. However, I realised after a moment's thought that there was no need for any anxiety. But I should not have needed to have that moment of anxiety. I think that we shall all be in a great deal more comfort if we go ahead with this amendment and if the Government, after reflection, accept it.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may put the record straight. On the occasion referred to I said that child benefit will continue to be paid as now; I did not refer to social security benefits.
Earl Russell: I have with me a copy of the Official Report if the Minister wishes to read it.
Lord Skelmersdale: In that case, I must put the record doubly straight. I did not intend to say that; I was talking about child benefit at that moment.
Lord Seebohm: I think that we are all now convinced, after what we have heard, that there is no doubt that families with children are financially considerably worse off than those who have no children. We cannot escape from that fact. However, by removing tax benefits—under the provisions of the 1975 Act—we relied from then on on child
326
benefit in order to give families with children some benefit.
I think that it has been accepted for many generations—if not for centuries—that there is justification in making some wealth redistribution between those who do not have children and those who do. I believe that that is absolutely true and has been accepted by all for a very long time. In the 1975 Bill there was no intention whatever that this should simply be to relieve poverty. It was a form of social justice to ensure that families with children received a little more help and that the children should not suffer.
It is worth recalling that when the Labour Government introduced the Bill in 1975, the Conservative Opposition introduced an amendment to raise child benefit every six months in line with inflation. I believe that the Labour Party turned the amendment down. The right honourable Kenneth Clarke, MP—noble Lords will have heard of him—said on 20th June 1975 (at col. 150 of Hansard) that he could not see how a reputable case could be raised against it. Surely, freezing the amount of child benefit is indefensible while 30 per cent. of children are in families on or below the poverty line.
What made the Conservative Government change their opinions between 1975 and now so completely, not only in what they are doing but in the basic policy and principle of the Child Benefit Act? Clearly in theory targeting help to those most in need makes economic and social sense. But when this help reaches only 50 per cent. of those in need, as we have heard, yet child benefit reaches 98 per cent. of all families with children, let us be practical and keep child benefit as it was always intended to be—un-means tested, untaxed, unfrozen and available to all families with children.
Why is it that 50 per cent., or perhaps as many as 60 per cent. of families receive family credit and yet two families in five are still without it? I know perfectly well why. There are two main reasons. One is simply that they do not understand it, it is a complicated matter. The other is, quite frankly, that many people find it humiliating to go with a begging bowl to talk to a clerk over a counter and stand naked in all their affairs, telling him or her what their earnings are, what is in the building society, if anything, what children there are, and with what special problems, handicaps and so on. A great many people feel intensely humiliated by this; they will not do it. What child benefit does is to give those people some income for the children.
I keep asking myself, "What do the Government have in mind? Why are they taking this line?" I find it very difficult to understand. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, gave three reasons; first, that some people do not need it but they get it. What an awful thought. I have seen the figures given in Hansard in another place in answer to a Written Question. They were in a table showing that those with children who receive benefit but who earn £25,000 or more per year are only 10 per cent. of the whole. I can see the dead hand of the Treasury on this, or the Treasury breathing down the necks of the Government in order to save 10 per cent., just to overturn what I

327
consider to be one of the best policies we have ever had for children and families.
The second reason given is that it would cost a lot more money. In real terms we are not asking for it to cost any more. We are merely asking for it to keep pace with the family credit system. If the country feels generous enough to increase family credits in real terms, it is only fair that child benefit should also be increased on the same sort of basis. So I rule out both those arguments. I cannot remember the third reason. Perhaps the noble Baroness will remind me of it.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The third point was the unavoidable effect. If child benefit is tied to family credits, it is very costly. The Treasury feels that it must keep down family credits in order not to cost the country a great deal of money.
Lord Seebohm: I do not even need to argue about that. I believe that I have made the case, and I do not need to say a great deal more. It is absolutely tragic that one of the best Bills in the past for family life and children in this country will be overturned for reasons which I cannot understand. I hope that everyone will support the amendments.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I wish to speak very briefly since I originally supported the first Bill when it came through Parliament. As the noble Lord said, it was supported by the Conservative Party that there should be this child benefit scheme. I agree with every word which my noble friend Lady Faithfull said on the subject. She knows an enormous amount about it. I spent a great deal of my life as chairman of a children's committee dealing with these matters, and I am certain that this is one of the very best allowances we have ever put into legislation.
There are two reasons for that. One is that it goes to the woman, the mother. She can spend it on the children and she is the person responsible. Other benefits are not so well distributed. Therefore it is vital that it should continue. Secondly, I do not believe that we can say that it should never be increased because we all know that we suffer from inflation. If nothing is done about child benefit, its value will go down. Surely that is not what we want.
My last point is that I have received information and I have no doubt that many people have received the same information from various organisations. The last communication I had was a letter from a child benefit organisation. I believe that there are 80 voluntary organisations of every political and non-political aspect and they all want the child benefit scheme to remain as it is. I cannot believe that the Government wish to harm some 80 voluntary organisations which are all behind this scheme. I hope that they will realise that they are dealing at the moment with something which is vital and which must not be altered in any way to hamper the great benefits given to families.
Baroness Seear: I wish strongly to support the amendment. I should like to spend one moment on the argument which is superficially attractive to a great many people. It is, "We want the money to go to those who need it most". I am often told by people, "Isn't that sensible".
However, we, or rather the Government, are totally inconsistent in the principle of the application of targeting, if principle it is. What could be less targeted than mortgage interest relief, in which a higher percentage goes to the people who have the biggest incomes and the largest mortgages? If we could save something there we should have plenty of money left for updating the child benefit scheme.
Targeting is sometimes right, but I beg the Government not to treat targeting as a dogma. On this occasion I believe that targeting is totally wrong, for the reasons which many other people have given. It is wrong because—and I speak as a single woman—it is obvious to a great many of us and surely to the whole world that people with children have expenses which we single people do not have. We are taxpayers, and I think that if the Government asked most single people, they would wish for a redistribution from the people without children to the people with children.
Further, as regards the poverty trap, the fact that child benefit is not reduced as earnings go up means that it does not affect people's willingness to take employment. Surely that is something which should appeal to the Government.
Finally, one more word about the value of the benefit going to the mother. My noble friend Lord Russell referred to women not being able to get the money, to the cases where maintenance failed and cases of separation. It is not only in those cases that the women cannot get the money. I remember occasions on which men asked that the increases in their pay should not be made public because they did not want their wives to know that their money had gone up. These were seemingly happily married couples. The fact that it is the woman who receives the money and has it to spend on the children is enormously important, not just for deserted wives, important though they may be, but for very ordinary, happy wives whose husbands think they are doing fine by them when that is not the case. For all these reasons I beg the Chamber as other Members of the Committee have, to support this very sensible and very highly respected benefit, and to maintain it along the lines suggested in the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have two questions for my noble friend on the Front Bench. We know all the facts which prove that child benefit is a very attractive way of helping people with children. However, we also know that circumstances have changed enormously since the scheme was initiated. One wonders whether the scheme can continue as it is, and be uprated in the way that is suggested. I should like my noble friend to help me on this matter. First, is it true, as I have read, that nowadays the taxpayer pays £1 billion a year in child benefit to families who are earning over £20,000 a year? That seems an extraordinary figure, but I have read that. Secondly, I hope that my noble friend will tell

329
us the cost of the implications of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Faithfull. She has told us that it would cost a lot of money, but we need to know how much it would cost. I know the amendment is designed to try to meet a very complicated problem, which is that, if benefit is uprated it would give very little help to better-off people in proportion to their income, and yet give no help at all to the poorest people. That is the problem. I know the amendment is designed to try and alleviate that situation, but we need some hard figures if we are to make a judgment on it. I hope that my noble friend can answer my two queries.
The Earl of Onslow: We know the answer to the £1·5 billion that goes to people earning over £20,000 a year because my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale sent all the Tory Back-Benchers a letter explaining that. Therefore, I do not quite understand why my noble friend wants that confirmed. Further, when child benefit was introduced, it replaced an allowance deducted from tax. That, needless to say, did not count as government expenditure; it counted as non-raised revenue. The present benefit counts as government expenditure for slightly odd Treasury reasons. If we think that this Government would not have been proud to have raised child allowance, had we still had it, by more than the rate of inflation, I should be very surprised. This benefit is by far the most efficient social security benefit that we have. I sincerely hope that this amendment is carried for those two very good reasons.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I wish to reiterate strongly one point that has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and, I believe, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and others. It is that child benefit should go to the mother who is the person responsible for the children. Income support in a two-parent family goes to the father. Anything can happen to it. It can be spent at the pub, on the dogs, on the nags or on other women. In addition, a great many men just do not understand how much things like children's clothes and shoes cost. For that reason alone, I think that child benefit should be retained and uprated in line with inflation.
However, there is another point here. Families may get into financial difficulties, perhaps as a result of their income support not arriving. They may have temporary problems through being self-employed and running a business where the customers have not paid, so they are short of cash, or there may be a death in the family or some other problem. In the old days, many long years ago, people shopped for food and household necessities at shops where they were served by shopkeepers and other human beings. Those human beings knew their customers. If a mother was in difficulties, the shopkeepers would often let her have the necessities of life on tick. Nowadays, most of those little shops have gone and have been replaced by big, multiple supermarkets which do not follow such practices. Without money, one cannot obtain anything, short of shoplifting. For that reason, too, I think we should retain child benefit.
330
Finally, the Government were elected by the people of this country, a large number of whom are mothers with children. Mothers want to keep child benefit, and child benefit which is uprated every year in line with inflation. That is what the people want. If they do not get it, they will be very unhappy. I believe that the Government are hell bent on suicide as regards what they are doing with child benefit.
Lord Joseph: I rise to speak against this new clause. I recognise that I seem to be speaking against the tide of opinion as so far expressed. I get the impression that the Committee believes that if this new clause were adopted, the poorest people of whom they have spoken would get child benefit, and that the child benefit would, as child benefit does, get paid into the hands of the mothers. But that is an illusion. We know that any increase in child benefit would be deducted from family credit. I think that that is correct. Therefore, the condition of the people whom the Committee is most eager to help would not be improved one jot by this particular new clause.
I speak as one who is interested for many reasons in this whole subject. I was responsible for introducing family income supplement all those years ago. That was the predecessor of family credit which plays a large part in what we are now discussing. I speak also as one who is not altogether convinced that the system—that is the combination of the tax system, the insurance system and the income-related benefit system, the welfare system—takes enough account of the acknowledged difference between families with dependent children and families without dependent children. I am not convinced that enough distinction is made there. I was a little disturbed by a paragraph which appeared at the very end of the speech of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security at col. 725 of the Official Report of another place. In that speech my right honourable friend measured, admittedly average figures, as indicating a gap of 3 per cent. on average between families with dependent children and families without dependent children.
That, I know, conceals a whole mass of different situations, but it is not convincing to me that 3 per cent. is a sufficient gap. So since I am not convinced on the total success of our systems in distinguishing between families with children and families without children, why do I rise to oppose my benign and noble friend Lady Faithfull? I think she would be at least equal top if there were a poll in your Lordships' House on benignity. Others might equal her, but I cannot imagine that anyone would exceed her. I rise because we have really created such a welfare archipelago.
Both parties when in government have added—I was one who added—to the welfare archipelago with massive good intentions. We all have good intentions. The elements of this welfare archipelago—involving the tax system, the income related benefit system and the insurance system—overlap; they interact, they sometimes leave unintended gaps and they sometimes do not leave

331
intended gaps. They have benign results and I think I can say that they also sometimes have perverse and unintended results. We must be very careful before we, as this new clause proposes, bind the hands of future Ministers. It would take more than a scholar, it would take a whole squadron of scholars, to decide what the result would be if we were to pass this new clause, taking into account the complexity of the well-intentioned archipelago that we have created.
I emphasise to the Committee again that, if we pass this new clause, we do not automatically benefit those whom noble Lords and noble Baronesses intend to benefit; not unless another whole range of changes are made. I emphasise also that Ministers in this House and in another place have surely been put on warning about the concern of noble Lords and of honourable Members in another place about the poorest families with dependent children. The Secretary of State concerned must realise that he has a weakness in his argument, the weakness that I faced when I introduced the family income supplement; that is, that the take-up—I have to hesitate to get the right phrase—of family credit, at least at this stage, means that he is not putting into the hands of all the poorest the benefits that they would get, which would, admittedly, be reduced if this new clause were passed to offset any increase that would come from child benefit.
In these circumstances, having warned the Government by the speeches being made today here and the speeches made in another place, we should really leave discretion in the hands of the Minister. I beg noble Lords and noble Baronesses to recognise the complexity of what we would do if we were to tie the hands of Ministers on one element in this archipelago.
5 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I put one point to him? He said that the new clause would not help child benefit at all, because the total would come down. What he should have said, I suggest, is that the whole package would not alter. Certainly, the child benefit would increase and that goes to the mother. The problem about these families is budgeting and she will get these payments. That is terribly important.
Baroness Strange: May I rise briefly to speak through the archipelago of my noble friend's amendments and try to find some firm and sure rock like child benefit, which seems to me an absolutely firm and sure rock? Therefore I am supporting my noble friend Lady Faithfull. Child benefit would be paid direct to the mother or the person caring for the child, and that therefore means that the money would reach the child.
Of course it is quite clear that with this blanket benefit, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has pointed out, some parents and children will benefit who are quite able to provide for themselves without extra help from the Government. There is nothing in this clause to prevent those who consider themselves sufficiently well-off not claiming benefit.
332
At the moment, 98 per cent. of this benefit is claimed, but for family credit, where parents have to fill in forms with statements of income and so on, only 50 or 60 per cent. of those who should receive benefit take it up. This may be because they find it difficult to fill in forms—and most people do—or because of the very real social stigma attached to having to claim for these benefits.
Nobody likes admitting that they have less money than other people. It happens to us all at some time in our lives and it is very unpleasant. I can only tell your Lordships from personal experience that it was very nice to have child benefit and to be able to buy oranges and extra shoes for the winter. I enjoyed claiming it very much indeed.
What I am saying is that child benefit is received by all, like the rain, raining on the just and the unjust; those who need it and those who do not. We pride ourselves on being a caring society. Let us therefore support my noble friend and vote for continued child benefit, which, like that well-advertised lager, reaches the parts that other benefits cannot reach.
Lord Trafford: I have some amusement in one sense in following the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, who preceded my noble friend, because 18 years ago I think I made his speech in another place and he got up and rejected it. He may not recall the occasion but at that time—and subsequently I have not seen any reason to change my point of view—the failure to tie together the insurance scheme, the taxation system and the benefits system led to these complications where there are so many winners and losers when benefits are changed. He described the welfare archipelago which arises. One gets into a tangle. It may look like a perfectly straightforward system, but when one increases something like child benefit, in the end you have to reduce another benefit under the family credit scheme by the same amount, as the noble Lord pointed out.
During the course of this debate what we have heard are two things. First, there have been a number of self-evident truths, such as that childless couples are better off than couples with children. One could go further and say that single people are better off than married people. So they are on the whole. Those are self-evident truths.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, commented that we have targeted tax relief on mortgages and said how wrong it was. I am not arguing with her that that is not a targeted relief. I accept that. But the fact that, as she sees it, that is one wrong does not prove that another wrong, as she sees it, is right. So it seems, in some ways, an argument mostly about the question of means testing and targeting. It is not an argument, and I have not heard anybody suggest, that support for children or general support for families should be reduced. I have heard many comments that this should be concentrated. I believe that the noble Baroness on the opposite Front Bench made a comment about the necessity for a more comprehensive programme of support for the family, and I do not think anybody would disagree with that.

333
What concerns me greatly is not just the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, but also that there is a feeling that, if one in any sense tries to target or to means test, in some way you are demeaning either the person or the population. We have had examples given by a number of noble Lords about how awful it is to have to state what your mortgage is, what your wife earns and what allowances you have, although in practice many of us spend much of our time filling up incomprehensible income tax forms and so on giving exactly the same sort of information.
We are always giving this sort of information to people from whom we require mortgages or insurance, and we give even more information when we require loans and so on. I agree that many people who might be involved in making claims for family credit are less competent in some respects than those who fill in income tax forms. I accept that.
I also accept that the form on which the claim is made in the family credit system is far too complicated, far too long, far to difficult and takes far too long a time to process. But those are not defects of the scheme; they are defects of the operation of the scheme. In the same way, to propose that one targets with benefits those whom one wishes is not in itself wrong; but a valid argument could be put forward regarding the method by which we try to achieve that and which involves the complicated forms, the delays, the difficulties, and the fact that people have to go to specific places at specific times.
So it is not that we have the targeting wrong; it is that the system by which we try to operate it is ineffective because people do not know about it—that is part of the question of take-up—because it is too complicated and they cannot be bothered; because they find out that, one way or another, they lose nearly as much as they gain; and finally, as I said, because many of the people are not in many respects in a position—as many of us are with regard to other forms—to deal with the matter. That point also needs to be taken into account.
I started by commenting, at the expense of my noble friend Lord Joseph, on the negative income tax sheme. That problem would not arise under such a scheme. Provision would be virtually automatic, but I am assured by the powers that be, not least by my noble friend the Minister, that that is much too expensive, and could not possibly be introduced at the present time. I shall not therefore pursue that point, but I should make the point that it is that type of situation that we should criticise, not the aim to target or to use the family credit system or to give money to those in work as well as those out of work. There are many respects in which the operation of the amendment—I believe that one example has already been demonstrated and I shall not go into it again—could be somewhat defective. I emphasise that the fact that one happens not to agree with the amendment has nothing to do with whether or not one wishes to support the general benefit to the family, the child or the mother. I believe that most of us would concede that it was a useful move to give it to the mother.
334
I believe with some reservations that the amendment might lead us into further trouble. The archipelago to which my noble friend referred would be enhanced and increased. It could therefore be damaging to the very objectives—laudable objectives—that my noble friend Lady Faithfull seeks to promote.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: This amendment gives rise to a fundamental problem which I cannot believe has been considered by those noble Lords who have so far supported it. It is a point that has not yet been mentioned, and it is this; namely, that, if we pass the amendment, we shall create a statutory contradiction or conflict.
Perhaps I may explain. It is a very simple point. Under Section 5 of the Child Benefit Act 1975, the Secretary of State has complete discretion. He has an obligation to consider annually whether there should be an increase and what the increase should be. But, apart from that one obligation, he has free discretion to consider what the rates of child benefit should be in the following 12 months,
"having regard to the economic situation as a whole, the general standard of living and such other matters as he thinks relevant".
The amendment acknowledges that discretion on his part; it even mentions Section 5(1) of the 1975 Act. But the amendment would require him to increase all child benefits annually by a percentage not less than the amount by which provision is made for a child under 11 years old under the family credit scheme.
We therefore have—or would have, if the amendment were passed—a very strange situation if noble Lords were, to put it bluntly, so misguided as to support it. It would mean that a statutory discretion given to the Secretary of Stare and allowed to remain on the statute book would be fettered by a statutory obligation created by the amendment. It is a strange situation.
We must not blow hot and cold or make a legislative contradiction. I hope that, with that fundamental difficulty in mind, those noble Lords who have thought of supporting the amendment, will realise what they are doing.
Lord Coleraine: I have listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Renton has just said; but I propose to support my noble friend's amendment this afternoon as a means of giving the other place another chance to look at the problem which was before them a few months ago. I agree that the amendments are defective, but there will be another chance for them to be put right elsewhere.
I want to touch for a moment and target the "punchy" statistic that has been bandied about in the press and elsewhere that those in receipt of £20,000 a year income receive a billion pounds' worth of child benefit. I am sure that that is correct and I find no embarrassment in it. My noble friend Lord Trafford told us that it was commonplace and self-evident that those with families would have lower net incomes after all their expenses had been taken into account than those without families. However, he did not take that point any further.

335
I go along with what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, says: it has always been recognised that there should be some measure of redistribution at all levels of income between those with families and those without. If I look again at the £20,000 a year family and at my own Benches, I should point out that some of those people earning £20,000 a year will be trying to educate their children at independent schools and will have considerable expenses which I think should be recognised as an example of relative deprivation.
I am not sure that what we are doing is redistributing. When someone earns £20,000 a year, he pays £4,000 a year in income tax. What he gets back from that, as he would have done before under child's tax allowance, is about £375 a year per child. I do not think that anything is being redistributed to him. I think that he is just paying a little bit less tax than he would otherwise pay. I think that that fact makes all the difference.
Another point that we have not yet touched on arises from the fact that, in my opinion, the Government, with the best will in the world, have determined that child benefit is to wither and die on the vine. Reference has been made—I shall listen carefully to what my noble friend says when he comes to wind up—to the statutory up-rating that must be made each year and to the thought that the Secretary of State must put into the matter. We are left with the impression that child benefit might possibly be up-rated this year.
However, I think that one must look again, as did my noble friend Lord Renton, at the words in the statute and at what happened last year. If one compares the failure to up-rate last year with the words in the statute, one sees that the Government have, as it were, devised a Catch 22 situation from which there is no escape for child benefit. The words that I am now looking at in Section 63 of the Social Security Act 1986 oblige the Secretary of State to see whether there has been a rise in the cost of living. Then,
"if he considers it appropriate, having regard to the national economic situation and any other matters which he considers relevant",
he will either up-rate it or not.
I look at the words "national economic situation" and take them as meaning that if the country is in a hard way maybe it is child benefit that will suffer. Then I look back at what happened last year and see that people were told that because of the prosperity of the country and the drop in the standard rate of income tax by 2p in the pound, families were doing very well and the benefit did not need up-rating.
It seems quite clear that whatever happens, win or lose, child benefit will not be up-rated. I hope that the Committee will think about that very carefully and listen closely when my noble friend comes to wind up to what he says about the Government's intentions with regard to up-rating generally.
Lord Belstead: I recognise the commitment to the cause of family life of noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon in this debate. However,
336
I should like to make the point that it is a cause shared on this side of the House equally by the Government. On these Benches we agree absolutely about the importance of improving help available to families. But I have to say that we disagree about the way in which this amendment seeks to achieve it.
Perhaps I may illustrate briefly how I believe the Government have shown their commitment to the family. It is a fact that during the past 10 years there has been a very great improvement in the prosperity of people in work. Quite rightly that has benefited families. The prosperity has been due not only to increases in take-home pay—£20 a week for a man on average earnings last year—but lower tax rates and higher tax thresholds. The reforms in national insurance contributions, which incidentally will benefit around 70 per cent. of families with children from next October, have also played their part.
What I find contradictory is that this amendment would require child benefit to be up-rated across the board, regardless of incomes each year, by at least the same percentage as the increase in the family credit under age 11 rate. The difficulty about that is that, despite what has been said from the Benches opposite, the law—which has been exactly the same under both Labour and Conservative governments since child benefit was introduced in 1977—requires something very different. The law requires that the Secretary of State should review the level of child benefit each year, taking account of all relevant factors.
The reason for that requirement was made crystal clear when the Child Benefit Bill was debated in the House of Commons in 1975. The then Labour Secretary of State said:
"There is a difference between routine National Insurance benefits and this new benefit. Indexation of the child benefit is inappropriate. National Insurance benefits are a major means of support when earning capacity is interrupted, but the child benefit is a tax-free supplement to families whose major source of income is earnings".
On the assumption that what was said on that occasion was correct, perhaps I may point out that this amendment would not enable the Secretary of State to take account of all relevant factors when considering a child benefit increase. Under this amendment the Secretary of State would have to give an automatic increase to child benefit. That would be most unfair in that it would give no help at all to the least well off families—those on income support—because the child benefit increase in effect would be totally taken into account and offset against that benefit. The Secretary of State would indeed have to ignore the fact that, among families who stand to gain from an increase in child benefit, around 70 per cent. have incomes above average earnings. Yes, the question of my noble friend Lady Carnegy was correct: there would have to be an ignoring of the fact that of the £4.5 billion spent on child benefit each year about £1 billion goes to 1.25 million families each earning over £20,000 a year.
As I have already said, this amendment requires that child benefit should be up-rated by at least the same percentage increase in the family credit under age 11 rate, which, it so happens, was increased this year—and I take pride in that—by over 20 per cent.

337
If this amendment had been in force this year, expenditure on child benefit would have had to have been increased by some £675 million, which is well over three times the amount needed had child benefit uprating been linked to the retail price index. I ask the Committee to bear in mind what I am putting to it. A vast sum of money is involved in this amendment which would have gone to families with the highest incomes, middle incomes and slightly lower incomes. But those on the very bottom of the income scale would have been denied that benefit because of it having to be taken into account in setting the level of their income support. I for one cannot see the fairness in that. It is because of the ability given to us by the law, which was enacted by the Benches opposite in 1977, to look at the full picture that this year we were able to give additional resources to the neediest families who would have gained nothing from a blanket increase in child benefit.
So from this April we have spent £200 million more than was spent in the previous year to the very great benefit of some 3 million children in the least well off families; in other words, those on income-related benefits. That is made up of £135 million to maintain the real value of the income-related child allowances and, in addition, £70 million which was put in on top. So almost all families on these income-related benefits are getting the amount needed to maintain the real value of benefits and an extra 50p a week for each child on top of that—an addition that they would not have got from increasing child benefit.
Therefore I say that we are genuinely and, I think, honestly trying to see that help goes to those families who need it most—incidentally, none more so than those who are in receipt these days of family credit, which is the successor to the wonderful brainchild of my noble friend Lord Joseph who introduced the original family income supplement. This family credit benefit provides a great deal of extra help and is available to people surprisingly far up the income scale. For example, a family with two teenage children can obtain family credit these days with gross earnings of up to £10,500 a year.
It is perfectly true that some noble Lords, including some of my noble friends, have expressed concern about the take up of that benefit. I shall give an absolutely straight answer. Family credit take up by expenditure was about 65 per cent. last year but it was only about 50 per cent. of eligible familes who were receiving it. Obviously this indicates that those who need the benefit most are, in considerable part, getting it. But we must try to improve the general take up. That is why recently we have had a major publicity campaign, which I am very glad to say has been very successful, more than doubling the number of claims for family credit received each week.
I begin to draw to a close. Speaking from this side of the Chamber, I believe that we can take pride in the fact that we have been able to hold the real value of child benefit—or its equivalent before the tax allowances went—for families with young children to a level which, if noble Lords opposite will forgive me for saying so, has been better than the levels that
338
they achieved during the time they were in office in the 1970s until just one month before they left office.
That said, I should like to reply to my noble friend Lady Faithful. I want to make it absolutely clear that the decisions made on child benefit in the past two years do not pre-empt the review which the Secretary of State is required statutorily to make later this year as to the level of child benefit from April 1990. The rate of child benefit will be reviewed along with the other social security benefits when the time comes and decisions will be made in the light of circumstances at the time. That is what has been done since child benefit was introduced.
Why am I so against this amendment? It lies in what my noble friend Lord Renton said. He rose at the end of our debate to point out that under this amendment a mandatory increase in child benefit is being made compulsorily attaching it to a discretionary up-rating of family credit. My noble friend wondered where this would lead us. It would lead us into three very serious problems which my noble friend Lady Faithfull most fairly set out to the Committee at the beginning of the debate.
First, the amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from using family credit a s a means of directing extra help to those families who most need it. That is something we did this year. The reason that would happen is because any extra family credit help given to the neediest families in the country under this amendment would have automatically to be matched by a corresponding universal increase in child benefit. Secondly, it would mean huge extra costs. I quoted the sum of £675 million to Members of the Committee earlier on. Before any noble Lords jump down my throat and say that I am being niggardly, the third and most serious reason is that the extra money under this amendment would go in increased child benefit to the wealthy, the not so wealthy, those with middle incomes and to those a little below that, but those who are on income support—the very poorest in the land—would be denied any increase because their increases would be offset against their benefit.
I question the propriety of compulsorily increasing child benefit by tying it to family credit. It would be a disincentive to improving family credit. It would be denied to the very poorest people in the country. Although I much respect the motives that lie behind what has been said this afternoon, honestly, I think that we should not accept this amendment.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: Before my noble friend sits down, I should like to ask this. With regard to the review that will take place at the end of the year, can he give an indication that child benefit will be increased at least in line with inflation? If that were the case, I should have no hesitation in voting for my noble friend. If he cannot say that, I shall have to abstain.
Lord Belstead: If my noble friend will forgive my saying so, for a moment perhaps he ceased to listen with his customary attention. I said earlier that the law is that the Secretary of State must review the

339
level of child benefit each year taking account of all relevant factors.
One of the matters that has been very interesting to me in researching the matter is consideration of the history of help to children and families. During the period from the war to the 1970s we had tax allowances and family allowances. In a period of 25 years, family allowances were up-rated only five times, and child tax allowances only four times. It is not therefore an area where governments of all parties have always every year put up the allowances.
Perhaps I may refer to the beginning of my speech. No less a person than the Labour Secretary of State of the day pointed out that when child benefit was introduced the government of the day needed to look at all the relevant factors. That is what we shall do next October.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Before the noble Lord sits down again, can he comment on the point made by so many of us that child benefit goes to the mother, whereas family credit goes to the father?
Lord Belstead: With great respect to the noble Lady, I thought the same before this debate. However, family credit—unless there are exceptional circumstances—has to go to the mother.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken in this debate. In particular, I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House. Nine Peers have spoken for the amendment. Although my noble friend Lady Carnegy asked two questions, she spoke against the amendment. Therefore five noble Peers have spoken against it.
I support all that was said in favour of the amendment. Therefore I shall not go through the list of people who have spoken for it because clearly I believed what they said. Perhaps I may say something to those who disagree with the amendment.
Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and to my noble friend the Leader of the House. They maintained that the poorest families would be less well off. I find that difficult to understand. I have trundled to supplementary benefit offices with parents. Factually, the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, was right—but only because of the convention of the Department of Health and Social Security—when he said that those families in receipt of family credit would not benefit because their family credit would be adjusted in relation to family credit and family income support. I cannot find such a provision written in the Bill. It is a convention of the department which could, without difficulty, be altered.
I have great sympathy with my noble friend the Leader of the House. Why should the wealthy draw so much family benefit when they least need it? I know some very wealthy men who do not give their wives the amount that they should give them. They certainly do not let them know what they earn. My noble friend Lord Alexander has drawn to my attention that at one time the miners wished to be
340
paid in cash so that their wives did not know what they earned. I am very fond of men, but there are some who do not do the right thing either by their wives or their families.
On the question of the wealthy drawing the benefit, surely it is not beyond the bounds of possibility for the other place to consider this matter. We cannot do so because it is a finance matter. However, if Members of the Committee feel strongly that the wealthy should not draw family benefit, two things can happen. Either the wealthy can voluntarily not draw it, or some arrangements can be made for a cut-off point. I know that my noble friend the Leader of the House considers that a cut-off point presents difficulties, but everything presents some difficulty at some time.
Lord Joseph: My noble friend surely meant child benefit, not family benefit. The better off are not entitled to family benefit. I think that for once my noble friend made a mistake.
Baroness Faithfull: I am not sure that I understand my noble friend Lord Joseph.
Lord Joseph: My noble friend referred to another place, if it so wished, being able to withdraw the power of the more prosperous to draw family benefit. However, the more prosperous are not entitled to family credit. My noble friend was surely referring to child benefit.
Baroness Faithfull: I beg your Lordships' pardon. If I said family benefit, I meant child benefit. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, for putting me right—not for the first time.
My noble friend the Leader of the House stated that child benefit is reviewed every year. It has been frozen for two years, and none of us knows why it was frozen. I have tried to find out the reasons for child benefit being frozen. I have been unable to find any. I find it odd that it was frozen because, in the general index of retail prices produced by the Department of Employment, fuel and light have gone up by 5·7 per cent.; non-seasonal food by 5·8 per cent.; clothing and footwear by 5·4 per cent.—a pair of shoes for a small child costs £20—fares and other travel costs have gone by 7·4 per cent. What has not gone up is the cost of television. I expect that that will go up shortly.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine said that he realised that there might be difficulties in the amendment, and asked why not consider it and let the other place think again. A house divided is a house that falls. I really feel like falling, because on the one hand it is against one's instincts and against one's feelings to be disloyal to the Leader of the House—a Leader whom we much admire—and to our party. I belong to the Conservative Party and support the Prime Minister.
On the other hand, it has been my work throughout life to support and work for the children of this country. Equally, I believe that politically it would be a disaster not to deal with the child benefit along the lines of this amendment. I realise that it needs to be reconsidered in the other place, and also that something must be done for the poor of this country.

341
I know that some people say that damage will be done to the poor, but I know from personal experience that there are many in this country who are doing a wonderful job of work and who would not apply for family credit or family income support. I will not say that they are dependent on child benefit but it makes a world of difference for them. With very great regret I feel that I must ask the opinion of the Committee.
5.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 115; Not-Contents, 94.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Adrian, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Airedale, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Amherst, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Longford, E.

Banks, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blyth, L.

McNair, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bottomley, L.

Meston, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Monson, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Moyne, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Nathan, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Coleraine, L.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Phillips, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.

Faithfull, B. [Teller.]

Rugby, L.

Falkender, B.

Russell, E.

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Fitt, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Seebohm, L. [Teller.]

Gibson, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Glenamara, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shannon, E.

Grey, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Grimond, L.

Simon, V.

Guildford, Bp.

Stedman, B.

Halsbury, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strange, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hooson, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Vernon, L.

Hunt, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hylton, L.

Walston, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

White, B.

Ilchester, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Willis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

John-Mackie, L.

342

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Joseph, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Killearn, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Layton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Luke, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marley, L.

Braye, B.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Milne, L.

Camoys, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Nelson, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Norfolk, D.

Colville of Culross, V.

Norrie, L.

Colwyn, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Orkney, E.

Craigavon, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Penrhyn, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Redesdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Renton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Elles, B.

Saint Albans, D.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Erne, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Selborne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Somers, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Swansea, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Havers, L.

Trafford, L.

Hemphill, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Tryon, L.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Holderness, L.

Windlesham, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Wolfson, L.

Hood, V.

Yarborough, E.

Hooper, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.51 p.m.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Mobility allowance: increase of age limit to 80 years]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 8, line 42, at beginning insert —
("( ) In section 37A of the principal Act (mobility allowance) at the end of subsection (I) insert "or is deaf and blind or is suffering from severe mental handicap such that he is either unable to walk or virtually unable to do so without physical control by another person".
( ) In subsection (2) of that section leave out "physical".").
The noble Lord said: The amendment has support from all parts of the Committee. It is intended to correct an anomaly in the operation of the mobility allowance for which a small number of people with severe mobility problems are unable to claim or are refused payment. Such people are physically able to walk but they cannot make use of that ability because they are deaf/blind or they suffer from a mental handicap and need continuous and physical control

343
by another person. Section 37A of the Social Security Act 1975 provides that mobility difficulties must be as a result of a physical disablement: such that the person is either unable to walk, is virtually unable to walk, or the exertion of walking would endanger their life or lead to a serious deterioration in health.
The term "virtually unable to walk" has caused considerable difficulties in interpretation, especially for mentally handicapped and deaf/blind people. A commissioner's decision taken in 1984 restricted the interpretation of "walking" in relation to the mobility allowance to the physical ability to move the legs and put one foot in front of the other. However, further commissioners' decisions —notably in 1986—interpreted the phrase "virtually unable to walk" as covering problems of balance and behavioural interruptions and the need for physical support or control from another person.
The decisions remain inconsistent and many are later reversed on appeal. The claimants and their carers are confused and adjudicating authorities find it hard to interpret and apply the regulations. There is a general belief that a system which can award a mobility allowance one year and take it away the next, or award it to one person but refuse it to another with identical problems, is unjust and must be changed.
The allowance is intended to help severely disabled people by making a contribution towards the additional cost incurred just to get out and about. I refer to the problems of the deaf/blind. Many such claimants have difficulty in qualifying for the allowance even though they are incapable of independent mobility. They may require a skilled guide at all times when walking out of doors, or they may have severe problems of orientation which are aggravated by difficulties in communicating other than by using the deaf/blind and manual alphabet. That means that they must take taxis for all but the simplest of journeys, and because they can physically put one foot in front of the other they receive no assistance towards the extra costs.
A number of mentally handicapped children face similar difficulties. They may be able to make the physical movement of walking hut, because of the behavioural problems associated with their condition their mobility is severely restricted. They can run away, have tantrums and refuse to walk. It is found that public transport is impossible, and for the parents a car is essential. The same problems also affect a number of mentally handicapped adults.
The disability organisations and the All-Party Disablement Group have been discussing the problem with the Government for a considerable time. In 1987 the All-Party Disablement Group met the then Minister, Mr. John Major. He was sympathetic and appeared to imply that the problem was largely one of definition. He agreed to conduct a survey into the number of people involved.
A few weeks ago the group met the present Minister, Mr. Nicholas Scott. I was a member of the delegation. To our dismay we found that the survey which had been promised by the previous Minister, although completed, had not been written up. The
344
present stance seems to be one of sympathetic inertia and a decision to wait for the OPCS surveys to be completed and published by the end of July.
I expect that in reply the Minister will produce the argument of having to wait for the OPCS, but that will not stand up. If the surveys are produced by the end of July there must then be consultations with all the interested organisations followed by legislation. All that could take years. We can only compare the time that it has taken to implement the Disabled Persons Act 1986 in full, referred to in Question Time today, and the Government's response or lack of it to the Griffiths Report.
Further, the OPCS surveys are not relevant because the numbers and the cost are known. The latest report of MENCAP reveals that the number of people involved would be less than 8,000, at a cost of about £8 million. That would be less than 2 per cent. of the half-million people now receiving the mobility allowance. The cost of £8 million is about 1.5 per cent. of the total cost of the allowance of £650 million.
We do not propose a new allowance or a new category of disabled people. We describe the people who should receive the allowance and who the Government agree should receive it through the regulations. The Bill gives us the chance to put the matter right.
All Members know of harrowing examples of the effect of the problem I have described. I propose to quote only three. The first is of a child with Down's Syndrome. His walking is totally unpredictable and he is a danger to himself. His parents applied for the mobility allowance and were turned down by the DSS doctor. On appeal the application was accepted by a DSS medical board.The DSS then appealed to the Medical Appeal Tribunal, which granted it and refused the mobility allowance. The parents are now appealing to the Social Security Commissioners. I believe that the parents of a child with such problems should not be put through that agony.
The second example is of a woman aged 23 diagnosed as having a mental handicap, probably due to brain damage at birth. She has a mental age of between five and six years, poor balance and little speech. Her mobility problems require continual physical assistance while walking, with the support of pulling or pushing. She trips and stumbles as a result of poor balance and because she does not lift her feet high enough she is unable to co-ordinate her mental processes with her foot movements. I could go on to describe her condition in even more detail. If there is an attempt to force her to move she struggles, kicks and bursts into tears. Yet, her mobility allowance claim was disallowed by the tribunal. It agreed that she had a physical disability but that she should make conscious decisions to stop that behaviour. However, there is no evidence that she is capable of making a conscious decision about anything.
The other case is of a man aged 28 who has a profound mental handicap, no speech, abnormal and unco-ordinated vision and suffers from epilepsy. He has mobility problems and needs constant physical asistance while walking due to his lack of

345
co-ordination, poor balance and so on. Even with continual physical assistance he throws frequent tantrums when he screams stamps and lashes out. He applied for a mobility allowance but was turned clown on appeal to the tribunal.
There are mutiple examples and it is clear from them that the mobility allowance is not operating as it should. This amendment seeks to ensure that the people who should receive the mobility allowance under existing regulations actually receive it. It was revealed in Committee in another place by the Minister that three out of four claimants qualify on appeal to the medical tribunal. If that is the case, the legislation should be amended to reflect that and to save the parents and carers of severely disabled people the harrowing and lengthy task of going through the appeal procedure. This amendment has all-party support in this Chamber; there were over 100 signatures from all parties on an Early Day Motion in another place; and all the disability organisations involved in this matter support the amendment. I repeat that we are only referring to a very small number of people, under 8,000, at a minuscule cost in terms of the cost of the mobility allowance. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I was very glad to add my name to this amendment and I should like to say a few words in support of the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
I was one of those who went on this rather disappointing deputation to the Minister of State for Social Security and the Disabled, which I believe is his proper title. The Minister claimed that over the years case law had met many of the difficulties surrounding this allowance in this particular area. However, I fear that significant gaps remain and such improvements as have been achieved have been at the cost of a large number of appeals, with all the expense, delays and frustrations involved. I believe that of the 2,000 deaf and blind people who already receive this allowance for one reason or another, the majority had to make at least two appeals.
The Minister argued that if the rules were changed, there would still be difficult cases open to argument. However, no one expects to attain perfection and there is no doubt that the position would be greatly improved if this amendment were accepted.
In particular, the Minister raised questions about the numbers who might be involved, especially the mentally handicapped and, therefore, the expense which might be incurred. Earlier estimates put to the department suggested that a total of some 10,000 to 12,000 might be included in the two groups covered by the amendment. We thought, in our innocence, that that figure had been accepted by the department but, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, explained, the main argument was about wording. When we arrived, we found the Minister talking about mentally handicapped people perhaps running into figures of over 100,000 people.
346
Therefore, we thought that we should have another go at making a calculation ourselves. We calculate that those who are both deaf and blind and do not already receive the allowance cannot exceed more than 3,200. The numbers of those with in the relevant age groups are known with considerable accuracy. We also calculate that the numbers of mentally handicapped covered by the restrictive terms of the amendment would not greatly exceed the same figure.
Originally, some calculations were based on the MENCAP project for the profoundly retarded and multiply handicapped, but on looking at the matter again we thought it better to take some official figures as our working hypothesis. In 1971 a White Paper entitled Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped, Cmnd. No. 4683, gave the results of surveys carried out in three areas and divided the numbers up among different degrees of incapacity. If one extrapolates the figures for the severely mentally handicapped with behaviour difficulties requiring constant supervision, there is a total of about 4,400 for the country. Some of those could be ruled out on grounds of age and some will already be receiving the allowance for other reasons. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the two groups together, that is the two groups covered by the amendment, would not be likely in sum to exceed 7,600 and could be less.
I appreciate that I am taking figures relating to 1971 but the position cannot have altered very much since then. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, explained, the cost of all this would come out at less than £10 million compared to the total cost of this allowance of some £550 million.
In the past Ministers have expressed sympathy for these two particular groups but they have suggested that it would be wrong to tinker with the allowance pending a full review in the light of the forthcoming report of the OPCS survey, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred. However, Clause 8 already tinkers with the scheme and if that particular piece of tinkering is justified as an interim measure, I for one should be quite content that those covered by the amendment should be dealt with as an interim measure for, as has been pointed out, they do not involve any startling departure from the types of case already covered.
If that is not done now and we have to wait for the OPCS survey, for the report to be digested, for the consultations to take place and then for the results to be translated into statutory form, it would mean that those unfortunate people will have to go on waiting for yet more years. They have waited long enough.
The changes proposed would do much to ease despair and frustration. They would save many appeals and much expense, and the cost of the appeals must run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. They would simplify the task of the adjudicators and would show that Parliament cares. If the words which we have selected in the amendment will not do, let the Government produce their own but let us somehow do justice to these poor people.
Earl Russell: As Mary Holland of MENCAP said:
"At present the law is discriminating between groups with equal disabilities, which is quite wrong".
That puts the case for this amendment in a nutshell. The tendency—and I shall put it no higher than that—has been to restrict mobility allowance to those whose inability to move is purely physical, and not merely physical but confined to the legs.
There are many parts of our anatomy, other than our legs, in which we may suffer a disability which restrains us from moving around. To start with, I mention balance. There is also the possibility of mental disorders causing severe difficulties; indeed, making it unsafe to move about. I add only one more to the cases mentioned. A case was reported last week in my local paper, the Kilburn and Willesden Recorder. This concerns a boy who suffers so badly from autism that he is unable to understand a word that is said. He has extreme hyperactive fits which make it quite unsafe to take him anywhere near traffic because he runs out into the middle of it. He was found to be "too naughty" to receive mobility allowance. That is a concept of original sin which I think right reverend Prelates might tell us would have been regarded as extreme even by John Calvin in his prime. In fact, there is a theological concept which is rather more appropriate to the case—that of invincible ignorance. Such cases have as much claim to mobility allowance as those who suffer disability in their legs.
I am concerned also about the Scrooge-like spirit in which appeals are conducted in this area and which were described in a moving article by Michael Daly in the Independent on 13th June. I give only one fact from that article. In the quarter ending September 1988, out of 359 appeals only seven were successful. I wonder whether the very small saving achieved from this great exercise is really worth it. In pure Benthamite terms, can one really claim that balancing the pleasure against the pain is worth this very small saving? I very much doubt whether we can. I know that the Minister will say that we must wait for the OPCS survey, but do we really need the OPCS to tell us that we should treat like equally with like?
Lord Renton: I must declare an interest. I am happy to say that I am a past president of MENCAP. Also, I have a daughter, and in the words of the amendment I have to describe her as suffering from,
"severe mental handicap such that [she] is … unable to walk…without physical control by another person".
I hope that my recollection is right when I say that she receives constant attendance allowance all the time that she is at the home where she is cared for, at the Ravenswood Foundation; but when she comes home and stays with me the constant attendance allowance is dropped, and she then receives a mobility allowance. I think that is the position.
The case for this amendment, or something to the same effect, has been strongly made out. It surprised me to find that the person who is both deaf and blind is not able to obtain mobility allowance because such people are in a helpless state. I hope that the Government will not wait for perhaps many months or a year before there is a review based on some
348
statistical abstract, before at any rate those people who are deaf and blind can receive what obviously they need.
I must endorse what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, about the mentally handicapped. Therefore, I hope that the Government will be very sympathetic to this amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: No one in this Committee who has experience of people who are both blind and deaf or suffering from mental handicap can fail to be moved by the eloquent way in which noble Lords have spoken. I do not have any such experience but I can certainly say that I have been very clearly moved by what has been said, as many Members of the Committee will have been. I am also very much aware of the fact that there is considerable support on an all-party basis for the groups which the amendment is intended to assist.
In listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I am surprised that there is no amendment on the Marshalled List about the rights and wrongs of the mobility allowance. That allowance has been of great and growing concern for several years. Indeed, to do the noble Lord credit, he made a big point of that in his speech on this amendment.
At this point I think I should say that the difference between Clause 8 and this amendment is that Clause 8 is to prevent existing recipients from losing their allowance. The amendment, as the noble Lord and others have said, changes the eligibility criteria to help more people to claim.There is nothing wrong in that, but it is a fact. Therefore, let us look at this amendment. The fact is that when the mobility allowance scheme was introduced in 1976, the eligibility criteria built on those which were already in existence for the invalid vehicle scheme. Although help became available to people who were unable to drive, the criteria were still very much linked to the physical ability to walk.
Over the years, since the allowance was introduced, the criteria have remained essentially the same but the case law—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen—has been widened considerably. Although the legislation refers to physical disablement, it has been held that a person who has a mental handicap—stemming, for example, from a physical cause such as brain damage—can qualify for the allowance if unable or virtually unable to walk. Furthermore, there is guidance available for the independent adjudicating authorities, based on judicial and commissioner decisions, on how to assess walking ability where it is interrupted by behavioural problems associated with mental handicap. It is also now clear that people who need physical support to walk because of balance problems, which are often associated with deafness and blindness, can qualify for the allowance. In other words, it is possible for many people who either have a mental handicap, or who are deaf and blind, to qualify for the allowance under the current rules; but not all of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will recognise.

349
I put it to the Committee that there is another important benefit which is available, on occasions, to those people. To assist Members of the Committee who are not fully familiar with the complexities of the current system I should add that many of the people the amendment is intended to help may qualify for attendance allowance. However, I emphasise that there is nothing to prevent the two benefits from being paid at the same time; and I thank my noble friend Lord Renton for his reference to that.
I sometimes have the impression that this is considered a mean and uncaring government, particularly in regard to social security allowances. Perhaps I should therefore, at this point, give an indication of how mobility allowance has grown over the years. Over the past 10 years, the number of recipients of the allowance has risen from 95,000 to a current figure of 575,000. Expenditure on the allowance is now running at about £¾ billion a year, which is an increase of over 5½ times in real terms over the same period.
What we therefore have to decide, when we look at all the OPCS findings—which will not be available until towards the end of July—is whether this substantial allocation of resources is responding to needs of people with mobility problems, and whether there are better ways of providing help within the disability benefit provision to those who need it most. As mobility allowance has always been aimed at an effect of disability—namely, difficulty in getting out and about—I really do not think that this is the right time for making provision for particular diagnostic groups. If we decide to change this criterion, then it will be perfectly right. But we have to consider other factors; namely, the whole range of social security benefits on which we spend in the order of £48.5 billion per year. That is £24 billion for the National Insurance Fund that we discussed earlier, and £24 billion for all the non-contributory benefits, of which the mobility allowance is but one. We should consider all those issues on their merits.
I am aware of the representations made on behalf of people with disabilities who fail to qualify for the allowance. But whether a person does or does not qualify, whatever the criteria, it is ultimately a matter of medical opinion. The amendment will not provide the consistency that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said he was seeking. We shall never be able to eliminate altogether the sense of disappointment which is felt by people who fall on the wrong side of the threshold to qualify for the allowance wherever that threshold is drawn. We are certainly well aware of the sense of disappointment that people feel under the current system.
I doubt whether this will be the only occasion on which I shall stress the importance of the biggest survey ever undertaken by the Government of the social and economic consequences of disability, handicap and impairment. This is leading, as I have indicated earlier, to an examination of all the social security benefits for such people. But this cannot be completed until we have studied and learnt the relevant lessons from the reports already published, and from the two which have not yet been published.
350
As I said just now, we shall be getting these reports by the end of July.
The needs of disabled people are serious and complex matters; I am sure that all Members of the Committee will accept that. The opportunity will shortly present itself to consider them all, to identify the most effective ways of meeting them and to ensure that help goes to those who need it most. With this in mind I believe it is premature to seek a solution to the difficulties arising with the mobility allowance. I know, because it has been made very clear in the debate that has taken place, that noble Lords who have supported this amendment will feel a sense of disappointment at what I have said. But I must emphasise, as I have made clear on previous occasions, that we are totally committed to using this unprecedented volume of information to help judge how the current system responds to the needs of people with disabilities. In doing so, we shall have very much in mind the representations that have been made to us on behalf of people who are deaf, blind or mentally handicapped.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, said—and this I recognise—that Members of the Committee are pressing for action today rather than after the publication of the OPCS findings. I can assure them that we are anxious to consider the findings and to reach conclusions as quickly as possible, allowing time of course for public discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, was not very kind about that because he tried to compare the speed of the track of the Disabled Persons Act—was it not the noble Lord? I apologise, It was a noble Lord.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I would willingly have done so, but the point had already been made.
Lord Skelmersdale: I apologise. It was not the noble Lord, Lord Allen. I know that he is such an enthusiast for the Disabled Persons Act and I was surprised. I understand it was the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who made that point. I am glad I have now got that right.
The question was about the cost of implementation. The Government have learnt a great many lessons from that experience and Members of the Committee would have expected us to do so. When the reports are out and we have considered them, we expect to have to make needs at that point for the monetary provision to implement what the Government want to do. So the situation is quite different, as opposed to the Disabled Persons Act, where there has to be a colloquy that goes on and on between the local authorities and central government.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: The Minister is surely using an argument which tells against himself. We discussed Section 7 of the Act that was passed three years ago. That went into new territory. What we are talking about now is not some new innovation but simply an extension of the existing categories. We ask, why should they have to wait until there has been the survey, it has been considered and there has been legislation? We are talking in terms of two or three years' hence, even if it is implemented immediately.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, I do not believe I was arguing against myself. I was trying to make the point that we shall be getting on because the giving of the money is totally in our own hands. We shall be getting on with, first, the review, and then, secondly, our implementation of it as quickly as we conceivably can. That is very different from the situation as regards the disabled persons Act, where we made it very clear at the very beginning—even at Second Reading in your Lordships' House, if my memory serves me right—that we could not implement it until we had agreed the resources between central government and local authorities. There is a very distinct difference. With respect, I do not believe I am arguing against myself.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: Perhaps I may interrupt the Minister once again. Immediate action will be taken but you still need statutory powers. That is years ahead unless the present opportunity is taken. That is the point of the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: If Members of the Committee would like to cast their minds back over the past 10 years, I shall be very surprised if they can remember a parliamentary year when there was not a social security Bill. I cannot of course pre-empt the Queen's Speech. I believe that noble Lords will be perfectly reasonable in drawing the same lesson from the past as I have and applying it to the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, again argued that the reports are not relevant. I believe that he overstates the point. They are relevant because they provide evidence of the actual extra cost incurred by different disabled people, though I accept that the rarity of deaf-blindness means that there are very few in the survey sample. The reports will also lead to conclusions about the overall structure of disability benefits of which this is a specialised aspect.
It is surely better at this stage to consider the overall benefit provision for people who are disabled in a comprehensive way rather than to try to plug gaps in a way which could only add complexities when we bring forward our long-term proposals. I therefore commend to the Committee that we await the full findings of the OPCS survey, which are now imminent, and our overall proposals based on them before we amend the mobility allowance criteria. I can again assure the Committee that we are well aware of the representations which are made on behalf of the groups covered by the amendment.
Lord Renton: Before Members of the Committee opposite intervene, let me ask my noble friend to clarify one or two points that were not quite clear to me though they may have been clear to some others. In the early part of his speech he seemed to be suggesting that even under the present law the mobility allowance, as a matter of discretion and circumstances, can be granted to people who are deaf-blind. As I mentioned in the case of my own family, it can be granted to those suffering from severe mental handicap if they cannot walk or if they have to be held up too long. That is already the case under the present law.
352
If this amendment were accepted would there be any extra cost to public funds bearing in mind that the mobility allowance can be awarded already to the people covered by the amendment? I shall be grateful if the Minister can clarify those points. The next point is this, and I refer to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. Can the Minister confirm that if nothing needs to be done as regards this amendment, we shall have to wait until this time next year when the OPCS statistics have been considered, public opinion has been sounded, decisions have been made on it, and another social security Bill has been drafted and enacted by both Houses of Parliament? That would mean waiting a year, would it not?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: The answer to my noble friend's last question is yes. That is what it would mean. My second point is that the amendment, as I read it—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will confirm this—is intended to help people who do not qualify now. Some people do qualify, so clearly there would not be double provision for those if we passed the amendment. Nonetheless, there will be a cost but it is an unspecified cost. I have not been able to ascertain from my advisers what the cost will be. I do not know whether the noble Lord has been able to make an estimate of it.
Lord Ennals: My intervention will be brief because my noble friend Lord Carter and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, stated the case. I intervene because it was my responsibility as Secretary of State to introduce the benefit. I give absolute credit to all those who since that time have ensured that the number of people receiving mobility allowance, which when we introduced it was a pioneering new benefit—many people knew that it ought to be provided but it had not been provided—has expanded. That has happened during the past 10 years, and credit should go to the Government for that.
It has been said that case law would enable some of those in these two groups to receive a benefit. That is true. The fact that case law has said so is an argument for putting it into legislation. All too often a different decision is taken by different tribunals. There is no certainty. When the original application is made the applicant is not certain what the terms are. It is important that the law should be clear. I was glad that in the Minister's speech the question of cost was not a central issue. My noble friend Lord Carter said that we are talking about a relatively small sum. He gave a figure of £.10 million at the most. This change would involve a small proportion of the people concerned and of the money concerned.
We are not talking about a cost factor. We are talking about two groups of people whose needs are fundamentally very great indeed. This is recognised by those who have worked with the mentally handicapped and with the deaf and blind. I have done so through my son Paul Ennals who works for SENSE. This organisation has been deeply involved in the campaign. An enormous amount of work has been done over the years. The case has been made

353
and in some courts has been accepted. The argument the Minister makes for a further delay is one which, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, is not justified. It would not be just one year; it would be two or three years. Next year we would be told again that the survey had just been carried out and that it was too early to make the change.
For this sum, and for people whose needs are so great, it is right that noble Lords should act now. A great deal of work and knowledge has gone into this and a good deal of preparation has been made by those whose daily work involves working with people covered by the amendment. I hope that the Committee will decide to act tonight.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I understand that the Minister is personally sympathetic to the problems that we have described. However, I find the Government's attitude extremely hard to understand. The cost would be virtually nothing in terms of the total cost of mobility allowance. It would be of the order of £8 million to £9 million. It would help 7,600 severely disabled people. We know the numbers. We do not need the OPCS to tell us. The Government are not able to answer the argument and have to hide behind the survey, which has no relevance. We know the numbers. We are not proposing a new allowance or a new category of people.
If the amendment were accepted it would not in any way upset the thrust of whatever the Government decide to do as a result of the survey and the proposed review of benefits, which, I was a little alarmed to learn the other day, is not to be independent but is to be conducted within the department as an internal review. The Minister referred to the fact that we did not attempt to deal with the rights and wrongs of the legislation as it is currently drafted. In fact we drafted an amendment on those lines. I know that if I had brought it forward the noble Lord would have said that we were trying to write regulations into the Bill and he would have rejected it. We have tried to draft the amendment extremely tightly to enable a group of people, whom we feel the Government want to receive the mobility allowance, to receive it.
The guidance is just not working. The people who should qualify are not doing so. That is why we have tried to be specific. The noble Lord referred to the problem of balance, of which account is now taken in guidance. There are problems with autistic children. For no reason at all they will dash into the road or will stop and refuse to move. They can be assisted only by this continual and physical control. The noble Lord almost said that the time is not ripe, a phrase I have heard from the Government in other connections. We have referred to the numbers—fewer than 8,000 out of a total of 575,000, the noble Lord's own figure. The cost would be £8 million to £9 million out of a total cost of £750 million. We have had to wait a long time for a response to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. We have had to wait a long time for the response to the Griffiths Report. The Minister and the Committee
354
will understand our reluctance to wait even longer perhaps for the results of the survey.
The noble Lord referred to those who will always be on the wrong side of the threshold. Of course there will always be some. Let us reduce the number on the wrong side to a very small figure indeed. I have heard the arguments and I have heard what the Minister had to say. The best thing to do is to read again what he has said and try to see if we can get some idea of the timetable if the Government intend to press ahead and deal with the problems I have described. Therefore, with the agreement of my noble friends, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): I should explain that Amendment No. 4 pre-empts Amendment No. 6.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 8, line 42, leave out from ("allowance)"), to end of line 44 and insert—

("(a) in subsection (5)(a), the words "or over the age of 75" shall cease to have effect;

(b) in subsection (5)(aa), the words "but under the age of 75" shall cease to have effect.").

The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment. We very much welcome the fact that the Government have increased the age for mobility allowance from 75 to 80. We think that is so generous that we cannot understand why there is a limit of 80. Some of us should perhaps declare an interest. We would be distressed to know that we were about to lose our mobility allowance. I put this as a fair question. Let us suppose that an old gentleman of 79 is in receipt of mobility allowance and is enjoying it. He wakes up on his 80th birthday and goes through his birthday cards. Among those cards he finds a brown envelope from the Government which says that as from the next day his mobility allowance is stopped. No one should open a brown envelope on his birthday, least of all his 80th birthday. In all seriousness we wondered whether in raising the age from 75 to 80 the Government had in mind a moving upwards of the age from year to year.
We cannot see anything very special about being 80. I did not put down an amendment to raise the age to 90 or 100 because I did not want to appear dogmatic. We should like to know the Government's thinking behind this. Perhaps they can tell us whether they have it in mind to take away this arbitrary age limit. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: With all her knowledge, I am rather surprised that the noble Baroness is not aware that the first people to feel the effect of the existing cut-off at the age of 75 will only do so as from next November. Therefore this Bill is designed to ensure that the brown envelope—about which she is so worried—arriving on the 75th birthday, will not in fact arrive, and that attendance allowance will continue to be paid under the provisions of the Bill until the person reaches the age of 80.
Baroness Jeger: We are discussing mobility allowance!
Lord Skelmersdale: I must apologise to Members of the Committee; I meant to say mobility allowance. The noble Baroness made me so confused when she talked about the ages of 75, 80, 90 and 100 that I subsequently confused the Committee. Nonetheless, it is a fact that the first people to feel the effect of the existing cut-off at the age of 75 will not do so until next November.
The Government have made no secret of the fact that the new cut-off at the age of 80 is simply an interim measure, pending any further far-reaching changes which may affect mobility allowance in general, and especially its age limits. However, taking up the point made on the previous amendment, we have a five-year period before we need to make a further change. Surely, with the best will in the world, every Member of the Committee will accept that we can carry this out within five years. I hope that we shall be able to do so very much more quickly than that.
Earl Russell: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Seear. I also wish to support Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 8.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The noble Earl must recognise that we are at present discussing Amendment No. 4. It seems that noble Lords on the Front Bench were under the impression that these amendments were grouped. The grouping is unofficial. However, if they are to be grouped, then it is for a noble Lord to say so.
Lord Skelmersdale: With leave of the Committee, I should be most happy if the amendments were so grouped.
Earl Russell: These amendments attempt to achieve the same effect by slightly different routes. We on these Benches are not particularly wedded to one form of words or another. We left the words to stand in the hope that the Minister might possibly have a slight preference for one form of words over another.
The Minister has made what I can only describe as a speech of Damocles. He has held back the threat of the brown envelope but keeps it suspended over the heads of those concerned for another five years. Would it perhaps be unkind to suggest that the Minister hopes that another government may be left with the task of dropping it? I think that we might be just a little more generous than that.
I was much taken on Second Reading by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He produced the delightful image of reaching the age of 80 when a sudden rejuvenation takes place, mobility returns and the spring comes back to the step. It was great fun. But, alas! it is not always like that. The problem does not always go away—so why should the solution go away if the problem does not? I cannot believe that the cost of the proposals contained in these amendments would be very great. I cannot see that they would fatally threaten the integrity of our public finances. I put the case in
356
favour of these amendments finally in two words: why not?
Lord Skelmersdale: Clearly, I must apologise to the Committee because I rather jumped the gun in my eagerness to answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. However, I must say to the noble Earl that even more difficult issues of principle arise in relation to Amendment No. 5. What is proposed not only removes the new interim cut-off at the age of 80 for payment of the allowance, as in the first amendment, but it also removes the other upper age limit whereby the allowance must be claimed before the age of 66 and only in respect of disability existing before the age of 65.
Amendment No. 6, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Seear, appears to be broadly similar in intention, except that by completely deleting the existing legislation on age limits she has also removed the lower age limit at the age of five. I do not know whether that was her intention; but obviously this has difficulties in relation to very young children for whom restricted mobility, and the need for assistance in getting about, is a normal fact of life—not a consequence of disability.
We estimate that the cost of removing all age limits for the allowance, so that it can be claimed at any age, would have an eventual cost in excess of £1 billion. That is a prodigious sum of money—so large that I feel it is necessary for me to persuade Members of the Committee that it is no exaggeration. Why should it cost so much to allow people to claim mobility allowance for disability occurring after the age of 65? The answer is not too hard to find in the twin facts that locomotion disabilities are by far the most common of all disabilities. Indeed, we have already discovered that fact by examination of the OPCS reports which show that between the ages of 16 and 59 the prevalance is 31 per 1,000; between the ages of 60 to 74, the prevalance is 195 per 1,000; and at the age of 75, or over, it is an enormous 464 per 1,000. I could dilate for some time on this subject, but I shall merely repeat what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. As it stands, Clause 8 now gives us a breathing space of five years. That is ample time in which to resolve and implement whatever changes may be needed generally concerning the allowance.
Having said that, the noble Earl and the noble Baroness have made some valuable points in this connection. We shall most certainly take such points into consideration when we finally decide upon what happens to mobility allowance.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: I thank the noble Lord for that slight touch of encouragement. In view of what he said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I assure the Minister that we shall return to the point at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Attendance allowance.
In section 35(2) of the Social Security Act 1975, after the words "Attendance Allowance Board", there shall be inserted the words "as being a peiod of not less than 6 months or for the length of a person's life throughout which he is likely to satisfy the condition mentioned in-subsection (1)(a) above or that mentioned in (1)(b), or both, or".").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment concerns people who are terminally ill. Attendance allowance is an important Department of Social Security benefit of £23, or £34.90 per week. It is paid to people who need a lot of help from another person because of mental or physical disability. Further, it is tax free and non-means tested. It is a vital benefit which helps people with disabilities. It helps those who are in a hospice or in a hospital and also—I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will support me on this—carers who are looking after such people in their own homes.
However, the law lays down that such people cannot apply for this benefit for six months. If such people are terminally ill, they need much more care. In fact, they very often need continuous care both night and day. Therefore the amendment seeks to allow people who need an attendance allowance to apply for it without waiting for the relevant period to expire.
It is impossible to put a group of people into a category and say, "These people can go against the provisions of the Bill because they are dying." First, there is just the outside possibility that they may not die; and, secondly, when people are dying their relatives sometimes feel that they cannot tell them this, or in some cases such people just do not want to know. Therefore I move the amendment with the hope that my noble friend the Minister will give it consideration. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I support the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, pointed out, it applies not just to people going to hospices but to the large number of people who are being looked after in their own homes. There is a special reason why it is valuable for such cases; that is that the invalid care allowance is dependent upon the attendance allowance. If a person has had to give up work because he or she is looking after someone who is terminally ill, he or she can get the invalid care allowance only if the attendance allowance has been awarded. That means, as the law stands, that they cannot obtain the allowance until the six-month period is up. That is a difficult period of time to span in those circumstances and in some cases it means that, by the time such people are eligible for the allowance, they are dead and the invalid care allowance is never given. I hope that the Government will find a way to accept the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I too support my noble friend. I have a 91 year-old sister who is going through the six-month waiting period at the moment. Happily, she has the resources to pay and we arranged for ladies to help her in her own home so that she did not have to go into a home, which is so destructive for people of that age. I have seen some of them die
358
because they have been taken away from their own surroundings and put into a home.
I do not know about the costs, but if my sister had not had the resources we should have had to do something else. If there are those good places and those splendid people who will help, that is something which everyone should have the opportunity to use. As I understand it, the payment, when it comes is retrospective and so it is not as if the Government will save money only if people die in the interim. It seems to me to be rather cruel. If I am wrong about retrospective payment that puts a different complexion on it. Before we finish the debate, perhaps my noble friend will be able to clarify that point. I hope that great sympathy will be shown to the amendment or something similar.
The Duke of Norfolk: I understand that my Amendments Nos. 35 and 61 are grouped with Amendment No. 9, and I shall speak to them. The noble Baronesses, Lady Faithfull and Lady Seear, have covered some of the fundamental ground and detail of the attendance allowances. I want to call the Committee's attention to patients who have reached the terminal phase of cancer, AIDS and similar illnesses. The vast majority of those patients survive for nothing like six months and so they can never qualify for the benefit. St. Joseph's Hospice in Hackney operates an extensive medical and nursing service for patients dying at home. The average period of care by the home care service from referral to death is just nine weeks. This most valuable benefit for the chronic sick can rarely be paid to those whose sickness is mortal.
My amendment is a simple one. It introduces a new subsection to Sections 35 of the main Act. It will exempt dying patients from the six-month rule. The amendment draws a tight definition of those who will benefit. They must be suffering from severe and progressive incurable disease. They must be receiving palliative care. Palliative care is a euphemism for terminal care. It is a speciality of medicine recognised by the professional Royal Colleges. When curative treatments are no longer possible or practical against a disease which is progressive and ultimately fatal, palliative care is appropriate. It relieves pain and other distressing symptoms while accepting the terminal nature of the disease.
We use the term "palliative" rather than "terminal" because many doctors are reluctant to write the word "terminal" on a certificate which the patient might see. Although many patients are aware of their disease, the word "terminal" is too harsh and brutal. We have therefore drawn a tight definition to ensure that my amendment will apply only to patients in the last weeks or months of life, and who are so severely ill that they will never make the six-month gateway. We have drawn that tight definition because I am well aware of the Government's reluctance to see a change in the attendance allowance regulations which would open the floodgates to new claimants.
In another place, the Minister of State for Social Security said that to abolish the six-month rule altogether would cost the Exchequer £225 million in

359
a full year. My amendment, by contrast, is meagre. Dr. R. J. Donaldson of the Social Security Advisory Committee estimates that my amendment would cost £18 million in a full year. Moreover, the measure has potential savings. Such patients often need constant care and have to be admitted to a hospital or hospice if they cannot receive that constant care at home. The cost of maintaining a patient in a hospital bed is many hundreds of pounds a week. The cost of keeping a patient in a voluntary or NHS hospice is £600 a week. It is common sense and good value to care for dying patients at home.
The Social Security Advisory Committee has called for this change. Many members of the Committee did the same on Second Reading and on many other occasions before that. The amendment has the support of the Help the Hospice movement, the Hospice social workers and, unanimously, the many hospice doctors who have been consulted. Amendment No. 61 is consequential upon Amendment No. 35.
Baroness Jeger: From these Benches we should like to associate ourselves with the amendments which are now before the Committee. When estimating the costs and benefits, there are not just the savings which can be effected by keeping people at home but the unquantifiable gain in comfort and serenity at a difficult time. Hospitals can be horrible places for people when they are very ill.
We should not want to feel that the change was concerned only with people who had no prospect of living for six months. I know from experience as the wife of a doctor with a practice in the East End, that very ill people often live longer than six months. Unless we change the regulations, they will still have to wait six months before they receive any help. I know one case of a young man who had severe head injuries and brain damage as a result of a motor cycle crash. His parents were anxious to keep him at home, but they did not receive anything for the first six months. A good case can be made out for a change in the rule. I look forward to hearing positively from the Minister tonight.
Lord Kilmarnock: I support mainly the amendment tabled by the noble Duke. As some Members of the Committee will be aware, for the past two or three years I have had some connection with the problems caused by the AIDS epidemic. It is particularly in that connection that I wish to speak briefly.
There are two main points here. First, the six-month delay for attendance allowance, as has already been said, has the effect that the award of the benefit sometimes comes in on the very day on which the person concerned has died. Secondly, as my noble friend Lady Seear said, it also acts as a passport to certain other benefits. The one which in my mind is particularly relevant in the case of AIDS sufferers is the disability allowance. It is of great importance in supplementing the diet and extra expense with which people with the HIV are faced when they live alone or even at home with their families.
360
The effect of the noble Duke's amendment, if accepted by the Government—as I very much hope it will be—will be to speed up the process of opening up the further disability allowance. I hope that I may use this occasion for saying to the Committee that the lower disability allowance of only £13.70 a week is extremely inadequate for the category of people about whom I am talking. In many cases they need special diets, ranging in cost from something like £20 to £34 a week. The real effect is only brought about by the higher level of the disability allowance, for which the attendance allowance is one of the passports, but various other passports are required.
This is a complicated area of social security law, as the noble Lord himself will know better than many. In the process of supporting the noble Duke, I wish to ask one question of the Minister. I asked him some questions for Written Answer on both the disability premium and the attendance allowance. In his reply he said:
"My honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security and the Disabled has promised to consider the detail of this premium structure in the light of his monitoring of the Income Support scheme and all the reports of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on disabilities in Great Britain".—[Official Report, 11/4/89; col. 240.]
In that reply the Minister spoke of the premium structure, which embraces both the attendance allowance and the disability allowance, as they are so intimately related.
I wish to take this opportunity of asking the Minister whether his honourable friend has proceeded any further in the review of the complex of benefits as they relate to the problems of people suffering from AIDS and living at home. As has already been said, when that is the case, there is a considerable saving made for public funds as opposed to hospital stays. I shall not continue on the AIDS point because it is not the specific subject of the amendment. If the noble Lord can give me some hope on this complex of amendments in that area I should be grateful.
7 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I agree with my noble friend Lord Mottistone that anyone with more than a drop of sympathy in their veins must be moved by the intention behind these amendments: to give help to people who suffer disability in the course of a terminal illness. Members on all sides of the Committee have spoken persuasively about the grim situation of those people whose illness progresses to the point where they satisfy the disablement criteria which govern the entitlement to attendance allowance but then die before they have completed the six-month qualifying period.
At this point I am afraid I must get slightly technical in order to answer some of the points as regards the circumstances under which the attendance allowance is paid. If I got her words right, I believe that my noble friend Lady Faithfull said that one cannot apply for an attendance allowance before there has been six months of disability. I can reassure her that that is not so, if she meant "apply". A claimant can apply before six months of disability but will not be awarded the attendance allowance until the disablement criteria have been satisfied for

361
the six-month period. But the earlier application will ensure that the benefit is paid as promptly as possible.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone asked about retrospectivity. As I said, the attendance allowance cannot be paid before the date of the claim unless an earlier supplementary benefit, or in these days an income support claim, was treated as an attendance allowance claim, which the rules say it can be. But if at the time of the claim the attendance allowance board or its delegated doctor decide that the disablement criteria have already been satisfied for six months, the benefit can be awarded immediately.
I shall come to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, in a minute. I am sure that those Members of the Committee who have spoken in support of these amendments will freely acknowledge that they are not the first to raise the issue with us. A little while ago the Duchess of Norfolk came to see me, with colleagues from the Help the Hospices movement. This was the latest of a number of occasions in recent months on which Ministers or officials have met people concerned about the problem. From the outset we have shared that concern and have therefore been thinking deeply and hard about a specific exemption for terminally ill people who would be eligible for the allowance, but for the qualifying period. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger.
I am the first to admit that it is an attractive prospect for solving the problem affecting terminally ill people in one fell swoop. However, abolishing the qualifying period for all people eligible for attendance allowance would cost £200 million. I am not sure that that would be right, bearing in mind that the attendance allowance has always been intended as a benefit for the long-term sick and disabled.
Making the money available for what we want to do rather than for what we do not want to do within the social security budget for this specific exemption is obviously an essential precursor, and our estimate of the costs, including consequences for income support and the invalid care allowance, is that they could be as much as £30 million. But securing the necessary money has been a minor consideration beside our concern as to whether a specific exemption would work in practice humanely and effectively.
The concern which we originally had for some long time was that there was no satisfactory definition of terminal illness around which an exemption could be constructed. But it has been put to us, and we now accept, that there is a consensus about what constitutes terminal illness. In broad terms that consensus is conveyed by the amendment and the new clause in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. For that reason, I have to confess—and I hope that my noble friend Lady Faithfull will understand this—that I prefer the amendments of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk to that of my noble friend Lady Faithfull.
However, even if the definition exists and can be applied in the clinical selection of patients for hospice care, it is a different matter to apply it in
362
a benefit system based on principles of universal entitlement. Selection for hospice care is almost always accompanied by open recognition of the prospect of death and provides access to special services for the relief of distress—emotional as well as physical. But only a small minority of terminally ill patients receive hospice care each year.
What we need to do is to make sure that we reach all terminally ill people for whom open recognition of death and the support needed cannot be assumed. We have to consider whether it is the patient himself, his personal representative or his doctor who should initiate action inevitably involving difficult and sensitive judgments, more especially so when it entails an unequivocal statement that the patient is dying. We must also be careful to see that what my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk is seeking to achieve in his amendment is achieved in practice. We also wish to avoid what could be the distressing misunderstandings of specific exemptions.
Let me emphasise in mentioning these difficulties that I am not seeking to delay action on this important measure. But it is important to deal 'with the detail and the practical arrangements as well as the principle. The Committee will be relieved to hear that I shall not mention the OPCS report, except in answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. He was asking about the OPCS report and how my now right honourable friend the Minister for the Disabled is getting on with his review. The answer is that he is getting on very well. However, that review cannot be complete until we have received the final two OPCS reports. However, I assure the noble Lord, as I assured the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, earlier, that this is on a very fast track indeed.
I shall now return to the amendment of my noble friend. Because we are not yet clear exactly how best to direct help to the people concerned, we think it would be premature to accept this particular amendment tonight. However, I can assure the Committee without equivocation that the Government have now resolved at the very highest level that the problems must be overcome, and that help must be given soon to the people specified in the amendment. I therefore give a clear declaration of intent that the necessary legislation will be laid in the next Social Security Bill, and that it will be implemented speedily thereafter. With this assurance, I hope not only that my noble friend, heeding my earlier words, will be able to withdraw this amendment, but also that my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk will feel it is not necessary now to move his amendments when we get to them.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken. I wish to ask my noble friend the Minister two questions. First, he said that anyone can claim the allowance, but it cannot be awarded for six months. Is that correct? I must say that if a patient is being cared for in his own home, and the person caring for him—I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will agree with me here—has a very low income, that person has no option but to run into debt or, as my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk said, have the patient admitted to hospital.

363
That being the case, would it not be possible for a relative to apply for the attendance allowance, and for it to be handed over before the six-month period had elapsed?
Secondly, we were all very grateful to hear my noble friend say that the Government were sympathetic to those in this very difficult situation. We were also grateful to hear my noble friend give an absolute assurance that the problem will be dealt with in the next Social Security Bill, though I am simply appalled at that thought. The thought of dealing with this Bill is bad enough, and to have yet another one seems to me simply dreadful. However, there it is. When will the next Social Security Bill be introduced? I think my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk will admit that this problem exists now. If the next Social Security Bill is not introduced for two or three years, the situation will become extraordinarily difficult. Before we make a final decision as regards what to do with the amendment, I hope my noble friend the Minister will answer those points.
Lord Skelmersdale: I think it would be easier if I answered the final point first. I am not sure whether my noble friend Lady Faithful] was present when I said earlier that I had no doubt that the Committee could draw lessons from the past 10 years. My noble friend will remember that in the past 10 years, to the best of my knowledge and belief—no Member of the Committee contradicted this—there has not been a year when a Social Security Bill has not been introduced. While I cannot, of course, pre-empt the Queen's Speech, I cannot see why we cannot draw the lessons of the past into the future. I hope that that will help my noble friend.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Ennals: I hope the Minister is not saying that he hopes there will be a Social Security Bill every year. That is a terrible thought.
Lord Skelmersdale: I have said what I have said. I think the Committee is in quite a strong position to accept my assurances. If that is not the case, I am sure that all Members of the Committee will leap down my throat like—perhaps I had better not mention any dogs at the moment, as they are a rather difficult subject on various fronts. However, I see the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is in the Committee.
The other question asked by my noble friend Lady Faithfull concerned the attendance allowance being claimed by a relative. That is ingenious, and we shall consider it in considering this whole matter. However, at the moment, even under these amendments, the attendance allowance rules will still state that the attendance allowance is to be awarded to the disabled person, and not to a relative. I hope that that helps my noble friend.
Lord Kilmarnock: Has the noble Lord considered that even if a Social Security Bill is introduced next year, which, on past performance, as the noble Lord has said, is extremely likely, a whole year will have
364
passed and that consideration will be of very little comfort to people who are terminally ill or their relatives at this present point in time, or indeed for the next twelve months? This is a relatively simple matter. Is there any reason, therefore, why, whatever substitute the Government have in mind for the amendment of the noble Duke, it should not be introduced at the Report stage of this Bill while we have it before us in this House?
Lord Skelmersdale: As I said earlier, I appreciate the feelings of all Members of the Committee, and especially the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has just made. However, I explained earlier that there are very real difficulties in the attendance allowance approach. I referred for example, to the difficulties of doctors outside the hospice situation telling a patient that he was getting palliative care. I know that is a euphemism for death within a very short period, but I do not believe that the great British public is stupid. I believe the real meaning of that phrase would get around very quickly. I want to do something, and quickly, but I want to get it right. That is the final message I wish to leave with the Committee.
Baroness Cox: I must declare an interest because I am on the council of management of St. Christopher's Hospice. I must say that this matter is regarded as one of the utmost urgency. What my noble friend the Minister has just said could be regarded with great dismay, given the fact that it will indicate a continuing period of quite appalling suffering for many people who are caught in this situation at the moment.
I wish to put a question to my noble friend. This question has been put to me by people who are very concerned about these matters. It relates to the principle of means testing. I should greatly value clarification and perhaps reassurance on this matter. I understand that at present the principle operates that one needs to have less than £500 savings in order to qualify for the allowance. Many people will realise that elderly people, and particularly those who understand that they are terminally ill, will want, for the sake of dignity and self-respect, to put a certain amount aside towards the cost of a funeral. Funerals cost, on average, about £700. Will people who wish to anticipate events and who, for the sake of self-respect, for the sake of dignity and for the sake of their families, put aside a certain amount for their funeral, disqualify themselves from help in this area? Many people would value clarification on that point.
Lord Skelmersdale: The attendance allowance is not means tested.
The Earl of Onslow: I wish to ask one question for elucidation. There are absolutely understandable difficulties as regards someone wishing to know whether he is terminally ill. That is a very real and major difficulty. However, I cannot quite understand why this provision is any more difficult at the initial discovery than it is six months afterwards. If we are going to say that people can obtain this allowance after six months—that is absolutely right—why can

365
they not have it immediately? I cannot understand why all the difficulties, which my noble friend rightly points out, should be any more difficult after six months than they are initially.
Lord Skelmersdale: The answer to that is that short-term sickness benefits are available in the social security system. Attendance allowance is always intended to be a special allowance for those who have proved to be long-term sick and disabled. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, with his great experience, can confirm that. The Committee is asking me in this special case—I have accepted that it is a very special case—to remove that long-term criterion. I am quite prepared to do that but, as I have said over and over again, I wish to get it absolutely right.
The Duke of Norfolk: Having put down my amendment, I received an immense groundswell of support from all sides of the Committee and also from many people outside who knew that it was down. We also had very sympathetic meetings with the Minister, and I fully understand now that the Government are looking at the hospice movement with great care and with a comprehensive force about its future.
I personally am very happy with the detailed assurances given by the Minister. I have been promised that there will be a social security Bill almost certainly next year and I gamble that there will be one. If there is, I am quite convinced that the Minister will put something in to my satisfaction. So I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: While absolutely agreeing with the amendment of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, I am dealing exclusively and only at this moment with Amendment No. 9, which is my amendment. Despite the fact that my noble friend has taken on board my ingenious suggestion of a relative, and in view of the fact that he has shown very great sympathy with this amendment at this stage, I will read in Hansard what he has said and think again and perhaps bring it forward at the next stage of the Bill. Therefore, at the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley: I wonder whether this might be a suitable moment to adjourn our discussion on the Committee stage of this Bill. I suggest that we resume at twenty past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Local Government and Housing Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and to be printed.

International Parliamentary Organisations (Registration) Bill
7.22 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Montgomery of Alamein.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Register.]:
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert ("are in receipt of an annual grant-in-aid to").
The noble Viscount said: These amendments are, in fact, all related and I hope that the Committee will agree that I should speak to all of them as a group. In due course I shall have to move them separately, but I hope the Chair will agree that I can move Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 en bloc.
The Committee will recall that I explained at second Reading that these amendments were needed for technical drafting reasons. The objectives of the Bill are to set up a register of publicly-financed international parliamentary organisations which are in receipt of grant-in-aid to fund both the British and the international secretariats. In fact, it is these additional words about grant-in-aid that are included in Amendments Nos. 1 and 5 in Clause 1 and in the Title.
So far as Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, the deletions become necessary as the three organisations concerned are constituted and funded under entirely different systems and should not have been included in the Bill in the first place. I hope that those brief comments will explain what I have in mind, which I explained at greater length during Second Reading, and that the amendments will have the support of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: May I take the opportunity on behalf of the Opposition to welcome the amendments moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery. I am glad that he has been able to resolve the technical difficulties of this Bill, because its general aim—that is, to further the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—is a thoroughly commendable one. I hope that we shall now be able to complete its passage through this House without delay.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): May I say that I listened with great care to what my noble friend has said. I confirm that we have no objection; indeed, we thoroughly understand why he has put forward these amendments.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and my noble friend Lord Glenarthur for their support in this matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
In the Schedule:
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein moved Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 en bloc:
Page 2, leave out line 4.
Page 2, leave out line 6.
Page 2, leave out line 7.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein moved Amendment No. 5:
Line 2, after ("which") insert ("are in receipt of an annual grant-in-aid to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.28 to 8.20 p.m.]

Social Security Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 9 [Extension to personal pensions of occupational pension provisions relating to the abatement of unemployment benefit and the meaning of "earnings']:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 9, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) The level at which occupational and personal pensions is subject to abatement of unemployment benefit shall be reviewed annually by the Secretary of State, the figure then being uprated in accordance with the Retail Price Index.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a fairly simple amendment, and I believe quite a modest one as well. The Committee will recall that, when we had a discussion in this Chamber on the last Social Security Bill, we had before us the proposition, which is now enshrined in legislation, that people who at the age of 55 and over received an occupational pension of between £35 and £66 per week would have entitlement to unemployment pay abated until the level of £66 a week was reached. It was felt that a person receiving a pension had no need for a total unemployment entitlement, despite the fact that many such people would regard themselves as available for work and still a part of the workforce.
We lost out on our amendments on that occasion with the result that that proposition is now a part of legislation. But it seems to me that the injustice continues in that the levels of pension, from £35 to £66 per week, have remained the same since 1981. In this Bill the Government are extending the arrangements in respect of occupational pensioners to people who have personal private pensions. In other words, making matters level between those who have occupational pensions from a collective scheme and those who have taken out individual private personal pensions.
Nevertheless, the £35 to £66 has remained the same since 1981 and that seems to be an injustice. All that we are suggesting in this amendment—agreeing, perhaps, that one cannot go back over the past—is that the figures should be up-rated regularly by the Secretary of State in line with the retail prices index. That would still mean that people who reach the age of 55 and had either occupational pension or personal pension provision would have their entitlement to unemployment pay abated. However, it would at least attempt to make a little more justice in that the figures would not be kept at the low 1981 level. There would be some alleviation because they would be increased in line with the retail prices index. That would be done on a regular basis.
I am not saying that the wording of the amendment is perfect. We on these Benches want to see the Minister's response to our submissions. I well remember that, when we had discussion in the Chamber on the last Social Security Bill with regard to this issue, there were a number of Committee Members who agreed that the £35-£66 should be reconsidered in line with the retail prices index, and they were not all on this side of the Chamber. In the light of that point, I hope that the Minister will feel disposed to look with some favour upon the principle of the amendment, even if he does not like the wording very much. I beg to move.
Lord Stallard: I think that the proposals in the Bill are much worse than that now, and certainly merit the reconsideration for which my noble friend has asked. Not only does the proposal now apply to unemployed people, but, as I understand it, under the 1988 Act, the age has been reduced to 55, so that is five years less. That was in an attempt to include women. We had to make sure that we catch everyone in the £35 cut-off.
As has already been said, the £35 limit has been here since 1980–81. If it were to be increased now and brought up, as it should be, into line wih inflation or whatever, it would now be about £80. That represents a tremendous difference for people in those circumstances. A person must be in those circumstances before that can happen to him. It is happening to people at that earlier age, before they have qualified for the retirement pension, if they receive a fairly small occupational pension. So many people will be put to even more hardship with regard to their benefit income.
The cruel thing is that, in the main, these are people who have accepted the Government's advice to take out personal pensions and to go in for all these plans. We have all been snowed under with

369
applications from every insurance company in the country, and abroad, requesting us to take out a personal pension plan. No one said that, if one takes out a plan, is thrifty enough, sacrifices enough and puts in enough money so that one receives a reasonable sum from it, one must lose a pound for every pound of unemployment benefit. No one tells that to the people when they are sold those schemes. It is being kind to say that it is a cruel thing; it is almost a con trick to try to push people. People have been pushed. It is a fact of life that a contract of employment now almost always includes a requirement to join an occupational pension scheme. One would not get the job if one did not agree to join the scheme. Those are the changes that have taken place. As soon as one joins the scheme, if one receives more than £35, one stands the risk of having one's benefit abated. That is the new word for "deducted" or "reduced". We now call it an abatement. It is a particularly unfortunate proposal.
I believe that the amendment is very mild. We are merely asking for the figure to be up-rated. I think that we should ask for the whole thing to be abolished, or at least not accepted, but it is too late now; as my noble friend said, it is water under the bridge. However, there is nothing to prevent the Government complying with this simple, modest amendment and at least to up-date the figure by the amount of inflation in the retail prices index.
I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the effects and implications of the measure on the people who can least afford it. Those people are already down when this happens to them and cannnot take much more. The least that the Minister can do is to recommed to whomsoever it concerns that we should increase the figure in line with the retail prices index.
Lord Skelmersdale: I think that there has been a slight misunderstanding concerning the basis of the amendment. I welcomed the assertion of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that she would not rake over the cold coals of last year's Bill, which is the 1988 Act. That did not last very long because she went on to refer to it, not at some length, but certainly in a significant portion of her speech, as did the noble Lord, Lord Stallard.
As the noble Baroness said,it is a fact that anyone who qualifies for unemployment benefit can receive his benefit in full along with an occupational or personal pension of up to £35 a week. When his pension exceeds £35, unemployment benefit is abated at the rate of lop for each lop of pension. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, must accept that anyone who is on unemployment benefit and has an occupational pension is always better off than someone who is on unemployment benefit without an occupational pension under the current law. In order to bring parity into the situation, it was felt right that at this stage we should take up—as the noble Baroness said on Second Reading—an idea produced by the Opposition in connection with last year's Bill to bring in the clause and to put personal pensions on the same basis as occupational pensions.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Stallard: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I follow his reasons, but is he in fact saying that this deduction is really a tax on thrift? Of course a person who only has unemployment benefit is worse off than someone who also has an occupational pension. Is the noble Lord then saying that one should not have an occupational pension beyond a certain amount; if so, we shall take some of it back? Are the Government saying that one should not be thrifty? That is a strange policy for a government which are pushing occupational pensions.
Lord Skelmersdale: I was not saying quite that. The noble Lord made the point that these are very poor people, and I was responding by saying that they are less poor than some of the poorer people to whom is rightfully given their contributory unemployment benefit. I do not intend—and I do not think that noble Lords would expect me—to go into the arguments that we adduced in connection with last year's Bill.
Currently, some benefit remains payable up to the point at which the pension exceeds £91 a week for a person with a dependant, and £69.70 a week for a single person. Each year, unemployment benefit is up-rated in line with the retail prices index and—I think that this is where the confusion arises—everyone in receipt of benefit, including those with occupational pensions as high as £91 per week for a couple receives the full value of that increase. In addition, because the effect of the up-rating raises the upper level at which unemployment benefit is finally extinguished, each year a small number of people with occupational pensions which are marginally higher than the maximum level begin to receive some benefit.
The effect of this amendment will be to provide an enhancement to the annual up-rating for this specific group of unemployment benefit recipients. The Government's aim is to ensure that available resources are concentrated on those areas of greatest need. I cannot accept that it is right to use those limited resources on a group which already enjoys the support which a substantial occupational or personal pension provides.
I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will accept that those people who have part of their unemployment benefit abated gain each year from the rise in benefit rates. Therefore I hope that they will not see fit to press the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I find that a rather unsatisfactory response. The noble Lord is saying that the unemployment pay is up-rated, which of course everyone understands. But that is not what we are talking about. We are speaking of people who have made a contribution and, as a result of that contribution, receive either a private personal pension or the benefit of an occupational pension.
I understand that in 1981 the amounts were set at £35 to £66 for a single person. Those figures of £35 and £66 have not been up-rated since 1981. For the life of me I cannot understand why it should be thought that they should not now be reconsidered. Since 1981 there has been a substantial increase in

371
the cost of living yet those basic pension figures have not been up-rated. It seems to me that unemployment pay, for which people pay contributions, is a quite separate issue from either a private personal pension or an occupational pension to which people have also contributed.
This often concerns people who have voluntarily taken redundancy and as a result have a lower pension than otherwise they would expect to receive. They still regard themselves as part of the labour market and are looking for work, and so on. That is the argument that we had the last time round on the 1988 Bill. I do not want to repeat the arguments that were produced on that Bill. From what the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, had to say, it is clear that on this side of the House we still feel quite angry about the way in which it was decided to take account of those small pensions when assessing entitlement, and thus take many more people off the unemployment register. However I cannot see any argument for resisting my suggestion about up-rating figures that were regarded as all right in 1981, which is so many years ago. I just do not understand the argument at all.
I cannot accept what the noble Lord has said. At this hour of the night I shall not press the amendment; but I shall certainly think further about it and consider whether to bring it back again on Report. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Unemployment benefit: requirement to seek employment actively]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 9, line 40, leave out ("actively").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I should also like to speak to the other amendments in the group; namely, Amendments Nos. 14, 17 and 18. With these amendments, we come to what I would describe as the centre or core of this Bill: the provision that the Government now seek to introduce that people applying for and receiving unemployment pay should actively be seeking work.
The Government's White Paper Employment for the 1990s acknowledges that most benefit claimants are keen to work but then argues that a significant minority lacks motivation and is not actively seeking work. It is suggested that some of those people may be claiming benefit fraudulently and not be available for work at all. However, even if they are looking for work the White Paper seems to imply that many claimants do not pursue vacancies with enough frequency, energy and determination.
As was said at the Second Reading debate, a number of noble Lords on this side of the House believe that the existing law on availability is already fairly stringent. As the law stands, availability is not a passive state. According to social security commissioners' decisions, which are now regarded
372
as basic instructions to officials who apply the guidelines, it is for the claimant to prove his availability for work on each of the days for which benefit is claimed, and that some active steps are being taken by the person concerned to draw attention to his availability. I repeat, that is not a passive state.
According to instructions given to supervisors in employment benefit offices:
"The question is not whether there is employment available for the claimant. It is whether the claimant is available for employment. If a doubt arises, the employment service will make enquiries to ascertain what active steps the claimant has taken to draw attention to his unemployment and his professed availability".
As was said at Second Reading, all new claimants are now requested to complete a form which is a very lengthy questionnaire designed to test their availability for work. From April 1989 this system will be administered by new client advisers. Claimants going to a restart interview now every six months are also required to fill in a further detailed questionnaire about their availability. It is quite clear that there is a substantial degree of monitoring taking place already in regard to people who are claiming unemployment pay.
Why therefore are the Government introducing this new wording? It seemś to us on these Benches that there can only be one objective, which is to try to ensure that people are forced into employment that is lower paid than they would want or for which they are qualified, and that to some extent they are harassed into jobs which are not suitable (and we shall talk about appropriate or suitable employment when we come to discuss other amendments). That seems to be quite unsatisfactory.
According to the Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill, the Government aim to save £100 million in a full year. It is therefore quite clear that they expect that certain people who are currently able to claim benefit will not be able to obtain benefit in the future. I do not think that there is any real evidence that a lot of fraudulent claiming is going on; nor do I think that there is much evidence that people who have been unemployed for quite a long time are not seeking work and do not want to obtain work. In fact all the evidence appears to point in the opposite direction. With those comments, I beg to move.
Earl Russell: Members of the Committee may know from that great work of history, 1066 And All That. of the form to be filled up at Warwick the Kingmaker's, which included the proposition that no one is ever really king but Edward Mortimer ought to be. Should one compose a similar document for social security? I suspect that it might be one of the rules that none of us is ever quite right but Mr. Frank Field ought to be.
I have been much impressed by the argument deployed by the honourable gentleman in another place. I agree with what he said. There is no objection in principle to the argument that the unemployed who are claiming benefit should be actively seeking work. The concern is about the measure in this Bill, put forward in this way, in this context. Even if one

373
supposes that there may be such persons as work-shy people, it is not the major problem. Nothing is done at the moment to address the problem of the unwillingness of employers to consider applications from the long-term unemployed. Were the Minister to give us an assurance that either in an employment Bill or in a future social security Bill we may find some attention given to that question, it could be a great deal of help to us.
Another matter that concerns me arises from the propaganda in favour of this Bill. It has given the impression that it might be possible to blame the unemployed for the amount of unemployment. Unemployment is a state for which, when it happens, a great many people find it tempting to blame themselves because that makes the situation explicable. Society finds it tempting to accept that explanation. In this context unemployment has perhaps a certain similarity with rape because there the victim is tempted to assume the blame and society is tempted to complicity in that assumption. Therefore to suggest that the unemployed should be pushed into putting in more applications because they might be to blame themselves is a little like an enactment that ladies who have been the victims of rape should be made to wear skirts two inches longer than everybody else. I can imagine the reactions to such a proposal.
If this requirement—which in itself is not necessarily bad—is to go forward, it should be put in a rather different context. There should be more attempts to persuade employers to take on the long-term unemployed. There should be more willingness to recognise that unemployment is not normally the fault of those who suffer it. A great deal of thought must be given to how the clause is to be administered.
I am deeply grateful to the Minister for the copy of the regulations. I have found that they have relieved some of my misgivings. I am very glad to read them. It seems to me that the Minister is still on a fork with this Bill. Either he administers it in a humane way, in which case it will not change very much. It will not produce a substantial reduction in the number of claimants. Alternatively, he administers it in a harsh way, reduces the number of claimants and produces a great deal of injustice. I do not see any way in which the Minister can get off that fork. If there is one I shall be glad to hear of it.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may put this point to him. All that is required is that employers should notify the Jobcentre of all vacant posts. People who are unemployed should be sent from the Jobcentre for posts for which they are qualified. We do not need this battle that seems to be going on about whether or not people are actively seeking work. What should be required is that they conform to the rules that exist. These provide that they have to take jobs which are offered them and for which they are qualified or they lose their benefit. The Government could move in that direction instead of the way in
374
which they are moving. Why are the Government not tackling the problem in that way?
Lord Stallard: I support these amendments. I shall not go over the arguments or the points that I raised on Second Reading. As has already been said, we consider that the word "actively" is unnecessary having regard to the various restrictions that already exist. I pointed them out at Second Reading. I do not wish to repeat them now. They are sufficient.
In moving the amendment, the noble Baroness pointed to the fact that the chief adjudication officer has judged that it is not in a passive state that a person makes himself available. He has to take active steps. The Government have then said that the phrase "active steps" has not been defined. There is then another form to fill in with 18 questions. Applicants have to have another interview to prove such active steps and to give the local adjudication officer time to judge whether or not the steps that have been taken have been active. Everything is in place to make sure that these work-shy individuals—as we are led to believe most of them are—are actively seeking work.
We on this side have never sought to defend work-shy individuals or to say that they should be other than actively engaged in seeking work. In fact it was an Act of a Labour Government that introduced most of these measures to ensure that people were actively seeking employment. It has also been said that it is not just the fact that people will have these restrictions placed on them but that, on top of these restrictions, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has pointed out, the employers place another one. Employers will not interview, let alone employ, the long-term unemployed. Employers put all the barriers up for interviewing long-term unemployed people. There are many obstacles in the way of such people. Employers who sit in this Chamber will recognise, and probably admit, that fact.
I understand that in a survey, out of a number of employers in this country who were asked, 50 per cent. said that they would not interview or employ the long-term unemployed for a variety of reasons. That is an area which can be looked at.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has mentioned discrimination. The jobs that might be suitable, or could be made available, to long-term or other unemployed people, do not always go to the Jobcentre. They are advertised in elite journals which people who are unemployed could not buy anyway. Therefore they may have no access to jobs that might be available, or for which they could apply, because they are not told about them, and the posts are not available at the Jobcentre. That is another hindrance that is put in the way of people who are looking for work.
I read in a magazine recently the implication that the unemployed get used to living on the dole. They find out that the benefits are an adequate income on which to live. That is an insult to most of the genuinely unemployed whom I know. These are people who are eating their hearts out to obtain a job. They will go to any lengths to obtain a job. I mean that. They will travel miles in search of work. People come to London to find work but discover

375
that if they get a job they cannot find somewhere to live. All these problems are on top of the unemployment, both short and long-term. Nothing is being done about that. Yet we are constantly adding to all the other measures that exist already to make sure that these fellows are actively seeking work.
We are already doing all that is necessary to make sure that such people are actively seeking employment. What we are not doing is to make sure that jobs that they could do are actively available for people who are seeking them, as well as the housing facilities if they are fortunate enough to obtain a job. I support the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: Looking around the Chamber, I might be the only one who has been unemployed in his time. What I do not understand is why noble Lords opposite are homing in on the word "actively". Why is that so important? From what the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has just been saying, most of the people I know are actively seeking work, so why take exception to it? It seems to me that the amendment picks out a particular qualification which does not need amendment. People actively seek a job. They do not naturally take a position of this kind. It is possible that after a time they get terribly weary about seeking a job, but they are still potentially able actively to do so. The paper which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I have had from my noble friend on the Front Bench talks about the steps to be taken. They are all logical steps and that is what I understand the word "actively" to mean.
I do not believe that this is one of the words in the Bill that is worth attacking, because we are all agreed that the people concerned will seek work to the best of their ability and the word might just as well sit in the Bill.
Lord Stallard: The Government are not agreed. That is why we have put the amendment down. I am saying that people are actively seeking work and the noble Lord is saying the same. We know that most people are indeed actively seeking work, so why put the word in? If it is not there, we still understand what it means—
Lord Mottistone: Why not?
Lord Stallard: Because if one can say, "We do not think—and we have found some obscure regulation—that you have actively sought work last week: we are suspending your benefit", that will happen. A survey was taken of 1,000 appeals against suspension of benefit and 17:1 were found to be in error, but the benefit had been suspended. It can take anything from three to nine months to have that benefit re-instated. If it is re-instated, the fellow has won his case, but that is a long time, just because somebody said "We do not think you were actively seeking work". He was proved wrong at the end and we were right, but it has cost that man a lot of hardship and distress for himself, his wife and his family just because that word does not have to be there.
Earl Russell: I wonder whether I could ask the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, a very brief question? I take the points that he is making. What gets under the skin of a number of us on this side of the House is the imputation of the moral guilt of the unemployed. If we on this side of the House withdrew our opposition to the word "actively", would the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, join in trying to persuade the Government that one cannot explain unemployment by blaming the unemployed?
Lord Mottistone: We must not spend too long on this amendment. I shall talk to the noble Earl outside.
Lord Skelmersdale: Do I recognise the declaration of a truce between the noble Earl and my noble friend?
The current position, as I explained in one of my recent letters to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that claimants are required simply to be available for work. Without rehearsing all that I said in that letter, it is a fact that commissioners' case law allows that a claimant can establish his availability by doing no more than attending a Jobcentre. Existing legislation, therefore, does not ensure that unemployment claimants should actually look for jobs.
Availability for work, which would be the formulation left in the Bill were the amendment to be accepted by the Committee, does not embody a sufficiently strong element of positive action on the part of claimants to fit with the current labour situation. There are jobs to be had, but there is no explicit requirement for claimants to seek them out and secure them.
It is against that background that we have sought to include the word "actively" in the clause. There has been a little discussion between my noble friend Lord Mottistone and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in particular, on their belief that to a great extent people do actively seek work. Yes, I agree, but we have discovered from interviews by the counsellors in the Jobcentres that there are those who readily admit that they have not been actively seeking work. Therein lies the problem. If there are not as many as we believe there are, clearly we shall not make the savings to which noble Lords and the noble Baroness referred and which are mentioned in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum.
We think that it is right that a claimant should be able to show that he has taken step commensurate with his skills and experience, as well as relevant to the local labour market, in order to find work. If we did away with this word "actively", that sentence would be agreed by all members of the Committee. A person in that position should not simply sit back and wait for someone to offer him a job, nor should he make half-hearted or bogus attempts based merely on his wish to continue to receive benefit. He should continually be considering how best to find work and be ready to pursue every opening to this end that is reasonable in his case.
Do noble Lords really believe that it is acceptable that unemployed people should just wait for a job to materialise? I cannot believe that that is their position. The unemployed must look for work—how

377
else can they find it? And they must expect in return for benefit to look vigorously and repeatedly. It has been said before—and I say it again now—that it is a claimant's responsibility to find work. Taking responsibility in this way is a positive move, an active move, towards securing independence. It is a way of taking control of one's own destiny and I am sure we agree on the importance of this.
Of course we must help those who need it to find work. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Clearly putting pressure on employers, as the noble Earl suggested, is not right for a social security Bill, but it might be right in certain circumstances for an employment Bill. I take his point on that. The noble Earl will know that there is an employment Bill just around the corner. He might like to consider amending that perhaps in the way he desires. However, having said that, the Government take every opportunity to change employers' attitudes towards unemployed people. Noble Lords will have read my right honourable friend's recent White Paper Employment for the 1990s in which that is stressed very strongly.
There are barriers both of prejudice and lack of knowledge to overcome. We believe that the best way to overcome these barriers is not by legislation but by encouraging and persuading employers to amend their personnel policies where necessary. When taking details of vacancies Jobcentre staff—which is another way we attack this problem—try to persuade employers not to impose often arbitrary and usually unnecessary and pointless restrictions on the type of candidate they will consider. They try to convince employers that many unemployed people have valuable qualities and experience to offer. We all agree with that.
Of course we must help those who need it to find work. This is a role which the employment service carries out on a day to day basis. It will continue to offer advice in future to unemployed people and indeed adapt it to the new environment of the actively seeking work test. The employment service will certainly offer a claimant a job where it can and this will be a test of the individual's willingness to work. However, it does not test whether someone is doing all that he should himself to look for work. This is what we want to achieve.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, mentioned following up opportunities advertised in newspapers, for example. There is nothing unreasonable about that proposal. Indeed we have taken great pains to ensure that the provision is applied flexibly and fairly. When it comes to the regulations-making stage that will be quite apparent.
We intend to require that a claimant should take the type of steps which are likely to lead to the kind of employment which he has a prospect of securing and which are reasonable in his case bearing in mind a number of factors. What he will need to do will thus vary from claimant to claimant. This flexibility and sensitivity to circumstances is vital. Noble Lords who spoke on Second Reading have received a note summarising what we envisage that the regulations will say. A copy of that note is incidentally in the Library. These amendments strike at the heart of
378
a measure which has considerable support in the country and for which there is every justification.
I do not think that I can productively say any more in answer to the group of amendments proposed by the noble Baroness.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I do not believe that the Minister has anwered me. I put to him a method of dealing with this matter and I do not believe that it has been sufficiently explored. It is all very well for the Minister to say that the Jobcentre will inform the unemployed person of vacancies. I am suggesting a way in which the Government can make sure that unemployed people are aware of vacancies which exist in a particular area. It is by making arrangements for employers to inform the Jobcentre of all vacancies. That may well require regulations but I do not believe so. An agreement is required with the employers that that should be done. If such an agreement is reached, then whenever an unemployed person goes to a Jobcentre it can say where there are jobs. If there are no jobs, so be it.
At present, the Government are asking an unemployed man to spend a lot of money travelling around looking for jobs. That is not fair. On the other hand, if there are jobs which are available through a centre, there is a way of making sure that the unemployed person knows about them and a way for authority enforcing the requirement that he accepts jobs suitable for his qualifications. That is where attention should be focused. I am not satisfied from the Minister's answer that he sees the position in that way. I believe that it is a way of dealing with the matter.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I have listened with interest to what the Minister said and I found it disappointing. He described what is happening now. If that is so, what is the necessity for a change in the wording as proposed in the Bill?
As I said on Second Reading, in the 1920s we had a similar definition; a "genuinely seeking work" definition. However, that test lasted only a few years because there was widespread opposition to it. People felt that they were being pressurised, that they were expected to look for work where plainly there was none and that the required tests were not satisfactory and humane. As a result a committee investigated the matter and in 1930 it recommended that the test be abandoned. It appears that in this form of wording we are going back to pre-1930. I find that to be quite unsatisfactory.
I do not accept what the Minister said because, if we are concerned only with making sure that people are trying to obtain work, such provision already exists. The "availability for work" test is no passive test. There are commissioners' decisions which make sure that people must fill in forms and state what they have done and intended to do, and there is restart counselling. There is plenty of monitoring of the unemployed. There are different situations in different regions. In some regions, no matter how you try, it may be difficult to find work. In other regions the situation might be entirely different.
There is also the demoralising effect on the unemployed when they live in a region with a high

379
level of unemployment and are expected to make masses of applications in the hope of obtaining a favourable response in order to qualify for unemployment pay. For all those reasons I feel disposed to press my amendment even at this late hour of the night.
9.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 49.

DIV1SION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Buckmaster, V.

McNair, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Russell, E.

David, B.

Seear, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Stallard, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

Kagan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hemphill, L.

Beloff, L.

Henley, L.

Belstead, L.

Hives, L.

Blatch, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hooper, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnock, L.

Mottistone, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mountevans, L.

Colwyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Craigmyle, L.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dormer, L.

Seebohm, L.

Dundee, E.

Selborne, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Faithfull, B.

Swinton, E.

Ferrers, E.

Trafford, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Harvington, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.13 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 9, line 41, at end insert ("or is undertaking a course of training or education designed to improve the prospect of securing employment").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to improve upon the existing position, where at present, if someone is undertaking training or education for more than 21 hours per week, he is not eligible for unemployment benefit.
Having regard to the grossly under-trained nature of the labour force, and also having regard to the fact that people who are unemployed can greatly enhance opportunities for obtaining work if they are
380
trained and obtain qualifications or are well on the way towards obtaining qualifications, it seems only sensible to remove that limitation on the amount of time which can be spent in taking courses by removing the disqualification implied in the existing regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I wish I could be as brief as was the noble Baroness in moving the amendment but I am afraid I have a lot which I ought to say.
I am grateful, in speaking in response to this group of amendments, to have an opportunity to applaud the efforts of many hundreds of people engaged in voluntary work and to acknowledge the efforts of those who are striving to learn new skills to enhance their employment prospects. As regards people on courses of training and education, it is more than commendable that unemployed people spend their time usefully and perhaps gain qualifications which might help them to find work.
The current position is that an unemployed claimant can receive benefit while he is studying or training, provided he is still available for work. To qualify for benefit at present he needs to show that his commitment to the cause does not prevent him going to job interviews or taking up immediately any suitable job offers, which, of course, at present he does not have to seek actively. Once he finds a job he must accept it or risk a benefit penalty.
The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness would have the effect of enabling a person who is training or studying to carry on doing so despite having found a job, despite having accepted the job and simultaneously to receive unemployment benefit. I do not believe that that can be right.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: I have my name to Amendment No. 20, which is grouped with the amendment moved. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could confirm the point about voluntary work. I had a letter from him only this morning and had I received it earlier I should not have needed to table the amendment. Will the noble Lord confirm that where a person is engaged in voluntary work that will be taken as evidence that he is available for and actively seeking work? If that is the case, I shall not need to move Amendments Nos. 20 and 21.
Lord Skelmersdale: As I said in the communications to which I have already referred, I cannot countenance an exemption of voluntary workers from the need to seek work actively per se. However, I do regard it as reasonable for the adjudication officer, when considering whether a claimant has taken reasonable steps to seek work, to take account of the voluntary work undertaken. I think that is the confirmation that the noble Lord seeks.
Baroness Seear: I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter, though not necessarily in the terms of this amendment. The noble Lord has agreed that it is highly desirable that people should undertake training and that any obstacles that are put in the way should be discouraged, not only from the point

381
of view of the individuals concerned but because we urgently need to train more people. The 21-hour limit is an unfortunate block.
I see the point about the need to be available for work, but would it not be possible for an amendment to be produced at a later stage which would embody the intention to encourage people to take on serious training while meeting the requirement that if a job comes along they can take it? I cannot see any difficulty in that. There are various ways to meet the problem. Training can be terminated or continued on a part-time basis. An arrangement can be made with the employer to have daytime release. There are many ways of getting round the problem.
If the amendment as it stands is unsuitable but the Government sympathise with its objectives, would it not be possible to find a way to overcome the objections? That would achieve the aim of getting more people trained. The noble Lord is aware that one of the discouragements in the employment training scheme, for example, is that there is not much money in it. People do not take up training because it is not worth it. We want to make training more worth while for the people who undertake it. If this conflicts with existing regulations, can we not see whether there is a way in which the aim of the amendment can be served while meeting the objections put forward by the noble Lord?
Lord Skelmersdale: We all agree with the need for training and the need to encourage training, but I am not sure that it is right to achieve this desirable end through the mechanism of the Social Security Bill and in the context of unemployment benefit. Having said that, I will most certainly take up the request put by the noble Baroness and have this matter studied much more fully than it has been.
Baroness Seear: In the light of that relatively encouraging response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 9, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations shall provide that if a person is deemed not to be actively seeking work he shall be given written notice of not less than three weeks, by a duly authorised person, before his benefit is withdrawn. At the same time, he should be informed of the appeal procedure.").
The noble Baroness said: The grouping for this amendment includes Amendments Nos. 16 and 22. Personally, I do not agree with Amendment No. 22 being grouped with Amendments Nos. 13 and 16. Therefore I propose, in moving Amendment No. 13, to speak also to Amendment No. 16 only. I move this amendment as a social worker. When a man falls out of work, or his benefit is stopped without warning, it causes tremendous family problems. Having worked in social services, when you are presented on a Saturday, Sunday or Monday—mostly a Saturday or a Sunday—with a crisis situation in the family, you cannot do what is best for that family. You cannot have a programme of preventive work.
I ask the Minister whether in regulations it would be possible, when a crisis has occurred and benefit
382
is likely to be withdrawn, for the local authority social services department to be notified so that it may help the man and the family and not take the children into care. Would it also be possible through regulations to work out a preventive programme with the family?
In addition, as regards regulations, will the man be notified of his right of appeal? In other areas of life, for example, in dealing with your bank, your account is not closed at once if you go into the red. You are given a good deal of warning. I am trying to remember when that last happened with me, but I cannot. At any rate, you do get a good deal of warning. I should not dream of pressing this amendment tonight because it is really a probing amendment for information.
I shall now speak to Amendment No. 16. It refers to people in whose family some rather serious event has occurred. It may be the death of a relative, a shock of some kind or even an accident. I believe it right that the man should be given three weeks' notice or some notice. The social services should be informed and the man asked to go to them for help and for a preventive programme to be worked out for the family. As regards these two amendments I am taking into account the whole family situation. One cannot look simply at the man: one must look also at his wife, the children and the family situation. At the end of the day, if a preventive programme can be arranged for that family, then the local authority, the state and the family will be saved a great deal of expense. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I want to try to kill three birds with one stone and to speak to all three of the amendments in this grouping. I wish to take them in the order of Amendments Nos. 13, 22 and 16. I can add very little to what the noble Baroness has said as regards Amendment No. 13. I would hesitate to describe anything that happens to a person on social security benefit as a bolt from the blue, but at least deprivation of benefit may be a bolt from the pale grey. I believe that deprivation of benefit is a severe penalty and it may have serious effects. They may be much more easily avoided if there is some degree of notice to give time to find a lost aunt in Dover, to appeal to a charity or to do any of the things that may occur to the person in question.
I believe that this amendment may save trouble in the long run. It may even produce a net benefit to public funds. It is a key point of Amendment No. 13 that it provides for giving the person notice of his right of appeal. Therefore it seems to be logically linked with Amendment No. 22. Amendment No. 13 specifies that there should be 21 days' notice and Amendment No. 22 specifies that the appeal should be heard within 14 days. The Minister may wish to object to the time. However, there is scope for adjustment. What matters about the grouping of the two amendments is that the time allowed for the appeal should be shorter than the time elapsing before the deprivation of benefit. Some appeals are successful, and I do not see why people should suffer the severe penalty of deprivation of benefit for a cause which turns out on appeal to be unjustified.

383
Amendment No. 16 seeks to allow for special circumstances. As my noble friend Lady Seear said at Second Reading, it is a little unreasonable to expect people to go from the graveside to the Jobcentre. This amendment makes it possible to allow discretion for a small pause to recover breath in that journey when it is necessary to do so. It allows scope for exercising discretion about, for example, the effects of marital breakdown, or in the case of someone recovering from drug dependence or alcohol abuse, or recovering from the common situation which we were discussing yesterday of having to care for a dying relative. It lasts only for a defined period. If accepted, the amendment will make re-entry into employment a great deal easier and thereby improve people's chances of coming off benefit, something which should be welcomed in all quarters of the Committee.
Lord Seebohm: I agree entirely that one has to be responsible in matters of unemployment and the working of the system. I support the three amendments because unemployment is a horrible thing. As far as possible the system must try to preserve a human face. That is all the amendments seek to do. They do not make any great changes but seek to make the system a little more human.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I have little to add to what has already been said in support of the amendments except that we on these Benches thoroughly support them. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, that they give the Bill a more human face. It is compassionate to ensure that people are notified if their benefit is to be withdrawn and also that at the same time they are informed about how they should set about making an appeal. That is important to people in these circumstances.
This links with Amendment No. 22 because the appeal itself should be heard with all possible speed. Such people will not be well off or they would not be in this situation. The withdrawal of benefit can be a severe blow to them. For these reasons I support the amendments and commend them to the Committee. I hope that the Minister may feel disposed, if not to accepting them as they are worded, then at least to accept the feeling behind them. If he does not accept the wording perhaps he will come back with his own wording at Report stage.
Baroness Blatch: I rise tentatively to take a different view on the amendments. It is important to make the distinction between somebody who is not actively seeking work where the judgment made is a legitimate one and somebody in respect of whom an error has been made. That is why I have some sympathy with Amendment No. 22. Whether 14 days is the right amount of time I do not know, but where a judgment has been made that somebody who is unemployed has not actively been seeking work, it is important that the appeal should be heard and the judgment substantiated or not as soon as possible. I hope that there will be some sympathy for the proposal that the appeal should be heard quickly.
Where somebody is not actively seeking work we have to remind ourselves of the awful truth
384
that all benefits—whether for the disabled or the unemployed—come from the taxes of both the rich and the relatively poor in society. We owe it to everybody to ensure that those taxes are deployed properly.
The Bill as drafted provides a disincentive for people to disregard the need actively to seek work if they are unemployed. I think that where such action is positively avoided, there must be some kind of sanction. If three weeks' notice is given, followed by an appeal procedure—despite all the problems as regards the family which has been referred to by my noble friend Lady Faithfull—I believe that the way to avoid such a situation would be for the person concerned actively to seek work. That point must be borne in mind.
There is a way of avoiding the grief which would be put upon a family as a result of someone not actively seeking work: the person must actively seek work. Where an error has been made, I am entirely sympathetic with the contents of Amendment No. 22. I am not sure whether the period of 14 days is right, but I think that appeals need to be read and heard very quickly so that the situation is properly clarified.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I disagree with my noble friend. I think that these amendments are right in principle, although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that the wording could perhaps be improved. I think that the view just expressed by my noble friend is theoretical rather than practical. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will give sympathetic consideration to these amendments.
Baroness Faithfull: I should just like to make two points before the Minister replies. We are also discussing Amendment No. 22 here, and I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that I should perhaps have included that in my speech. My up-to-date information is that appeals take between three and four months to be heard. This is really a very serious matter. I wonder—as I wondered in connection with other matters—whether some provision could be made by way of regulation to cover this situation so that such appeals would be heard much quicker than they are at present.
I must also say that I disagree with my noble friend Lady Blatch. Obviously she has not worked in a social services department where she may well have been presented with a family who had no money and four children. In such a situation something must be done and done quickly. It is far better in such circumstances to have a little time to consider the matter and make proper plans.
Lord Renton: As regards Amendment No. 22, I am afraid that it is not practicable to suggest that the appeals must be heard within 14 days. Let us suppose that the chairman of the appeal tribunal is taken ill on the morning of the case. What will then happen? I appreciate that there must be some flexibility; but these cases should not take a long time. However, just to enact it like this, I am afraid, would not be workable.
Baroness Faithfull: I think that what my noble friend Lord Renton said is rather strange. I say that because in such a situation there would surely be a vice-chairman who could take over. For example, in a court case if the chairman of the Bench is not present then the number two on the Bench takes his place. Therefore, I am not sure whether my noble friend's argument holds water.
Lord Renton: That is so, if the person is available. However, that is not always the case.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to those Members of the Committee who tabled these amendments because they will enable me to clear quite a lot of ground work. They will also enable me to give a good explanation of how we see Clause 10 actually operating.
Amendment No. 13 allows a claimant a period of at least three weeks' grace between a decision that he is not actively seeking work and its implementation; in other words, the loss of his benefit. It also suggests that appeal rights be made known to the claimant when an adverse decision is given. I can dispose of that secondary matter very quickly. It is already standard practice that attention is drawn to the appeal procedure whenever an adverse decision is given, and that will continue.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked whether the right of appeal is notified when an adverse decision is given. The answer is, yes; that is already the situation and, again, it will continue so to be. I wonder whether Amendment No. 13 has its genesis in a misunderstanding. When the claimant first becomes unemployed and goes along to the unemployment benefit office, he will be interviewed by an executive officer known as the "new client adviser". The adviser will discuss a number of issues. If a claim for benefit is then made he will issue general advice about how to actively seek work. Additionally, he will suggest particular ways in which, taking into account the sort of job being sought and other factors, the claimant may show that he is actively seeking work.
If later the employment service wonders whether a claimant is doing sufficient to satisfy the condition, he will be interviewed once again. Further advice on what steps should be taken may be necessary. Following that interview, the employment service officer will write on the same day concerning the details of the discussion, reminding the claimant of the suggestions made for possible future steps. Additionally, the letter will contain a reminder that the claimant has actively to seek work to qualify for benefit. Those are facts which the complainant will already have taken firmly on board; in other words, the claimant will know and be reminded of what conditions he needs to fulfil to keep the benefit.
I stress that at that stage benefit has not been stopped. If, however, even after all that advice and reminder of the conditions for benefit, the claimant fails to take such steps as are reasonable in his case, the question would of course be put to the independent adjudication officer for a decision. Since by then there would be genuine doubt about a claimant's entitlement it would not be right to
386
continue benefit and it would thus cease. However, the Committee will know that unemployment benefit is claimed and paid for a past period, so it is only a question of the immediate past period—in a typical case two weeks—that would be put to the adjudication officer. There is no question of payment for a future period being prevented. All the claimant has to do in subsequent weeks is to take sufficient steps, when his benefit will be paid once more.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but he raised an important point when he said that the claimant would have warnings, meetings, discussions and so on and that the matter would then go to the adjudication officer. In view of all those warnings, it would be assumed, before the adjudication officer's decision, that the claimant was guilty because the penalty would be inflicted before the trial had been held. That is an odd reversal of justice. Surely the man is not guilty until the adjudication has been settled. It would be odd if a court inflicted a penalty before the case had been heard, which seems to be what happens here.
Lord Skelmersdale: No. If we felt that that was an appropriate thing to do we would not turn the matter over to the adjudication officer at all; we would let the claimant adviser judge the issue. I agree with the noble Baroness that that would be wrong.
The claimant adviser, about whom I have been talking, would interview once, twice or perhaps three times and would have a doubt. He will not be allowed under the terms of the Bill to resolve that doubt. He will have to put it to an independent adjudicator. I am sure that that is right, which is why we wish to proceed in that way.
We have taken care to ensure that claimants are treated reasonably under the measure. They are given advice, both general and specific, and on several occasions they are reminded of the conditions of benefit. If after all that there is still a question about whether they are seeking work then, I repeat, it will not be the counsellor who makes that decision; the matter will be referred to the adjudication officer.
Baroness Jeger: I wish to be clear. The Minister said that those people will be given advice and information. Will they be given benefit during all that procedure?
Lord Skelmersdale: They will continue to be given benefit until the adjudication officer has made up his mind, in which case, if he makes up his mind in favour of the claimant, unemployment benefit will continue for the past period, but if he makes an adverse decision, unemployment benefit will stop; but only for the period that I have described earlier. I hope that that helps the noble Baroness.
With regard to Amendment No. 16, I hope that it is clear from the notes that I have circulated to Members of the Committee that our watchword is flexibility. The steps to be taken by a claimant shall be such as are reasonable in his case. Account may be taken of a variety of factors. Job search may be undertaken in a number of ways. In certain circumstances claimants will be deemed to have

387
satisfied the conditions. We shall have the chance to thrash out those issues when the regulations come before this place in due course for affirmative resolution.
The amendment is unnecessary. There is already the flexibility that I have outlined. By the same token, claimants will always have some action to take in the course of a week, even if only to check that the labour market situation is as it was when last investigated. However, it must be remembered that, just as the labour market does not stand still, so what is reasonable for a claimant to do will vary over time. As I have already explained, the claimant will be told of the ways of actively seeking work that are appropriate for him. If, either then or at a subsequent interview, or, for example, at a restart interview or another routine interview, a doubt arises about whether the claimant's job search is adequate, it will be the independent adjudication officer who will make the decision in this case.
I now turn to Amendment No. 22. There is currently no statutory time limit within which an appeal has to be heard by a tribunal. In practice, the time taken depends on a number of factors: for example, how long it takes for further investigations to be made on matters raised by the appeal; the length of time it takes the adjudication officer to prepare his formal submission to the tribunal; the time taken by the claimant to put in further evidence; and the administrative arrangements necessary to convene a tribunal and arrange a hearing. On that, I heard an interesting little interchange behind me. It involves, among other things, copying the appeal papers to the appellant and all the other parties to the proceedings and giving them the statutory 10 days' notice of the hearing. Therefore 14 days would be far too fast.
I think that the worry at the back of the minds of many Members of the Committee, especially that of my noble friend Lady Faithfull, is the financial situation of the families and children of unemployed men particularly, but of course it might be women. The unemployed person may be able to receive some money. There is currently a provision in income support legislation whereby a person who is required to be available for work but fails to show that he is so available can nevertheless receive benefit if he or his family would otherwise suffer hardship.
It is intended that income support legislation will in future provide for this arrangement also to apply to claimants who fail to show that they are actively seeking work. Thus it is not true that if people fail to satisfy the new condition they face destitution. Hardship payments of income support will be made, if appropriate.
Lastly, my noble friend Lady Faithfull asked whether local authority social services should or could be notified when the claimant is likely to lose benefit. No, I think it would be totally presumptive for the employment service to make the decision that, because a claimant was in danger of losing his benefit, his family was also at risk, for the reasons I have just given as regards the income support. It may be that the threat of loss of benefit results in
388
the breadwinner getting a job, or he may have other ways of supporting his family. Far from providing help and reassurance, as my noble friend hopes, such a move could well increase family pressures at a most difficult time. Moreover—and I think this is equally important—it would require a breach of the rules of confidentiality, which I think no one would like.
I know that I have not done full justice to these amendments but I hope that I have been able to say enough to explain the Government's intentions in this area.
Lord Carter: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he say what are the circumstances where the threat of the loss of benefit could help a person to secure employment? Can he explain that? I did not understand it at all.
Lord Skelmersdale: It could be that the threat of loss of benefit results in the breadwinner getting a job. If the counsellor thinks that it is doubtful whether the claimant is actively seeking work, as I have explained, he will refer the matter to the adjudication officer. That already happens in other areas of unemployment benefit, as the noble Lord will know. We know from experience that sometimes this is just the extra push needed for the unemployed person to obtain a job. That was the point I was making. I assure the noble Lord that I was not being devious.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord said that 14 days was far too short, and that may well be right. However, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said that her information was that the appeals often wait two to three months. That must surely be too long. Can the noble Lord tell us whether he has any information about what the median period is for an appeal to be heard? If so, and if it is as long as we have been told, surely it is worth while trying to make it a shorter period. No one should have to wait from two to three months, if that is the period of time involved. I have no idea what it is, but that was the period of time given to us.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I agree with the noble Baroness that that is far too long. I am surprised that from two to three months is anything but an extreme length of time in particularly difficult circumstances. There is no reason why the period should be two to three months in the case of seeking work. I am advised that, on average, the period is 17 weeks. That is still not very good, but it is slightly better—
Noble Lords: That is more than four months!
Lord Skelmersdale: I am as horrified as the noble Baroness and other Members of the Committee are to learn that. I shall obviously have to cross-examine my advisers and find out what on earth is going on. I regard this as a very serious matter indeed.
Baroness Seear: As I was given that figure, I wish to put something on the record. I find it quite astonishing that the Department of Social Security

389
has allowed that situation to continue without doing anything about it.
Baroness Faithfull: I wish to intervene in fairness to the advisers. The three to four-month period does apply. However, there has been a downward curve just lately.
Lord Skelmersdale: In defence of the department which I am proud to represent in this Chamber, I would say that the department itself does not organise appeals tribunals. Appeals tribunals come under the auspices of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. That is still no excuse, but it offers perhaps some excuse for officials who work so hard and so diligently in my own department.
While I am on my feet, I wish to correct something that I said in error earlier on the subject of when benefit ceases. After the claimant has received advice and warnings, if at a subsequent interview—which usually occurs, as I said, two weeks after the warning—he still appears not be actively seeking work, the matter will be put to the adjudication officer. Benefit will stop, pending that decision. I made an error on that subject, and I apologise to the Committee. I understand that I said that benefit would continue. However, that was wrong, and I apologise.
Baroness Seear: If the Minister was wrong about that, it is the case that the penalty is inflicted before the judgment, is it not? That seems to me an extraordinary way of conducting justice. That would not occur in a magistrates' court. Imagine fining a motorist for a parking offence and then taking him to court. Actually, that is a very bad example because if a parking offence has been committed that does occur.
Lord Skelmersdale: I still do not think that applies for the reason I tried to give to the Committee earlier; namely, that it is the adjudication officer who makes the decision. Once the matter is taken out of the adjudication officer's hands and goes on to further appeal through the social security system, that is a different matter. However, the matter is not prejudged in the sense that I believe the noble Baroness means. I shall have to study this exchange very carefully, and follow this up if I am wrong. However, I hope the noble Baroness and I are not talking at total cross-purposes, because neither of us would get any benefit—if I may use that word—from that.
Lord Trafford: I have listened to this exchange with interest and some fascination. Am I right in thinking that when a claimant is warned, and as that case goes to the adjudicator, the benefit ceases; but that if it is decided subsequently by the adjudicator that the warning was invalid, so to speak, the benefit is restored for that period of time? Then of course benefit will continue. If, however, the adjudicator decides that the claimant was unjustified, he does not get any benefit. The point which was discussed at cross purposes was that the decision is taken before the adjudicator has decided, and only if he decides in favour of the claimant is that period then restored to the claimant. I think that was the point that the noble Baroness and my noble friend on my
390
right were raising. Can the Minister confirm that, or perhaps he might write to us to explain definitively what happened?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, in the circumstances I had better write as a result of these exchanges.
Baroness Blatch: May I add to the list of questions that have been posed to my noble friend the Minister? First, it is a very serious business to stop the benefit of somebody who is unemployed. Therefore anything that can be done to speed up the process to determine whether it is a legitimate thing to do seems to me absolutely essential. All that we can do to speed up that process should be done.
But in view of the explanation that my noble friend has given about all the information and about the warnings and counselling that are given leading up to the recommendation or referral to the tribunal, it seems to me that, at the end of that period of counselling and of giving warnings there must be a fairly clear idea that somebody is not actively seeking work. Therefore, I would be interested to know the number of cases that end up at the tribunal that are found to be wrong referrals; in other words, where benefit had been stopped needlessly when the person was actively seeking work. I expect it is difficult to find that answer at the moment, but I should be very interested to know.
It seems to me that my noble friend has given a very comprehensive explanation of all the efforts made by the people in the Jobcentres which help a person to get back to the business of actively seeking work.
Lord Skelmersdale: The only response I can make to that is that it will be a rather longer letter than I originally intended.
Baroness Faithfull: I always hesitate to bring an exchange to an end. This exchange has been extraordinarily interesting and amusing, though it is a pity that it has been on such a tragic subject. But I am grateful to my noble friend for the long explanation. Perhaps it is our fault that we have not fully understood it.
I should like to say that I see his point that a case cannot be referred to the social services because of confidentiality. But if the adjudicating officer is informing an applicant that he can go to appeal, perhaps at the same time he might advise him to go to the social services for help or advice, bearing in mind the needs of the family. I shall read with great interest what my noble friend has said, and with that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 18 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 10, line 17, at end insert—
("(2C) If, in any case, a question arises as to whether a person is or was actively seeking employed earner's employment in any week, the adjudication officer shall determine that question in that person's favour unless he is satisfied that that person was not actively seeking such employment.").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 19 is of some importance to these Benches. The point is to

391
assert that those threatened with loss of benefit shall be deemed innocent until they are proved guilty. It is a basic rule of English law that penal statutes are to be construed strictly. I know that by the strict rules of common law loss of a benefit cannot properly be described as penal. Nevertheless in practice the effect is very much the same. So deprivation of benefit is something not to be undertaken lightly, wantonly or uninvitedly. It is a field in which injustice may occur.
Alleged failure to seek work may possibly be wrongly alleged. It may be alleged on inadequate documentation. The keeping of records by employers leaves a great deal to be desired. We are led to understand that the unemployed are supposed to keep the records. First, if they are homeless, where are they supposed to keep records? Secondly, a good many of them admit to having literacy problems. One in 10 of the unemployed in London admits to having literacy problems. Such problems may well limit the keeping of records. Should they be penalised for their limited literacy?
That is not a frivolous question. It brings back a memory seared into my consciousness. When I was eight, my father had to apply for a new ration book and signed it perfectly correctly as a Member of this House, "Russell". He was told that he must put a Christian name. He explained why not and was told that he was illiterate and therefore could not have a ration book. It was the "therefore" which was the alarming part. Fortunately, it so happened that John Strachey, the Minister of Food, was a personal friend and was prepared to listen to the story, but it was borne in upon me thus at a very early age that that sort of thing could have happened to someone who was much less well able to deal with it, and that there was no just reason for thinking that lack of literacy should deny one the right to eat. So I believe that the point about the unemployed's records not necessarily being adequate is one to be taken seriously.
If one should become entangled in the social security system and get on the wrong side of it, one may well find that one is in a situation sounding uncomfortably like something out of Kafka. That situation may be very difficult to handle, so all I ask the Committee is that, before we deprive someone of benefit on the grounds that he is not actively seeking work, may we try to make certain that we are quite sure? I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I hope that I need not spend quite as long on this amendment as I have spent on other amendments since we had dinner.
In making his decision, any adjudication officer, whether in the employment or social security field, must always be satisfied that, in the light of the facts of the case, it is the right one. It is of course subject to the normal appeals procedure—a point that I made earlier—which provides an additional safeguard for the claimant. The adjudication officer will weigh up the evidence and make his decision on the balance of probabilities. I am perfectly confident
392
that the standard, long-established approach of adjudication officers is quite suitable for the purpose of deciding whether the "actively seeking work" condition is fulfilled. I see no reason to make exceptional and, indeed, dubious arrangements for that sort of decision.
In passing, perhaps I may just point out that "is or" in the amendment is redundant since adjudication officers will be dealing with questions for past periods. Unless they are very exceptional, cases will not have reached the adjudication officer without the claimant having received counselling, advice and a reminder about the need to satisfy the condition. I applaud the noble Earl's concern for the interests of the claimant. In his usual witty way, he made a serious point, but I hope that there was not an implicit suggestion that the Government would seek to victimise people with such drawbacks as he described.
We do not want to impose unfair burdens on any claimant. That is why we have put forward the concept of a claimant taking steps that are reasonable in the circumstances. His abilities, the area of job search, the type of job being sought and so on will be taken into account. If the claimant cannot read or write we shall not expect him to write letters to employers or indeed to read advertisements in newspapers. However, he may be expected to enlist help from friends or agencies to carry out these functions. When I referred earlier to our very flexible approach, of course I included what I have just said in the appositeness of my word "flexibility".
Earl Russell: I must confess to finding that a somewhat disappointing reply. I take the points made by the noble Lord about the amount of care that is put into the system. The care does not always come through to the point of delivery and everything that the noble Lord said still stops short of a firm commitment to the basic legal principle that a person is innocent until proved guilty.
I did not intend to allege that there was a deliberate government desire to victimise. If I implied any such thing, I withdraw the implication, which I did not intend. Nevertheless, I believe that there is here a basic difference of approach, which emerged in the exchange between the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, about the threat of deprivation of benefit possibly having a useful effect. I think that it is an objective common to all parts of this Chamber to get people off benefit and into employment where possible. Where we differ is that the Government seem to think instinctively of employing the stick. Very often what we want them to do is to think sometimes of offering just a little bit of carrot as well. That principle underlies a great many amendments that are behind us and many that are still in front of us. However, though I am disappointed, at this time of night I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 22 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 10, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) In regulation 12(1)(c) of the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Regulations 1983, for "twenty-four hours" substitute "fourteen days".").
The noble Earl said: This amendment bears on the question of the provision of child care as it affects someone who is offered a job. It arises from a point made at Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, and the Minister's reply. I thank the Minister for his letter on this subject, which is welcome and which I have read with care.
Though I welcome the Minister's letter, there is still a basic difference between us on this matter because he thinks that child care arrangements should be in place before a person is offered a job. It seems to me that, especially in London, this is simply not practicable. I do not understand how one can make adequate child care arrangements until the hours when one will be employed are known and one knows where one will be employed.
Combining a job with small children is at the best of times a problem of fox and goose and cabbage. But if, say, for the sake of example a parent has to travel from Clapham to Balham for child care facilities and also travel in the opposite direction from Clapham to Putney for work, there will be a very considerable problem. Moreover, suppose, for example, a person is offered a job working in the service of this Chamber. That person is likely to find that the hours for which child care has been arranged bear little relation to the hours of work. It simply does not seem to me to make sense to expect people to arrange for child care before they know the situation for which they have to arrange that child care. That is a simple and plain matter of practicality.
If it is once accepted that child care has to be arranged after an offer of employment, it seems to me that two weeks is by no means an excessive amount of time in which to allow people to look for it. After all, the care of one's child is something that we should like to see done properly. One does not wish to take on someone casually simply because they can solve an immediate problem. One wants someone who will look after the child concerned. It means that one needs to know a little about the person. That takes time. I hope that the Minister will consider this amendment with a degree of sympathy. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I should like to support this amendment, not least because of the totally inadequate amount of child care provision available. We are not talking about people who will hire a nanny—although that would take more than 24 hours. We are talking about people who have to try to find a place in a nursery. We know that the provision of places is so low—it is the lowest in Europe—that unless one is in the deprived categories, one will be extremely lucky if one gets one's baby in a nursery, let alone within 24 hours. It is totally unrealistic to think that people can find places for children in day nurseries in 24 hours.
394
If they have to put them into the highly paid nurseries—I have been involved on this subject only this evening—they may find themselves spending up to £100 a week. Therefore they have to be careful that they have a rather special job before they embark on such payment. It is quite unrealistic to think that one can arrange this within 24 hours.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to support this amendment following the debate that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, initiated in the Chamber yesterday on the question of working women in particular having to find a place for their children before work. Members of the Committee will remember that the childminding association is going to set up a panel of child minders. Employers will be able to use this childminding service as they did with meal vouchers. However, such arrangements will take time. In our debate yesterday—perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, will confirm this—we said that we hoped that the interests of the child were paramount when a woman goes out to work. It takes time not necessarily to find a good childminder, but to find the right one for that child.
Also, if one is trying to put a child into a playgroup or nursery, one nursery will suit one child and another nursery will suit another. Therefore in the interests of child care I support this amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: From these Benches I should like briefly to support the amendment. I shall not add to what has been said so ably in its support. We had a comprehensive and good debate yesterday on the question of child care. It was agreed on all sides that child care arrangements in this country are quite inadequate. There are not enough child minders. Those who are available are often not registered. Therefore the mother will have to make many inquiries to make sure that the childminder on offer can provide sufficiently appropriate facilities. There is a lack of local authority provision and there are only very few workplace nurseries available. I believe that according to a recent survey about 20 employers were providing workplace nurseries. Those that exist are mostly in the public services. Therefore anybody looking for child care will have to spend quite a bit of time to ensure that the child care is adequate and appropriate for the child. The amendment is therefore most sensible. I hope that the Minister will see his way to accepting it.
Lord Skelmersdale: This amendment makes a pleasant change. It is not about actively seeking work but about the existing provision, availability for work. As I said in one of my missives to noble Lords, replying to various points raised at Second Reading, unemployment benefit legislation currently recognises, in the form of Regulation 12 of the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Regulations 1983, that it is in prescribed circumstances reasonable to give unemployed people a period of grace in order to arrange their affairs and still be regarded as available for work. Thus, if someone is claiming unemployment benefit and at the same time providing a service—by which is usually meant undertaking some voluntary work

395
or looking after a child or sick members of the family—he or she can be deemed to be satisfying the availability condition if it would not be reasonable to require him or her to make himself or herself available at less than 24 hours' notice to take up a job or attend an interview, which is another part of the thinking behind the noble Earl's amendment.
This is a common sense easement of the availability for work rule which provides that otherwise people must, quite rightly, be available to take up work or attend an interview at once. This amendment extends that reasonable period of grace to 14 days. It proposes that it would be proper for a person who is claiming benefit on the basis of being unemployed to carry on receiving benefit even though he or she cannot take up an offer of employment for up to 14 days.
I must confess that this puts me in great difficulty. I remind the Committee that unemployment benefit is for people who are out of work and seeking a return to work. To extend the period of grace for this group to such an extent is tantamount to breaking their link with benefit on the basis of unemployment and giving them a different kind of benefit altogether.
I accept the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said she made yesterday in what I believe was a very successful debate. Unfortunately I was in and out of the Chamber like a yo-yo and have not yet had time, because of preparing for today's debate, to read that Hansard. I most assuredly will.
Giving these people a different kind of benefit might well be appropriate and could be investigated. Perhaps at another moment we should investigate exactly that suggestion, but I believe that to extend unemployment benefit in those circumstances would not be appropriate.
Baroness Turner of Camden: The noble Lord was kind enough to send me and a number of other Members of the Committee a whole list of items which he said would be likely to be contained in regulations. Is he saying that among what are the reasonable circumstances of a case having regard to relevant factors and a whole list of other matters is included voluntary work? Does that include looking after people at home, looking after children or whatever? Would voluntary work cover that? I am referring to the list that the noble Lord was kind enough to send.
Lord Skelmersdale: Voluntary work means work outside the home, but this is exactly the kind of question that I welcome because I have made it perfectly clear that the regulations, the barest bones of which I circulated, are matters for discussion. We have not yet written the regulations, let alone reached the point of debating them. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that point. I shall have to take this away to think about whether it would be an appropriate method.
Baroness Seear: May I suggest another matter that the noble Lord may be thinking about while he is
396
cogitating on this issue? Let me take an example. It is possible that a person approaches an employer for work. He has been drawing unemployment pay. He has children to find a place for. He says to the employer that he cannot start immediately and he agrees that he will start on Monday fortnight. As he knows that the job is there and that he has been offered and accepted the job but that the employer has agreed, as many employers would (especially if the person has a skill that the employer wanted) that he will not start until Monday week or Monday fortnight, will his unemployment benefit continue for that period?
Lord Skelmersdale: I have to come clean with the Committee and confess to the noble Baroness that I do not know the answer to that question. I shall therefore have to take advantage of referring to this matter, perhaps in a subsequent debate this evening, in order to satisfy her.
Earl Russell: May I thank the noble Lord—
Lord Skelmersdale: I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me. If it was a week's delay, unemployment benefit would continue, I am advised. I take it from that that if it was longer than a week unemployment benefit would not continue.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for the care that he has taken. He has given the Committee a dense reply containing many careful points. I am honestly uncertain about exactly how far I am satisfied with it. It has been a long day and bearing that in mind I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. I shall read the Minister's reply with care.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 10, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) In section 32 of the Social Security Act 1986, at end insert—
("(2B) Payments may also be made out of that fund in accordance with this Part of this Act of prescribed amounts to prescribed persons in prescribed circumstances to meet the reasonable expenses incurred in looking for work, starting work and travelling to work.".").
The noble Earl said: The amendment bears on the point that I recently made about the carrot and the stick. It is a poverty trap amendment and is designed to help people to get out of benefit and into work. But it is designed to do so by the carrot rather than by the stick. It deals with work-related expenses such as clothes, tools and so forth. They may be difficult to afford for people who have been unemployed and in receipt of benefit and who are perhaps extremely short of money.
With assistance it may be possible to afford such items in order to begin work and earn money, to pay taxes and benefit the Treasury and ultimately to become fully self-sufficient. It could be regarded as money well invested and a sensible use of money which will produce a decent and proper return to the satisfaction of all parties. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider it. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am afraid that I must tell the noble Earl that I do not believe that work-related expenses are suitable for payment from the social fund.
We make prescribed payments from the social fund only in very well-defined circumstances which are susceptible to definition in regulations. Hence payments are made, in prescribed circumstances, for funeral and maternity payments and payments during very cold weather. They are all health-related and it is possible to isolate them for good reasons. They are single identified items which are suitable for the making of regulations. Otherwise, social fund payments are subject only to the Secretary of State's directions and taking account of guidance made according to the discretion of the social fund officer from an allocated yearly budget.
I do not wish to enter the enormous argument about the allocated yearly budget which occurred in respect of last year's Bill. However, given that there is one, the amendment could give rise to enormous unfairness.
But, leaving aside the point about regulations, the noble Earl may wish to urge that provision should be made for work-related expenses from the social fund, perhaps even by way of a loan. Discussions took place between the two departments concerned. They resulted in confirmation of our previous view. It was that these expenses should be excluded from the social fund for the following reasons.
First, such payments would be inconsistent with the purposes of the social fund. They are neither linked, as I have explained, with definable events like birth, death and cold weather, nor do they flow from the purport of the discretionary elements of the social fund; in other words, to provide money in art emergency so as to avoid serious risk to health or safety (crisis loans), to help people on income support to budget for large items of expense, or to help people remain in, or return to, the community.
Secondly, there are other sources of help. It is reasonable to expect a good employer to help with the cost of tools or protective clothing, or to provide an advance of pay towards travelling expenses. Moreover, the current benefit arrangements by which income support is paid to the unemployed two weeks in arrears will normally provide a person with enough money to tide him over to his first pay day. The Department of Employment itself runs a "travel to interview" scheme.
I could adduce other reasons for resisting the amendment. However, I hope that I have said enough to convince the noble Earl that I believe that it is inappropriate in form and also in its policy intentions.
Earl Russell: Government departments seem to be as addicted to the notion of categories as Aristotle himself. There is nothing that seems to produce a greater resistance than something which asks the Government to think again about the categories under which information is classified. However, occasionally evidence turns up which genuinely demands a reassessment of categories. I believe that this is such a case. I believe that if this amendment
398
were accepted, it would be extremely useful. I wonder whether rigid insistence on what is, in effect, tidiness of the filing system is a good and sufficient reason for rejecting it.
I take the noble Lord's point about good employers; but of course not all employers are good any more than all employees are good. I do not believe that our concern to get people back to work and off benefit should be entirely confined to those who happen to come across particularly good employers. I must confess that I am disappointed by that reply.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Earl withdraws his amendment, I just make this additional point. The Minister said that a good employer may do this, that and the other. He may well do, although a great many would not. However, no good employer will help a man looking for work. That is the point of this amendment.
People who have been out of work for a long time who are in the shabby trousers brigade with their shoes worn out do not turn up at an interview looking their best. Many people who have reached that stage do not find it at all easy to turn themselves out in an even reasonably presentable way in order to go for a job. No employer will help them with that. This is something which really should be looked at again. It may be that it is across the other side of the divide and concerns the Department of Employment, but this question has arisen regarding people on employment training. It is something which is quite important to the long-term unemployed. Many of them have become extremely shabby, and much too shabby to make much of an impression at an interview.
Earl Russell: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Requalification for unemployment benefit]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 10, line 27, after ("weeks") insert ("at least six of which are").
The noble Earl said: I am sorry to be so constantly on my feet, but there is a great deal in this part of the Bill. The amendment arose originally from the anxieties of Equity, whose members of course are employed in a very irregular pattern as is inevitable from the nature of the situation.
What concerns us is that in the Bill as it stands, there may be a disincentive to accept casual work. You take work for a few weeks and the job stops. You then find that your right to unemployment benefit is at risk. Anything which creates a disincentive to work is something which this Committee should view with some concern. The matter has been discussed at considerable length in another place. The Minister has given certain cautious expressions of sympathy. In a few moments

399
I hope that we shall hear whether any result has come of those expressions.
Although this amendment originates from the anxieties of Equity, it raises a question relevant to those concerned in all sorts of casual work, and there are a great many sorts of casual work. I believe that it is not always satisfactory to be in casual work, but it is a great deal more satisfactory than to be in no work at all. I believe that anything which has the general effect of discouraging casual work will not only penalise potential claimants but may also have a quite significant distorting effect on the economy because there are a number of casual trades without which we should be very much poorer. I believe that it would be very unfortunate to discourage people from going into such trades. I hope that we may have a small degree of flexibility in this area. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I move Amendment No. 26 and that the two amendments be taken together.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am sure that if the noble Lord speaks to Amendment No. 26 that would be quite in order.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I gather that I should speak to the amendment rather than move it and that it can be moved formally later. I now recall that procedure.
I am sorry that it is necessary for me to speak at all at the tail end of what has been a long, tiring but not entirely unentertaining session in the course of which the Minister was neatly shot in the back of the neck by his own department. I hope that no such Chinese customs will be practised here in future. It certainly was not the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who committed the crime and she had no need to apologise to the Minister.
This is, to me, an important amendment and that is why I am sorry that it is being taken so late. It is important not only to me but to a large number of people. It has been the subject of an inverview with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary who courteously received a delegation from Equity and expressed his sympathy. Unhappily, that sympathy has not been translated into legislative effect, and everyone knows that sympathy from a Minister, unless it is written into a Bill, is not of much value. Therefore, one brings forward an amendment to see whether one can translate sympathy into practical effect; and that is why I regard this amendment as important.
Having read the debate in another place, tonight I must seek to establish two propositions. The first is to establish the uniqueness of the group for which I speak, which is in a separate special condition. Secondly, I have to establish that in order to meet that special condition, this amendment is necessary and I shall endeavour to do that as quickly as I can. As to the special nature of the group that I represent, I should say now that not all are members of Equity, with which I have a long-standing connection as some Members of the Committee will know. It
400
also affects members of the Association of Cinematographic, Television and Allied Technicians.
The special characteristic of this group is that it comprises the last remaining pool of casual labour. At one time not too long ago there were three such pools: dock workers, domestic workers and workers in entertainment. Labour was drawn from these pools and the essential characteristic of such pools was enunciated a century or so ago by Sir George Alexander, the celebrated actor-manager of the time. He said that the economics of the theatre are founded on the proposition that the actor is normally unemployed. That is profoundly true. It is even more true today, 100 years later, than when Sir George Alexander first said it. When one refers to the casting directory to cast an actor, the assumption made is that the actor is available. That is true in eight cases out of every 10. Therefore, eight out of 10 Equity members are normally unemployed, available for work and are seeking work. It is a phenomenal figure which is not replicated anywhere else. It is a normal figure which has existed for years and will continue to do so while casual labour remains in this unique category and area.
The Government are perhaps attempting to reintroduce casual labour into the docks; but they have not done so yet so the uniqueness of the group which I represent continues. Domestic employment of the upstairs-downstairs type has virtually disappeared in the usual sense so that we have this unique group in entertainment, and that is why the amendment is necessary. The Minister seemed to take the point and to understand it. But, as I said, it has not been translated into legislation and hence this amendment.
The problem is that the group concerned—not only actors but singers, dancers, stage managers, walk-ons, theatre designers, choreographers, continuity announcers, professional broadcasters, stuntmen and ice skaters—is in the wrong category of casual labour. The vast majority of those members pay class one national insurance and they claim unemployment benefit when they are out of work.
If the Bill is left unamended this group will suffer much greater hardship over any other group as regards requalification for unemployment benefit. It is not because of the artistic nature of the employment but because of its economic nature. That is the point that I am seeking to make. The majority of Equity members' contracts are of much shorter duration than they were 100 years ago. The touring theatre has disappeared. The duration of stage employment has shortened. Now it is of one or two days' duration and there is fill-in work such as making videos, training films and producing voice-overs. Actors rely on such bread and butter work between more substantial employment.
But this work does not qualify and it is not regarded as requalification work. It is not long enough because it is not 16 hours. It may take one day for a commercial but it is short of the 16 hours needed for a week to count towards requalification. The problem cannot be got over that way by a series of short engagements. It is very rare to have a long contract and there are now only two areas where

401
that can be found. One relates to the National Theatre and the other to the Royal Shakespeare Theatre. There you can get a year's work at a time but nowhere else. In other situations the actor is working for the run of the play, which may be long or short.
I believe it is fair to say that most of the short-term employment today is found in television, films, radio, video work and commercials. These contracts are all of extremely short duration. Even the majority working on a BBC drama production will be employed on a one-week contract so that does not help a great deal in terms of requalification. That is precisely why it is necessary to have a year in order to requalify rather than the six months that is at present provided. Without that period there will be a position in which either people will suffer very considerable hardship or they will be driven out of acting altogether. You might say that perhaps there are too many actors already and that this would be no great disaster.
I venture to suggest that that is not true because the quality of our acting is extremely high. It is possibly one of the few areas in which we enjoy a uniquely high reputation in the world. The quality of our performance and acting would be severely damaged if more and more people found themselves unable to remain in this pool of unemployment because they can no longer draw unemployment benefit. That has been the custom in the past during the period in which they were, by the very nature of their employment, out of work. People have never liked to talk about it as being out of work, but as "resting" and so forth. It is not resting, but very hard work.
It is generally agreed that Equity members work very hard trying to get employment while they are out of work. They go for auditions and engagements, spending a great deal of time doing this kind of activity. Therefore, they have not got time to do anything else. If they are forced to accept other employment they cannot remain in the business; they are driven out of it. It is important that this amendment should be taken seriously.
I have made the first point and I can be fairly brief about the second. If this amendment is not carried, the national insurance contributions have to be satisfied as well as satisfying the 13-week rule, before requalification for benefit takes place. Equity members often pay high national insurance contributions on very short contracts. For example, a one-day commercial will attract a substantial class one deduction without helping at all towards satisfying the 13-week rule.
There is the very high national insurance contribution without any benefit arising in regard to the 13-week rule. Members may receive a repeat fee payment. That will not qualify in regard to the 13-week rule. It would be extremely difficult for the majority of actors and other performers to obtain a string of contracts adding up to 13 weeks, 16 hours a week, within a 26-week period. Amending this period to 52 weeks would allow for much greater flexibility, would relieve hardship and would do no
402
damage anywhere else. I hope that the Committee will agree to carry the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I rise not to speak to the amendment but to comment on something said by the noble Lord. His reference to shooting in the back of the neck as being a Chinese custom was flippant and in thoroughly bad taste. To use it in relation to this debate was absurd and wholly inappropriate. I should like to think that the noble Lord would see fit to withdraw his comments.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: As the noble Baroness evidently cannot take a joke, I am happy to withdraw it.
Baroness Blatch: The joke was a very sick one.
Lord Skelmersdale: Unemployment benefit is intended to provide a measure of compensation to people who experience short, intermittent periods of unemployment between jobs. Those unemployed for longer periods are eligible to claim income support. This is a more flexible benefit which has no duration limit.
Anyone who qualifies for unemployment benefit can draw it for 312 individual days before his title runs out. To come back into title he has to show that he has taken up work again and done at least 13 weeks' work of 16 hours or more since title to benefit ran out. We see the purpose of this requalification test as being to show that a claimant is clearly back in the field for employment. The present test is too loose to do this realistically. Consequently Clause 11 proposes that, other than in certain special circumstances, the 13 weeks of work should fall in the 26 weeks immediately preceding a new claim.
The first amendment and to an extent the second one would undermine the purpose of the changes in this clause and would in almost all cases leave the position of individuals virtually the same as at present. We have already heard the argument that the clause is therefore unnecessary. Perhaps I can turn it back on noble Lords opposite. They should bear in mind that we are dealing here with someone who has already received 312 days of unemployment benefit. The Government consider that a recent clear return to employment is appropriate if such a person is to receive benefit for a further 312 days. We intend that regulations will enable the 26-week period to be extended by up to 52 weeks to take account of weeks where the claimant was unable to work because of sickness or maternity or where he was undertaking employment training or caring for an invalid.
I recognise that there are groups—the noble Lord spoke at length about members of the acting profession—for whom it has been argued that special treatment is necessary. I do not share that view. Although some of the work such people can obtain in their own line is characterisitically short-period contracts of no more than one day at a time—the point made by the noble Lord—I am not convinced that this should enable them to requalify for benefit on more favourable terms than other people. The basic principle, demonstrating a clear and recent return to employment, would be much diluted if

403
special arrangements were made which enabled them to achieve the necessary 13 weeks' work over a longer period. I appreciate that I could say a good deal more. However, at this late hour I do not think that it would be appropriate.
Lord Carter: Although I had not intended to speak in connection with this amendment, perhaps I may put one question to the Minister before he sits down. It occurs to me that the problem could also apply to gang workers in agriculture. They often have to take casual work for short periods of time. Have the Government given any thought to that problem?
Lord Skelmersdale: My attitude would be the same as it was in regard to the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. I should perhaps repeat what I said only a few minutes ago. We are dealing here with someone who has already received 312 days of unemployment benefit. Therefore it is a rather different situation to that which both noble Lords envisaged when they asked their respective questions.
Earl Russell: I must apologise to the Minister for having been absent from the Chamber during part of his reply. That was due to circumstances beyond my control. I was, however, a little disappointed by what I heard of his speech. It seems again to be a matter of categories and also of principle.
I am reminded of a Cornish village carpenter who, having examined the roof of a building, shook his head and said very sadly, "Oom! One of the principals is rotten 'm." I think that a principle which has the effect of discouraging people from actively seeking work is one which sits a little uneasily with the basic thrust of the part of the Bill which we have just been discussing.
Nevertheless, this is not the time, and nor are the circumstances right, for me to press the matter to a Division. I also think that it would be highly improper for me to do so when I missed a significant part of the Minister's reply. Having missed it, the very least I can do is to afford him the courtesy of reading what he said. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 10, line 28, leave out ("26") and insert ("52").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move. As I have already spoken to this amendment—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe): As the noble Lord has already spoken to this amendment, it is quite sufficient for him to move it formally.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: That is true, but, unfortunately, I have some further remarks to make in this connection. I think it most important that such remarks should be made, as I wish to elicit from the Minister what is his attitude to the present situation. However, before I begin, perhaps I should
404
say that I should be most content if the Committee were to rise after this amendment has been dealt with and before we consider Clause 12. If that process were to be agreed, I should be most happy with the solution. I see that the channels of communication are in agreement on the matter. Therefore we know that this is likely to be one of the last speeches made in regard to this section of the Bill.
I shall endeavour not to make my speech too long, but there is an important point that I wish to raise with the Minister. Therefore, if Members of the Committee will bear with me for a few minutes, I should like to establish that point. I refer to Clause 11 (2B), which states:
"Subsection (2) above shall have effect in prescribed cases with the substitution for the reference to 26 weeks of a reference to such longer period as may be prescribed".
What is the meaning of this provision?
We are seeking, by way of this amendment, to establish a period longer than 26 weeks. Does the provision mean anything at all? Is it the intention of the department that there shall be, under certain circumstances, a period of 52 weeks; a period shorter than that; or, perhaps, a longer period?
What is the purpose of the clause? If it means nothing at all, why has it been included? On the other hand, if it does mean that under certain circumstances 26 weeks can in fact mean more than that peiod, or even up to 52 weeks, then perhaps we really have something here. If the Minister will only say what it is, or if he can at least undertake to say to me, or to Members of the Committee generally, what it is, then it may be that we can put off the final decision tonight and return to the matter, if necessary, on another occasion. Perhaps he will be good enough to clarify the situation, in which case it may be possible for me to withdraw the amendment. Without such clarification, I do not believe that I can.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I gather that the amendment has been moved, and it has been called that it has been moved. The Committee is clearly becoming tired at this late hour.
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Skelmersdale: Some Members of the Committee are, because I thought that I had already dealt with that point in my previous reply. All I can usefully do to help the Committee is to repeat what I have already said. The 26-week period can be extended in certain special circumstances. We shall specify only those circumstances in the regulations for which Clause 11 provides power. It will be helpful if I again explain that we intend that the regulations will enable the 26-week period to be extended by up to 52 weeks to take account of weeks when the claimant was unable to work because of sickness or maternity or when he was undertaking employment training or caring for an invalid. The 26-week or six-month period could thus, in the individual case, become 18 months in circumstances where the claimant was for certain periods prevented from

405
working. I hope that that explanation helps the noble Lord.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I am afraid that that does not meet my requirements. Late though it is, I am afraid that I have no alternative but to press the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Lord Henley: Perhaps this would be a convenient moment at which to adjourn discussion in Committee. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Hythe Marina Village (Southampton) Wavescreen Bill
The Queen's consent signified and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
International Westminster Bank Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

United Medical and Dental Schools Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before eleven o'clock.