Social Security Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1989

HL Deb 22 May 1989 vol 508 cc80-7

7.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, listening to the end of that short debate I cannot forbear misquoting Fitzgerald and saying to your Lordships:

"Awake! for Morning in the Bowl of Night

Has cast the Ball that puts the Stars to Flight".

Having said that, I beg to move that the Social Security Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1989 be approved. The main purpose of this instrument is to revoke two provisions in the Social Security (Benefit) (Married Women and Widows Special Provisions) Regulations 1974 which we have been advised are contrary to the European Community directive 79/7 on the equal treatment of men and women. These are Regulation 2 and Regulation 8.

At present the measures contained in Regulation 2 of these regulations provide credits in certain cases to women whose marriages have ended, either by widowhood or divorce, to assist them to obtain short-term national insurance benefits. I should emphasise that these credits are awarded only for the purposes of a particular claim and not to affect a woman's pension position. These particular claims are sickness benefit, maternity allowance and unemployment benefit.

It is because these credits are available only to women and not to men who may be in precisely the same situation that they are discriminatory. This change will affect only a small number of women and the number is decreasing as more married women are working and can claim benefit on the basis of their own contributions record. We are also revoking Regulation 3(10), which refers again to Regulation 2.

Those women who are already benefiting from Regulation 2 will continue to be able to benefit from it under the traditional provisions contained in this instrument. These provide the same degree of cover as the transitional arrangements which apply to the recent change in contribution conditions. This means that no continuing claim will experience a change in benefit before 1st October 1989.

Regulation 8, which is also to be revoked, requires adjudication officers to take account of the special circumstances which can apply to married women when considering whether a woman has left a job voluntarily. This does not apply to men and is therefore discriminatory. Additionally, this regulation is now redundant because the more recent adjudication regulations require that all relevant factors are considered in every case.

The other provisions in these regulations are good housekeeping measures; for example, the basis for calculating earnings factors, on which entitlement to contributory benefits is based, was changed from April 1988: earnings factors are now derived from earnings on which contributions have been paid rather than on the contributions themselves. The regulations before the House amend the Married Women and Widows Special Provisions Regulations to reflect the current practice. Calculations for years before April 1988 will continue to be made on the old basis.

Another change concerns the treatment of posted benefit claims and notices of retirement. These are now treated as being made, or given, on the date on which they arrive in one of the Department's local offices rather than the date on which they were posted. These regulations amend the Widow's Benefit and Retirement Pensions Regulations to bring the treatment of posted notices of de-retirement into line. To complete this package of good housekeeping measures, the regulations also make a number of purely technical changes such as the repeal of regulations that are now redundant.

I am sure that we will all appreciate the need for these changes, despite the fact that they are only minor ones. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the House.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Skelmersdale.)

7.45 p.m.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the Minister who has tried to make clearer the unclarifiable regulations that are before the House this evening. I wish to ask him why these changes have been made at all. Is this just a mandate from Brussels? I am sure that the Prime Minister would not approve of that. It is very difficult to understand why the regulations have been brought before the House in this form.

I would be the first to assure the Minister that we want equality of treatment between men and women. Certain parts of the regulations, particularly Regulation 2, would not be opposed by us if only we could obtain more information about the effects. I have before me the record of the Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments which met on Wednesday, 17th May. It was stated in that committee that this change would affect only a small number of women. How small is "small"? If the Government are changing the regulations so that a small number of women are disadvantaged, I think the women who are affected may wish to know whether they constitute a small number. It seems to me totally irresponsible to bring in a change which will affect an unknown number of women.

There is also the matter of the treatment of posted benefit claims and notices of retirement. If those documents arrive in one of the department's local offices on a certain date, we should know how that will affect the commencing date of benefits. I also understand from previous debates that the Minister feels that one reason for the change is the need for equality of European regulations on discrimination. As I have already said, we are concerned that discrimination between men and women should be abolished. But surely the answer is not to level down the benefits but to level them up. That does not seem to me to be the case as regards these regulations. Every year there will be consequential regulations. The original regulations state that: the fact that a woman may obtain employment for the first time where a marriage has been terminated by death or dissolution will be taken into consideration. We want to be assured that if a man finds himself in the same circumstances, his benefits will not be reduced down to the level of the woman's existing benefits but that her benefits will be uprated.

I must ask another question as we are worried about unemployment benefit. Apparently, that protection ceases on 1st October. I hope that the Minister can tell us whether it ceases on 1st October or whether it continues, as would be logical, until the end of the 52 weeks of unemployment entitlement. If it continues for 17 weeks only, that seems unnecessary and rather mean. I shall try to put this matter more clearly, although there is nothing less clear than these regulations. If a married woman leaves a job voluntarily for any domestic reason arising from her responsibilities as a wife and mother, can those facts be taken into account in deciding whether she has a just cause to leave the job voluntarily? I thought that the existing regulations were civilised and that there was nothing much wrong with them. I and many of my noble friends are worried as regards whether these changes will be helpful and kindly.

I apologise if I have misread anything in the regulations. However, the Government appear to be reducing the possibility of benefit for people who are affected by divorce or widowhood and who should receive the maximum level of benefit. We all agree with the intention of bringing men and women more closely into line as regards benefit. But it appears that that will result in a reduction rather than an increase in benefit.

I hope that the Minister can give us some advice on these matters. I hope especially that he can tell us what the Government mean when they say that only a small number of women will be affected. If he does not know what that figure constitutes, I am not sure that the regulations should be accepted. I feel that the word "small" is a useless enumeration as regards the people affected. Further, it is no comfort to a woman who is disadvantaged to be told that she only constitutes one of a small number of people who are so affected. I do not feel one of a small number. I do not think any individual woman who is disadvantaged by these regulations will accept that, because she constitutes one of a small number, she does not matter.

There are all kinds of problems regarding women who give up work to nurse husbands who may be terminally ill or who have to give up work because their children become seriously ill. There are also women who follow the Prime Minister's incantation about looking after the family, and the duty of women to look after their children. I find nothing in the changes in these regulations which will carry out those obligations.

I believe that these Social Security Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1989 are a waste of time because I cannot see any benefit to anyone resulting from them, except to the people in Brussels who insisted that the department here put them on the statute book.

7.50 p.m.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for the grace and lucidity with which he explained regulations which were described by the Minister in another place as being of a somewhat impenetrable nature.

I am just beginning to learn to cope with the methods of legislation used by the Department of Social Security. I find them peculiarly difficult to follow. I think that I am beginning to learn why. It is because legislation is fitted in a crossword puzzle style into previous existing Acts—notably those of 1975 and 1986. So our regulations fit into slots like "2 down" and "5 across". I can see that it is quite difficult to avoid this, but it puts some pressure on the Explanatory Memorandum, and the Explanatory Memorandum in these regulations is one of the aspects that I find a little defective.

There are several minor matters here. I am delighted to note that the Government have noticed the decline in the quality of the postal service—I hope that that may lead to some improvement. I am also glad to see that they are still endeavouring to clear up the confusion about earnings factors which, if I understand it correctly, arose from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his 1985 Budget altering national insurance rates without telling the Department of Health and Social Security, as it then was. I quite see why that had to be, but it raises the point that there are some constitutional problems following from our convention of Budget secrecy. I can only say that I hope that they have got it right this time.

The major matter of these orders is the matter of equal treatment between men and women. It is a case where the Government are once again suffering from what used to be known in the Ministry of Agriculture as "Brusselosis". We on these Benches are perfectly happy with the Brussels Directive. It asks for equality between men and women, which is a cause to which I hope no noble Lord has any objection. But, like the noble Baroness, we have some concern about the levelling downward involved in the implementation of this order.

The loss of entitlement for women whose marriages have ended leaves me with some doubt as to whether it will be cost effective. That is not the best moment in a person's life to suffer a loss of benefit. The loss of benefit in turn may have other consequences. It is, for example, a time in people's lives when they very often become homeless, indeed where, in the nature of the case, they are extremely liable to become homeless. It is also a time when they may be unusually liable to become ill. So I wonder whether the saving to public funds arising in one department may be offset by increased expenditure arising in another.

That is a question which I warn the Minister I shall ask on many other occasions. Are the Government sufficiently aware of the effect of the policies they are following in one department upon business in another department, or is the Minister simply shovelling the mess on to the plate of his noble friend the Earl of Caithness?

There is also the question of leaving a job voluntarily. We are told that the old regulation is now no longer necessary because the adjudication officer can consider all relevant matters, or, as it was expressed in another place, he will not be excluded from considering them. I think that we are all familiar with the amendment that proposes to delete the word "may" and substitute the word "shall". It seems to me that this is a case where it may have been much needed.

I speak, and I am proud to do so, as a member of a family that has a long record of championship of women's rights, going back to the days when my grandfather supported J. S. Mill's amendment to delete the word "males" from the second Reform Bill. Though I am proud of the fact, I am also aware, and feel the need mildly to assert from time to time, that there are such things as men's rights. As we get a more fluid pattern of relationship I think that we should regard it as legitimate that the man may, if he wishes, choose to act as househusband while his wife chooses to earn the family living. If that suits couples I do not see why they should be penalised for doing so.

The Minister, in another place, said that it was: perverse … to give a special right to men who had no recent connection with the job market to qualify for unemployment benefit".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, 17/5/89, cols. 7–8.] I am not convinced by that. It seems to me that a man who has been looking after a house and children should acquire just the same rights as a woman does. In the name of equality I cannot see why Her Majesty's Government should dissent from that.

We have the same problem over the question of leaving a job voluntarily. There is a case very well known to me in which the man left his job because his wife was offered a very high promotion in another part of the country which she badly wished to accept. I think that it would be sexist of us to deplore that sort of thing happening and it would be sexist of us, and contrary to the spirit if not the letter of the directive, to use our social security regulations to penalise people in such circumstances.

I am also a little concerned that we are given the cost of administration as one of the reasons for these changes. This seems to me to be part of the continual drive to reduce the numbers of the Civil Service. The numbers of the Civil Service have been increasing steadily ever since the days when Alfred, King of Wessex, began the defence and education budgets. An attempt to put that trend into reverse seems to me to savour of Queen Canute, and I do not think that it will be any more successful.

7.57 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I rather thought that Canute was male, but let it be.

I am grateful to both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl for responding, in somewhat mystified fashion, to these regulations. The first question which the noble Baroness addressed to me was; why bother, why are there regulations at all? She referred specifically to Regulation 2, which is the equal treatment part of these regulations. She asked whether it is a directive from Brussels. No, it is a by-product of the existing equal treatment directive. It is not a matter of equalisation for equalisation's sake, so far as concerns social security.

However, as a result of that directive, where there is sexual inequality in any member state's provisions the member state is honour bound to correct that sexual inequality. That is not to say that we shall end up with exactly the same benefit here as in Germany or in Portugal—where I understand the noble Baroness has been recently, and where I hope that she enjoyed herself. Within the context of equal treatment each social security benefit has to be addressed on its own merits in accordance with member state's individual policies at that time.

I think that it would be useful to remember in connection with these regulations that we are talking only about women receiving credit from their ex-husbands' insurance contributions. Men have never had credits from their ex-wives' contributions. The reason for that is that, over a great many years, men have had their own insurance contributions record through employment. I think that that is as it should be.

The noble Baroness asked why we should not extend the provision to cover men; in other words, level up rather than level down. In many cases—by far and away the greatest number—men have appropriate insurance records of their own. There is therefore no need for such a change, which would affect only a very small number of men, mainly those without such records. There are other parts of the social security system to deal with them.

I can confirm to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it would be administratively expensive and represent a poor use of valuable resources. When I asked this morning, while I was being briefed for this short debate, what that meant, I was told that it was likely—although there is no proof of this matter—that it would cost more to administer than the amounts received in benefit by the prospective claimants.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, aided and abetted by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, almost suggested that this was a measure designed to produce cuts, but it certainly is not. As I explained, it is designed to comply with EC directives and to help simplify the social security system. The noble Baroness complained when it was said that only a small number of women would be affected. She wanted to know how small was "small". I can tell her that, because those credits are awarded on individual claims and are not recorded on central records, there is no record of, as it were, verifiable numbers. However, we are aware that only about 200 women benefit from those credits in a four-month period. It is therefore estimated that fewer than 300 women will be affected by the revocation of the credits under this order. It may be that some of the women affected by the measure will not regard themselves as being in a small minority, but, when one hears those extraordinary claims that one-third of the population is in poverty, 200 is probably a very small number.

I should add that this is not another erosion of unemployment benefit. It is, as I have said, a minor change affecting a very small number of women. If anything, it reinforces the purpose of the benefit and the contributory principle by removing an anomalous and discriminatory provision. For example, why should a recently divorced woman receive credits on her husband's insurance at all? I accept that widows are in a rather different position.

So far as concerns the abolition of special credits on termination of marriage—another point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger—those changes follow on from the changes in contribution conditions for short-term benefits introduced in October 1988. They were introduced for everyone else, but they were not introduced for the particular group of women of whom we are talking. For that reason, it is appropriate that the transitional period for the abolition of the regulation should expire on the same day as that for the main changes. For unemployment benefit purposes that will result in some women—fewer than 300—who are in receipt of unemployment benefit in October obtaining less than the maximum 312 days' benefit. That was another point raised by the noble Baroness. For sickness and invalidity benefits the benefit will continue in payment until there is a break in the claim. Any woman who loses unemployment benefit in October as a result of that change will be able to claim income support if her circumstances warrant it.

As I said, I am sympathetic towards widows. When I am asked about the changes made to the widows' benefit scheme during the last year—I am still confident about the adequacy of the benefits paid to widows—I should say that, "Wait until Thursday", would probably be an appropriate comment. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, strayed rather dramatically from the strict discussion of this order, but I shall remember what he said and perhaps return to some of the wider points on Thursday.

The noble Baroness asked whether credits for carers were affected by the changes. The answer is, no. They are awarded to those valuable people who give up work and receive invalid care allowance. Those credits are most emphatically not affected by these regulations.

Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, commented on the postal service. There have been some difficulties in the past, accepting that a letter really was written and posted. The only fair way of dealing with the matter is, therefore, to say that, once a letter has arrived in a social security office, it exists because there is proof of its existence. It has nothing to do with the rather lamentable postal service that we experience from time to time in this country. With those answers, I hope that I have covered all the points raised.

On Question, Motion agreed to.