Lords Sitting of 11 June 1990

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

Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Mrs. Patricia Lesley Hollis, having been created Baroness Hollis of Heigham, of Heigham in the City of Norwich, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Wallace of Coslany and the Lord Ennals.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
2.46 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that arrangements have been made for me to visit the courts at Reading on Friday, 15th June. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Friday, 15th June.

Manchester Prison: Riot Charges
2.47 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many prosecutions have been initiated so far in respect of criminal acts committed during the recent disturbance at HM Prison Manchester.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, three people have so far been charged under the Public Order Act 1986 with the serious offence of riot as a result of the disturbances at Her Majesty's Prison Manchester. The Greater
2
Manchester police are continuing to pursue a major criminal investigation into the events.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that public opinion expects that after the appalling events at Strangeways those responsible will be brought speedily to justice? Can he give any indication as to when any prosecutions other than the three which he has mentioned will be initiated, given the fact that some weeks have now elapsed?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's concern. He will realise that there were 1,676 prisoners in Strangeways. All have to be interviewed, some of them two or three times. Over 500 prison staff also have to be interviewed. As I understand it, it is the intention of the prosecuting authorities to take decisions about individual cases only after collection of evidence is complete.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Minister say a little more about the matter? Have papers been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions? Is he being involved, or is the matter being dealt with locally?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the police are carrying out the investigations. When these are completed, they will submit the papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the matter will be taken from there.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, have the three cases to which the Deputy Leader of the House referred been before the director?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as I understand it, that is so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister give the House some information about the person who escaped and who, we understand, was responsible for some of the worst rioting at Strangeways during the disturbances? Under what circumstances did he escape, and what is the news about his possible recapture?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the escape of Alan Lord is a matter of grave concern. It is not yet clear how he escaped from an electronically controlled secure cell at Astley Bridge police station near Bolton. An investigation is already under way and will report to the Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police.

Riverside Health Authority: Patient Care
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many beds have been closed in the orthopaedic and gynaecological specialties in the Riverside Health Authority since 1st January 1990, and what effect these closures have had on standards of patient care and on staff morale in those specialties at the Westminster and Charing Cross hospitals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, since 1st January there has been no reduction in orthopaedic beds. However, the 44 elective orthopaedic beds provided at the Royal Masonic Hospital were reduced to 34 in November 1989. These beds have now been moved to the Westminster Hospital. There has also been a net reduction of nine gynaecology beds provided at the Westminster and Charing Cross hospitals. There has been no deterioration in the standard of patient care at the Westminster and Charing Cross hospitals and I understand that the staff involved have accepted the changes made.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is she aware that I am a resident in the Riverside health district and that I have attended two of the clinics at the Westminster Hospital? Is she further aware that it is worrying for patients to see the stress and pressure on the services? Does she realise that the medical students need people coming from outside the Riverside health district if they are to gain medical achievement and training?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the reorganisation of the beds which relate to Westminster Hospital was announced in April. On the whole, the arrangement is in the best interests of patients.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I was surprised to hear the Minister say that there would be no effect on patient care. Is she aware that the district manager, Mr. David Knowles, at the time of the announcement of the bed closures, said that the total effect on patients would be very significant indeed. No one could deny that its impact on London was traumatic in the extreme. At a time when there are bed closures in many parts of the country, is it at all surprising that the Secretary of State yesterday used the occasion of a television programme to argue his case for more funds for the National Health Service?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State always does his best to argue for more funds for the National Health Service. He has been very effective in doing so. The arrangements made for the transfer and reorganisation of specialties and beds within the Riverside district have been made with a view to providing the best possible results for patients.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it true that as the Minister said on 25th April, these bed closures will be reviewed on 31st March but that it is unlikely that they will be reopened?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the regional health authority has recently referred the matter to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It is now under consideration but a final decision has not been taken.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Westminster is a special case because of the many tourists and people who work in that district?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, Westminster is a special case for many reasons, including those mentioned by the noble Baroness. This factor is taken into account in making decisions.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, may I ask the Minister when a final decision will be made?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord may certainly ask that, but I am afraid that I am not able to give him an answer.

Inflation: OECD Rates
2.54 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the current rate of inflation compares with that in the other member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, on the basis of the headline RPI figure, United Kingdom inflation was 9·4 per cent. in April, compared with an average of 6·2 per cent. in other OECD countries in March.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the admission that we have the highest rate of inflation in the OECD. However, an even more dangerous opinion has been expressed by OECD economists that if Britain carries on with her current policy, there will be no likelihood of a reduction in inflation for quite a long time. Can the noble Lord comment on that assertion by OECD economists?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I would be the first to admit that the rate of inflation is high—far too high. We believe that our policies will bring it down and

5
we expect to see it coming down towards the latter half of this year.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a clear difference between the RPI and the rate of inflation? Does he further agree that the best measure of the rate of inflation is the GDP deflator? Is he in a position to state the figure for the United Kingdom compared with the corresponding figure for the OECD countries?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend that figure immediately. Although the United Kingdom rate of inflation is higher than that of our competitors, all reputable commentators agree that our measure of inflation is seriously out of line with the consumer price indices of nearly all other countries because of the inclusion of mortgage interest payments. That obviously has a perverse effect in that measures intended to reduce inflation push it up in the short term. Despite those distortions, we are determined to get inflation down, but we must take a realistic view of how high inflation is in relation to other countries. We feel that our measure of inflation at the moment distorts that comparison.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord understand that mortgage interest rates, which he says distort the RPI figure, are the result of the Government's own policy of having a single weapon against inflation—that is, interest rates? If the mortgage interest rate is so important, why do not the Government bring down interest rates?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I and my colleagues have said before on various occasions, interest rates will remain as high as necessary for as long as necessary in order to bring down inflation.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, for the less instructed among us, can my noble friend explain what the GDP deflator is?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it might be easier if my noble and learned friend asked his noble friend sitting beside him on the Benches.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is there any point in bandying statistics about unless they are all placed on a comparable basis? Is it not high time that the European Economic Community reached a common agreement as to what the published figures ought to be? Did the noble Lord notice the article in The Sunday Times yesterday stating that the current rate of increase in this country is 3 percentage points too high?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I saw the article in The Sunday Times yesterday. We welcome the IFS initiative of that newspaper which recognises the crucial weakness in the current definition of RPI. Regarding all the EC countries producing the same definition of RPI, I am sure that the Community will take up that point and note what the noble Earl said.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, when the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer specifically calculates the average figure for European Community inflation, does the noble Lord not agree that the United Kingdom is included in that average figure? Therefore does not the situation appear to be a little awry?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not quite follow what the noble Lord suggests. Obviously if my right honourable friend calculates the average for the entire European Community it includes this country. As the noble Lord is well aware, we are a member of the European Community.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if the United Kingdom were excluded, does the noble Lord agree that the European Community figure would average about 4 per cent. as against the 6·2 per cent. that the Chancellor alleges it is?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall not bandy statistics with the noble Lord. I said that the average for other OECD countries was 6·2 per cent. That obviously includes this country.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the deflator included in the Community figures and, if so, does it make the position better or worse?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I refer my noble friend back to my noble friend Lord Cockfield, who first raised the matter of the GDP deflator.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the sudden appearance in government answers to questions on inflation of the word "headline"? That is rather discouraging and makes one think that the Government do not know what they are talking about. Is it not the case that as regards the IMF the minimum figure that can be envisaged by G7 is 8·2 per cent. for 1990? Is the noble Lord further aware that as regards the Sunday Times article that has been referred to, although the country at large would welcome any decline in the rate of inflation, it would resent the Government resorting to the kind of statistical manipulation that has been adopted by the Department of Employment over the past four years?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord knows full well that the Department of Employment, or for that matter the entire Government, do not indulge in statistical manipulation. I said that the headline figure for RPI was 9·4 per cent. but that that had serious weaknesses. I referred to the Sunday Times article and welcomed that initiative. However, I could add that the initiative is not perfect. We do not have a perfect measure, and the 9·4 per cent. figure does not necessarily represent inflation as compared with that in other OECD or EC countries.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that high interest rates have now been in operation for more than 12 months? As retail sales continue to increase, will the noble Lord say whether the Government are at least giving

7
consideration to any other method of bringing inflation down?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously the Government consider all possible ways of bringing inflation down, but I can only repeat what I said earlier, which is that interest rates will remain as high as is necessary for as long as is necessary to win the battle against inflation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that recently the Institute of Economic Affairs conducted a poll among 1,000 economists who published a report condemning the Government's present economic policy particularly as regards deliberately creating high interest rates, higher mortgage rates and higher rents? Does not the Minister agree that 1,000 economists cannot be wrong and that the Institute of Economic Affairs is a responsible body? I hope he will agree that the findings of that report are a serious matter for all of us, including the Government.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will remember well a full page advertisement which I believe appeared in all the major newspapers and which was signed by some 365 economists. I believe that that advertisement appeared before the previous election or perhaps even a little earlier than that. All those economists were wrong and they were proved to be wrong.
Lord Elton: My Lords, would it be expanding statistics to point out that we have now used over 75 per cent. of the time that is normally allocated to Questions yet we have debated only 50 per cent. of the Questions on the Order Paper?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe my noble friend is wrong because we are on the third Question.

Education: Grant Maintained Schools
3.4 p.m.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made on grant maintained schools.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the first 18 grant maintained schools started in September 1989. By September 1990 there will be at least 41 in existence. Therefore the grant maintained sector will have more than doubled in size within one year.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. When applications are made for grant maintained status is the general attitude of local education authorities encouraging or obstructive?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we regret that some LEAs have certainly chosen in the past to be obstructive. I am sure noble Lords will agree that it is very much in the interests of all our children that
8
LEAs are co-operative in this matter. However, an increasing number of local education authorities are showing signs of being very much more co-operative. Indeed, the Secretary of State had a meeting only the other day with chairmen of education committees in the South East who declared wholehearted support for the principle of grant maintained status.
Baroness David: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that, if a local education authority's plans for reorganisation are totally put out if grant maintained status for a school is approved, that rather naturally means that it is not pleased? Does she realise that in the case of the Beechen Cliff School in Avon, to which the Secretary of State has just given permission for grant maintained status, 453 individuals and 17 school governing bodies, including many primary schools, objected? Is that not rather a lot of parents who want a different outcome? Does the Minister agree that after the Beechen Cliff decision, decisions for grant maintained status depend entirely on the caprice of the Secretary of State and nothing else?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that all factors are taken into account. They would include the views of people in the local community, of the schools, of the governors and of the parents. After those factors are taken into account, decisions are then made. Only this morning, for example, Highwood School had its application for grant maintained status rejected on the grounds that the application was believed to be damaging to provision in that area.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say what the average per capita expenditure is in the existing 18 grant maintained schools that have been established and how it compares with the average per capita expenditure in LEA county schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot be specific for each of those schools because the spending per pupil in each LEA differs between LEAs and between schools. However, I can promise that average and specific spending figures will be sent to the noble Baroness. Funding of grant maintained schools is carried out on precisely the same basis as for other schools within an LEA's control. The only difference is that grant maintained schools are allowed to spend a percentage of the moneys that would normally have been spent centrally, which is an average of 15 per cent. That additional money is often put to much better use when it is spent by a grant maintained school as an individual institution.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for offering to send me the figures that she is unable to give today. Although I accept that she cannot give precise figures today, does she accept that the average per capita expenditure in grant maintained schools is higher than in county schools and that that builds in inequities in the funding of the education of our secondary school pupils?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the figure is higher, that can only be due to the fact that the grant maintained schools spend an additional 15 per cent. of money that would normally be spent centrally. Therefore that says something about what is being spent centrally rather than on schools themselves. There is a criticism that too much money is being spent by local education authorities centrally and not w here it really matters, which is at the chalk face to benefit children.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that there is a great discrepancy here? It is false to attribute costs per pupil because in some areas more money is spent on administration than on teaching. There have been cases recently where teachers have been asked to leave while administrators have been recruited. That cannot be good for education.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is precisely the point I have just made. The grant maintained schools are putting that 15 per cent. of money which was previously spent on bureaucratic matters to better use. The money that is being held centrally is perhaps not reaching the areas that it should reach which is the schools.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister agree that all the money that is held centrally by LEAs has been approved by the Department of Education? Every local authority has to submit its plans for funding schools and the amount that is held back is approved by the Department of Education.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that there is an understanding between the government department and schools. However, many local education authorities are still withholding too much money centrally.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a place for grant maintained schools and they need encouragement and support? Does she further agree that they need not operate to the detriment of other schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. It is possible for grant maintained schools to work happily and constructively alongside other schools within local education authorities. The Government are enthusiastic about this policy and hope that local education authorities and grant maintained schools will work together in the interests of the children.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that grant-maintained schools do not contribute in the same way as many state schools to community activities such as school orchestras, regional and county orchestras and other cultural activities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I simply cannot agree. The evidence so far shows that grant-maintained schools are playing their full part within the community.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, if it is acceptable for the school to take from the local education authority the sum of money that would normally be spent centrally, would it not also be right for a local education authority to have the proportion of money that is spent nationally by the DES to spend on its local schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the money received by education authorities from national and local sources is considerable. If the noble Lord means that there is a case for reducing bureaucracy at both national and local level I have to agree with him.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Social Security Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Second Reading of the Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Bill will be taken.
South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit (No. 2) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Statutory Instruments: Joint Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Viscount Bridgeman be appointed a member of the Joint Committee in place of the Baroness Blatch.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Bill
3.11 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Uprating of child benefit
.—(1) In section 63(3) of the 1986 Act, at the end there shall be added the following paragraph—
"(c) mentioned in subsection (1)(f) above.".
(2) There shall be paid out of the National Insurance Fund into the Consolidated Fund, at such times and in such manner as the Treasury may direct, such sums as the Secretary of State may estimate to be the amount by which the amount of child benefit payable in the tax year 1991–92 and in each subsequent tax year exceeds the amount which would have been payable if the sums specified by virtue of section 5(1) of the Child Benefit Act 1975 had not been increased after 31st March 1991.
(3) The funds required for the making of payments under subsection (2) above shall be provided by means of child benefit contributions, payable to the Secretary of State by

11
employed and self-employed earners, of a prescribed percentage of—
(a) the earnings of employed earners in excess of the upper earnings limit specified under section 1 of the Pensions Act, and
(b) for any tax year, so much of the annual profits or gains referred to in subsection (1) of section 9 of the principal Act (as computed in accordance with Schedule 2 to that Act) as exceeds the upper limit specified in subsection (2) of that section.
(4) In this section, "employed earner", "self-employed earner" and "earnings" have the meanings given by section 2(1) and section 3(1) of the principal Act.
(5) Regulations may make provisions with respect to the computation, collection and recovery of child benefit contributions payable under subsection (3) above, including provision for the application or modification of provisions of the Income Tax Acts, and may make such other provisions as the Secretary of State may consider necessary with respect to those contributions.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not apologise for returning with this amendment to the centrally important question of the uprating of child benefit. The matter was discussed at Committee stage when a simple uprating measure introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, met with the usual Government response on the subject, which makes the average brick wall look like yielding jelly.
Before dealing with the amendment, which proposes a completely new way of dealing with the uprating of child benefit, perhaps I should remind the House of the main features of child benefit. It is a tax-free, non-means tested cash benefit of £7·25 per week which is paid for each child. It is universal, with a take-up rate of 98 per cent. It is paid to 6·7 million families in respect of some 12 million children at an annual cost of £4·5 billion. The level of the benefit has been frozen at £7·25 per week since 1987. If it had been fully uprated for inflation the benefit would now be of the order of £9 per week,
For the benefit of the House, I should point out in passing that the next Labour Government are committed to restoring the loss since 1987. Since I know that these things are looked at with some care in come quarters, I shall quote from the recent policy review document:
"In the first year of the Labour Government there will be a substantial increase, at least enough to make up the loss in value since the last election".
There has been a long tradition of all-party support, both in and out of government, for the principle of a universal child benefit from its introduction in 1975 unitl 1987, when the Government signalled a change of heart. They did so on the grounds, first, that most of the money will go to the better-off and, secondly, the poorest—those on family credit, for example, gain nothing because child benefit is deducted from their family credit.
To deal with the second objection first, that the increase in child benefit does not benefit the poorest families, the answer was given at Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who spoke with all the authority of a former Secretary of State for Social Services. He said (at col. 606 of Hansard for 21st May) in reply to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter:
12
"Perhaps I may take issue with my noble friend on one point. He stated that child benefit confers no advantage on the really poor. That would be true if the take-up of the means-tested benefits was anything approaching 100 per cent. It is certainly better than the old family income supplement, but nobody seeks to pretend that the family credit, or the one-parent family benefit, reaches anything like 100 per cent. of the families who are eligible. The advantage of child benefit, however, is that at least it goes automatically to all families".
The best estimate that we have at the moment is that at least 400,000 families who are eligible for family credit do not claim it. That represents some 800,000 or more children. Those families would benefit immediately from an increase in child benefit.
The new clause has two aims. The first is to require the Government to uprate child benefit from 1991 onwards in line with prices. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, at Committee stage, that does not create any additional burden on public funds; it simply prevents the Government from reducing the value and therefore the cost of child benefit by allowing it to be eroded by inflation year after year. The clause does not even require the Government to make good the losses that families have already suffered from the freezing of child benefit since 1987 and the failure of previous upratings to compensate for price increases.
The second aim of the clause is to overcome one of the objections that are invariably raised to any proposal to maintain or increase the value of child benefit; namely, that it involves the payment of money to people at the top of the income scale who do not need it. That objection is based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of child benefit, which is to provide a degree of horizontal equity between those with and without dependent children. That fact has led some people to suggest that child benefit should in some way be clawed back from the better-off families, either through a special tax or a means test.
This clause adopts a different approach, which is both simpler and fairer. It proposes that increases in child benefit should be paid for by the National Insurance Fund and for this purpose a special national insurance contribution should be levied on incomes above the present upper earnings limit of £350 a week. There would be no increase in employers' contributions; the additional contributions would come entirely from employees and the self-employed. The precise amount of the addition would depend on the rate of inflation, but it is estimated that the uprating in 1991 would require a contribution of 1 per cent. of earnings over £350 per week. For a two-child family the increase in child benefit would outweigh the additional contribution at all income levels up to and well over £350 a week. Over £500 a week the additional contributions would outweigh the benefit.
Raising the money in that way has two great advantages. First, it is extremely simple administratively, involving no special machinery and therefore no additional collection costs. Secondly, it spreads the cost over all earners rather than simply redistributing income from the better off to the worse-off families with children. That is how child benefit has been financed in the past. That

13
point was borne out by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, in his pamplet Rewards of Parenthood in which he wrote:
"The extra family credit for poor families with dependent children and the extra for single parents is being provided not by the population at large but by other parents through the savings on child benefit".
The difference here is that the money would come from national insurance contributions instead of from taxation. Because national insurance contributions are not a tax the question of financial privilege does not arise.
Before I conclude perhaps I may deal with the question of financial privilege because I know that that consideration may have persuaded some of your Lordships not to support the amendment regarding the uprating of child benefit moved at Committee stage. We are advised that the amendment does not raise questions of financial privilege. Even if it did, perhaps I may remind the House of what our own Standing Orders say on this matter. The Companion to the Standing Orders says:
"Each House of Parliament is the guardian of its own privileges. It alone may invoke them. Until it does so, the other House is free to act as it thinks fit. It follows that, with regard to Commons financial privilege, the Lords may properly make amendments to Commons Bills which, when they come to be considered by the Commons, are deemed by them to infringe their financial privileges. It also follows that the Lords need not anticipate what view the Commons may take of any noble Lords amendments with respect to Commons' financial privilege".
I quote that because, when we debated the matter in Committee, the noble Lord the Leader of the House intervened to deal with the point. To be fair, I shall quote him exactly. He said:
"I make it absolutely clear that I do not—I repeat—I do not deny the right of the Committee to make this amendment if that is its wish. It would be up to another place to assert its financial privilege if it wished to do so. I suppose that, in that event, in about a month's time, I should he at the Dispatch Box arguing again that we should recognise the financial privilege of another place. At this moment I simply ask the Committee to consider whether it is sensible or necessary to risk going round that course again".—[Official Report, 12/5/90; col. 609.]
When I re-read that statement, I felt that it was a curious approach. The Leader of the House told the Committee, before the movers of the amendment had decided what to do with it and before the Committee and another place had expressed an opinion that he would come back on the assumption that the other place would plead financial privilege. I repeat that our Standing Orders say:
"It also follows that the Lords need not anticipate what view the Commons may take of any Lords amendments with respect to Commons' financial privilege".
I repeat it because I anticipate that the Government may well wish to use the argument. However, we are advised that, because there is no charge on the Consolidated Fund as a result of the amendment, it does not involve financial privilege.
The new clause meets all the objections which have been raised in the past to the uprating of child benefit. It is administratively simple; it adds nothing to public expenditure and it finances the proposed increase in child benefit in a way that is both efficient and equitable. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, recalled, we had a full debate in
14
Committee on the general question of the uprating of child benefit. In view of that and of the fact that at the end of the debate the noble Lord opposite withdrew his amendment, I believe that noble Lords will not particularly wish to discuss the merits of the uprating of child benefit at any great length this afternoon.
I wish simply to comment on one matter. The noble Lord referred to the argument which I used on the previous occasion that, whatever the merits of child benefit—and they are many—it has the disadvantage of not being a targeted benefit and that, as a result, a certain amount of the money concerned goes to people who are in no conceivable need of it—I think that the figure generally accepted was about one-fifth of the recipients—whereas, at the other end of the scale, it does no good at all.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding queried the completeness of that latter statement by pointing out very properly that some people did not take up the family benefit which was offset against child benefit. That is perfectly true. But, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and to my noble friend, I do not think that that concludes the matter.
If Parliament enacts certain social benefits and, for whatever reason, some people do not take advantage of them, I do not think that that is a conclusive argument for altering the structure of our benefit system. If, for whatever reason, people do not draw what they are entitled to, that is their decision. But the idea that we should alter the whole system and confer additional benefits on people who do not need them because some who do need them take steps to deprive themselves of them seems a reductive and absurd view of the matter.
I therefore remain of the view that although child benefit is an excellent benefit—it is the inheritor of the old family allowance for the administration of which I was at one time responsible—a much more difficult question arises over its entitlement to priority at this moment for an increase when set against all the other claims of which noble Lords are only too well aware.
It was noticeable that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, did not mention the total cost. I understand that it is between £250 million and £300 million a year. No doubt my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal will be able to give the exact figure: it is a substantial amount. That is the first point that we should have in mind. Is it a good thing to give priority to that substantial extent to a benefit which is not targeted and which has the disadvantages to which I referred over all the other claims with which noble Lords are extremely familiar?
We now come to the extremely ingenious device which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, used—I see him smiling in appreciation of his own cleverness, and he is fully entitled to do so—of putting the cost of the scheme on to the national insurance contribution. He is technically right in that contributions to national insurance are not taxation. It is not necessary, for example, in another place to adopt a money resolution, which is necessary in the case of taxation, in the case of increases in national insurance benefits.

15
That is all perfectly true. But the noble Lord attributes a certain degree of naivety to another place if he believes that a decision by this House to authorise additional public expenditure of the order of magnitude which I have already mentioned and to finance it from the national insurance contribution would be other than an intrusion upon the responsibilities and rights of another place.
It is a sad thing, particularly to me, that national insurance contributions have now become closely equated with taxation in some people's minds. In the older days of the scheme when people had a pension book and the contributions were paid separately, it was generally realised by all the beneficiaries and all the people in the scheme that they were getting good value for money. They contributed to a subsidised scheme which gave them pensions and other benefits. In recent years, with the collection by the Inland Revenue of the Class 1 and Class 4 contributions, that clarity of vision has been blurred. To the ordinary citizen who comes across it simply by way of the combined deduction from his pay of income tax and national insurance contribution, there is no clear distinction. I regret that. It has done the national insurance scheme no good. But it has happened, and we must deal with the situation as it stands.
However, my objection goes further. To use national insurance contributions to finance a benefit of this kind is an abuse of the national insurance scheme. As its name indicates, the essence of national insurance is that you pay a contribution for a benefit and that, if you do not pay the contribution, you do not receive the benefit. That is true of the retirement pension, which is the major national insurance benefit, and of the other benefits, whereas the social provision we are discussing here—the provision for child benefit—is nothing to do with contributions. It is a thing given as of right by the Government at the expense of the taxpayer.
I suggest that to use an increase in national insurance contributions for a purpose which has absolutely nothing to do with national insurance and for a benefit which does not depend upon the payment of contributions is an abuse of the scheme and in principle highly reprehensible. Therefore, in attempting very ingeniously to deal with the objections raised at Committee stage to the financing of this scheme out of taxation, the noble Lord has made his case worse. He has added a device which it seems to me the Commons would clearly find unacceptable. Even if it found it acceptable, it would seem to many of those who have been concerned with social security and national insurance benefits for many years to be a deliberate violation of the principles of the scheme.
To ask people to contribute in the guise of a national insurance contribution to financing a social benefit with has nothing to do with national insurance is to make a nonsense of our social security system. Even if the case for an increase in child benefit were stronger than I believe it to be, I should be against this amendment for that reason. Those who are concerned with our social security system and with our national insurance system will find it
16
an extremely sad and damaging proposal. I hope very much indeed that the House will not accept the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I intend to follow the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that we should not rehearse all the arguments which were put forward previously, even if I do not follow his practice, because he seems to have rehearsed a great many of them. I should merely like to say that I strongly support the new amendment for the old reasons. Child benefit is an extremely valuable benefit. It was put in when the tax concession to people with children was removed, and therefore to fail to implement this measure is to go back on what was then decided: that people with higher incomes but with family responsibilities should get some relief. It is support for the idea of a horizontal distribution in favour of those who have the responsibility of bringing up children compared with those who do not. That is a principle which it is extremely important to maintain.
I should also like to pick up the objection of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that it does not do anything for the people who are most badly off. He made the point that many people do not receive their income support or family payment. If the noble Lord's concern is that the most badly off should receive benefit, surely he ought to favour a payment which ensures that they will get it rather than stand for a payment which, as he himself admits, a great many of them do not take. We do not know why they do not understand what it is all about. Many members of the general public, in particular the least well off, are confused about the complicated system of benefits and simply do not claim them.
We know that child benefit is very well taken up. If there is concern about the take up, the noble Lord should favour child benefit rather than oppose it on the ground that there is already income benefit available. Those are reasons that we went into in considerable detail on the last occasion. I not only confirm support for the measure but I favour the way in which it is to be financed, or rather a way in which more money can be raised which reduces the additional cost that improving child benefit along the lines proposed would involve.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene. How does she argue that it reduces the total cost? It merely transfers the finding of part of the money from one form of public revenue to another. It does not reduce the cost by a penny.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it reduces the cost through taxation. The noble Lord made what was to me an extraordinary argument. I understand his devotion to a scheme for which he was responsible for a long time. But he cannot maintain that the national insurance scheme has been in any actuarial sense an insurance scheme. Almost from the time when it was introduced, as Lord Beveridge pointed out years ago, it was broken down by the introduction of pensions at the level at which they

17
were introduced long before anybody through the national insurance scheme had built up an actuarial claim to pensions on the level at which they were paid. That being so, to maintain that this proposal destroys the purity of the insurance principle behind the national insurance scheme seems quite extraordinary.
As the noble Lord must know, what we have in reality is in effect a combined tax of national insurance and income tax. That is what it is. But it is a most extraordinary form of income tax because there is a blip in the payment in which there is a marginal reduction in the amount that is paid by combined national insurance and income tax at the level above £350 a week. That is a most extraordinary principle on which to introduce any kind of tax which at a certain level is reduced as the income goes up. If one puts the national insurance contribution and income tax together, that is the result.
This proposal seems to me to be not only a useful way of raising a little money but also a timely way of correcting what is an extraordinary anomaly in our present system. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I very much regret that I was not able to be present at the Committee stage of the Bill when this matter was debated on an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm. However, I read the Official Report with grew interest.
As I understand the purpose of this highly technical amendment, it is the same in principle as that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm; namely, to uprate child benefit each year in line with the movement of the retail prices index except that the cost to be met in this case of a new child benefit contribution would be paid for through national insurance contributions by certain people. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter properly said, this is not the time to repeat a long debate about the principle of child benefit.
I should like to mention two matters. First, I have no difficulty in accepting the principle that it is right that the benefit should not be paid to everyone regardless of income, and I can see why the Government have made that point. Nor indeed, for that very reason, do I support the policy that has been put forward briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on behalf of the Labour Party of simply uprating child benefit in line with the retail prices index from 1987. I should like to say to my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal that, that having been said, there are many people in the country as a whole who are quite seriously concerned about the present position and its effects.
I make two points. The first, which came out during our debate at Committee stage, is that whether we like it or not the combined effect of the tax and benefit system is to help those couples without children rather more than to help those with children. It seems to me that the tax and benefit system ought to be neutral vis-à-vis couples with children or couples without children. Therefore I believe that it is having an undesirable effect.
18
My second very important point is that I believe that we tend to forget the pattern of women's lives today. They all work. Shortly before the birth of their first child they give up their job. They lose income at the very moment when family expenditure rises considerably. Therefore there is a need to look at these costs.
I hope that my noble friend and his colleagues will take a long, hard look at this situation and consider whether to look again at child allowances, family allowances, some alteration of child benefit or a mix of all three. This is a complex matter and I cannot possibly offer a suggestion. However, it is one that we need to look at in relation to its effect on the family. Although I do not support the amendment, I believe that it is a matter that we need to consider constructively.
I cannot accept the amendment because, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has properly pointed out, it seems to me to go entirely against the contributory system principle of a national insurance scheme: that is, one pays for a benefit that one will receive. In this case the people who will receive the benefit do not make the direct contribution. I understand that no government can accept an amendment that contains what I regard as a quite incorrect principle.
However, one matter did not emerge fully at Committee stage. I say this as a former Leader of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, was being somewhat disingenuous when he described how the amendment, were it to be passed, would be received by another place. Its effect is to commit the Government to between £250 million and £300 million of extra expenditure. Of course the noble Lord shakes his head; he refers to it as being a national insurance contribution. He is saying that we, the House of Lords, should propose an increase of national insurance contributions for certain people.
Your Lordships' House has a great many functions which it performs well. We have had such an example recently. As we all know, a great many amendments which are carried in your Lordships' House are accepted in another place. Some amendments carried in your Lordships' House against the Government are still accepted in another place. I know from my own experience as a Leader of this House that a great many amendments to legislation are made behind the scenes in order to meet points made in your Lordships' House. I regard all that as extremely valuable. But this amendment falls into another category.
Lord Carter: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may seek clarification of the noble Baroness. Does she agree with the sentence that I read from the Companion to the Standing Orders which states:
"It follow that … the Lords need not anticipate what view the Commons may take of any Lords amendments with respect to Commons financial privilege"?
However, as we have heard, this amendment does not involve financial privilege.
Baroness Young: My Lords, of course I accept what the noble Lord has read from the Companion to the Standing Orders. We all accept that. However, we have also to exercise judgment in public life about what it is wise to do. It is perfectly allowable for your Lordships to debate child benefit and quite proper to do so. Noble Lords should make quite clear what they believe about child benefit. But we are now on Report on the Social Security Bill. It seems to me that it would be very unwise for your Lordships' House to press the amendment this afternoon. Of course I cannot say what another place will decide. But if one tries to take an objective view it is unlikely that it would accept it. It would feel, as I do, that it is not the function of your Lordships' House to propose in legislation an increase of national insurance contributions. That is the effect of the amendment.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way?
Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps I may complete my argument. The amendment would have a counter effect on those functions which your Lordships' House does well.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, the noble Baroness has put forward a very interesting argument. But what about last week when this House rejected a very important Bill brought from another place? What we are now talking about surely pales before that.
Baroness Young: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, that situation was quite different. The issue was quite different. That Bill was not directly concerned with money. Before the noble Lord, Lord Carter, says that the amendment is not about tax, I recognise that we are arguing about an increase in national insurance contributions. I am quite clear on that point. Nonetheless it would be seen as concerning tax in another place. My firm advice would be for the Hosue of Lords to debate the matter. I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will not press the amendment. However, if they do, I hope, for those constitutional reasons, that the House will reject it.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I wish to advance two reasons why your Lordships' House should reject the amendment. The first has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and my noble friend Lady Young. It is the cost. If the noble Lord, Lord Carter, thinks that it will cost nothing he deceives himself. It has been suggested by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that such provision would cost between £250 and £300 million. I do not know the figure. I have no means of calculating it. It would obviously cost a substantial sum.
Perhaps I may look forward to the amendments that we have to consider today. We have a series of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Almost all would cost money. I have no idea how much they would cost if they were all added together. However, I hazard a guess that it might not
20
be in hundreds of millions of pounds but in billions of pounds or more. It is very easy and great fun for us to discuss spending someone else's money. If it is our own money it is a different matter. It is very nice to advance compelling, persuasive and heart-touching reasons why it is right to do this, that or the other if we do not have to pay more than a penny piece for it ourselves.
In this amendment, are we proposing something that we ought not to undertake as responsible citizens? I ask your Lordships to consider that when deciding on the amendment. I believe that we should not commit the public to spending a further £250 million or £300 million, whatever the figure may be.
The second point has also been referred to by both my noble friends. How will the cost be paid for? It is a clever argument about whether it is a tax or a national insurance contribution. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to it as being ingenious. It is ingenious. But we can see through that. I should like to quote the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I wrote them down. He stated that a contribution will be levied on certain incomes. He said that it would be 1 per cent. How will he explain that 1 per cent. to anyone who has to pay it? I think he will find it very difficult to explain the difference between putting income tax up by 1 per cent. and his idea. He knows perfectly well that what he is proposing will increase taxes by 1 per cent., whatever it is called. It is not our business to do so. Whether or not another place takes exception to it or invokes financial privilege does not matter.
By this amendment the noble Lord seeks to increase taxes by 1 per cent. I do not believe that it is our business to do so. I hope that the House will reject the amendment.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I have only one very short point to make. As other speakers have said, we have heard the arguments time and again on child benefit. However, in my view one point has not been made sufficiently clear. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, start from the wrong position. Child benefit was not an offshoot of the family allowance; it was a tax benefit. It was a straightforward transfer from the married man's child tax allowance to be paid to the woman. That makes the matter far more complicated. We dodge that factor. It is very easy to say that it is a benefit and eventually we can erode it until we cut it out, as with maternity benefit and funeral allowance. But child benefit did not originate in that way, That is the problem which has to be discussed. It was in effect a tax allowance. It was taken away from a married man because there were great arguments about men who did not give enough to their wives for the children's upkeep, and so on. It was voted upon, and agreed generally, that it would be better to make the payment to the wife and the tax allowances were adjusted accordingly.
None of the people who now say that the benefit should be taken away from those who do not need it then argued that those who were receiving it did not need it and that it should be abolished. I did not hear arguments from the other side of the Chamber to the effect that the tax allowance for people with

21
children should be abolished. It was never put forward and never could be. We transferred the tax relief, which was a good idea.
The problem must be addressed. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has done so on a number of occasions and is right in saying that an anomaly exists. However, we cannot now correct it by refusing to look at the background and by saying, "We can keep the benefit where it is, freeze it, reduce its value and eventually get rid of it. We shall then have killed two birds with one stone and saved money".
That is a dishonest way to deal with what was a tax allowance. We should be looking at a way of giving it back. No one has yet said that if we stop the payment to the mother we shall restore the married man's allowance. However, if the benefit is to be abolished and not paid to the mother it would be wise and fair to say that. It should be given back as a tax allowance. The Government are not saying that; they are saying, "Let us run it down and eventually get rid of it altogether".
A number of problems exist. My noble friend has made a good suggestion by saying that there is a way round the problem. It will give Parliament time to look further at the ramifications of the allowance and see whether it can produce anything more constructive. In the meantime, I shall support the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I live next door to a house in which the late Marquess of Crewe lived. In 1909 he led the Liberal Party in defence of Lloyd George's Budget which imposed a national insurance scheme upon the people of this country. The argument advanced by Lord Crewe was that we did not have the right to alter national insurance. Now I see in front of me the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, his lineal descendant, arguing that we should go against the principles of the 1909 Liberal Party policy on Lords' privilege—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that was 81 years ago. I cannot be held responsible for what Lord Crewe said before even I was born.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness is not 81 and I was not accusing her of being so. However, it is interesting to note that suddenly the Liberal Party is going back on the pre-1911 Act relating to the Lords mucking about with national insurance contributions.
By peradventure the Labour Party may win the next election. It has as one of the ideas the imposition of national health contributions above earnings of £350 per week. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Carter, shuddering with rage when a Conservative Party majority is whipped in to defeat that proposal. My noble friend Lord Belstead might argue that it has nothing to do with Commons privilege or tax but it is national insurance. I believe that the Government are wrong and that they are making a mistake in not uprating child benefit. However, we should be extremely stupid to muck about with it. We should restrict ourselves to matters we are good at and about which we argue well and are listened to, as opposed to small, technical arguments, important though they
22
may be, such as these financial matters. I shall unhesitatingly support my noble friend in the Lobby this evening.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, those of your Lordships with modestly long memories, although not going back quite as far as Mr. Lloyd George, will recall that during the lifetime of the late Labour Government an amendment was passed to the Finance Bill with strong support of the then Conservative Opposition, particularly in the form of Mr. Nigel Lawson. The amendment required the annual uprating of the income tax personal allowance, unless Parliament voted to the contrary, on the ground that not to do so was a fraud upon the taxpayer. Whether one looks at the child benefit as a replacement of the old income tax allowance or as a replacement of the old family allowance—in fact it was partly one and partly the other—the case for uprating it is a very strong case indeed.
Inflation is essentially a tax and one in a most vicious and objectionable form. We as a party have denounced inflation on many occasions, not only on economic grounds but also on moral grounds. It imposes a tax primarily upon those with fixed incomes and particularly upon the poorer members of society. If this or any government were to put forward a proposal to levy a special tax on mothers of young familes, I cannot think that many of your Lordships would support it, let alone the people of this country.
I must make my views on the issue absolutely clear because, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding said, I played a major part in the development of the ideas which finally took form in the child benefit. It was a case of the Labour Party stealing the Conservative Party's clothes. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter when he says that, however ingenious the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is, it is essentially a means of avoiding the mischief of the Commons financial privilege.
For the reasons explained in great detail by my noble friend the Leader of the House on the last occasion that we debated the issue, I do not believe that we should set out so to do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, reminded the House, there will be occasions when we shall wish to express a different view from that held in another place and to maintain that view. In my opinion, this is not such an occasion. For those reasons, and despite what I said at the beginning of my speech, if the amendment is carried to a Division I shall support the Government. I wanted my reasons for so doing to be known and on the record.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Young, I was not able to be present when the matter was discussed in Committee. However, I read with particular interest the speech to which my noble friend Lord Cockfield referred—that made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. He explained to the Committee exactly how it was that we have reached the position of having the rather strange arrangement whereby child benefit is paid tax-free to every mother. It is paid to

23
the mother who is the wealthiest in the land and to many of the poorest. However, for reasons which have been explained, many of the poorest receive no benefit from it.
Of course child benefit is popular. Who would turn down a tax-free sum of cash in the hand every week? The question is: is it right? The second question is: if it is right, should it be uprated annually? Those questions concern only part of the amendment.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding expressed the view—and I have heard it expressed by noble Lords on the Social and Liberal Democrat Benches—that with modern technology it should be possible to arrive at a combination of measures for a more sensible system of family support. My noble friend Lady Young indicated her view that we could arrive at a better tailored system. I should have thought that any responsible government or any responsible party aspiring to government would wish to be considering that. It sounds as if the Labour Party in its review is not considering that but is thinking about continuing the present inequitable arrangement and uprating it each year.
The most important aspect of this amendment is the new part; namely, that the cost of uprating shall not be paid by the taxpayer but through national insurance by every person earning over £350 per week. I do not know how much that would cost each earner. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that he thought that it would add 1 per cent. to the tax bill.
4 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the contribution would be 1 per cent. of all incomes over £350 per week. There is no charge to public funds.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, that having been said, year by year it would increase as the uprating increased. At first it would be 1 per cent. but would then increase and could end up as a considerable sum.
We have been reminded that 10 months ago your Lordships passed an amendment uprating benefit which was rejected by another place on grounds of financial privilege. There has been some discussion about the difference between national insurance and taxation. How can that portion of the amount paid in national insurance, which is passed on to the Consolidated Fund, be treated as national insurance? The National Insurance Fund is merely being used as a means of collecting money for straight taxation. I do not believe that the House of Commons will accept that although I know much less about these matters than many of your Lordships. I do not understand how this can be treated as national insurance. It is merely an increase in taxation.
Noble Lords opposite are saying that it is not an increase in public expenditure because it is an increase in national insurance. Purely and simply, it is an increase in taxation. It is an apparent increase of 1 per cent. from the pay of those earning over £350 per week. That is a very large increase, and it will grow each year as I see it. My noble friend the
24
Lord Privy Seal may deny that and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, may explain why that is not so. However, I do not understand the matter if that is not the case.
It seems to me that we do not fix increases or levels of taxation. We have no business talking about that. At this moment in the history of the House of Lords, it seems to me not only inappropriate but highly unwise even to look at this amendment. I hope that your Lordships will reject it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in a debate on a Bill on which I have not previously spoken. However, there are occasions when I believe it to be necessary to put on record that what goes on in the Chamber is of interest to those Members of your Lordships' House who are not taking part in the debate but who share the responsibility for the decisions taken. It is not always sufficient to put that on record merely by giving one's name to the Teller in one or other of the Division Lobbies.
The noise which has come from the Chamber on this occasion and which has brought me into it as a departure from my normal behaviour is not the rather surprising departure from the Labour Party's usual motto and standard which is, "to each according to his needs". It is the fact that it has been substituted by—I think I have the phrase correct—"a degree of horizontal equity between those with and those without dependent children". When I was looking after dependent children the only degree of horizontal equity of which I was aware was when they were in bed and I had my feet up. However, I believe that something else is meant on this occasion.
The first thing that catches the eye is the extent of the expenditure involved. I am not referring to taxation but to expenditure. That is not clearly quantified by the alliance of the two Front Bench speakers who have put their names to this amendment, nor, indeed, in the chain of subsequent amendments on the Marshalled List. Like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I can only assume that the amendment which we are now discussing will cost about £300 million, and like my noble friend Lord Colnbrook, I can only assume that the total cost of the shopping list now on the Marshalled List before your Lordships will be over £1,000 million. That is not small money and is not something which relates only to the policy of one department. We are now discussing figures which affect government policy as a whole and the management of the economy. I do not wish to go further than that in the presence of my noble friend Lord Cockfield. In his presence I am always remarkably silent when money is being discussed.
However, if this money were to be funded from a departmental Vote, another part of that departmental Vote would suffer because the money must be taken from it or the Vote of another department must be affected, or there must be a drawing on the contingency reserve if this is a new demand. If that were the case, then the Report Stage of a Bill, which is the responsibility of one department and affecting the policy only of that department, would be the wrong forum in which to

25
discuss the matter and, in my view, we should be out of order in doing so.
That is not the case. The proposal now before us contains within it a means of funding. That funding is not to be by taxation but by contributions. My noble friends in the Chamber have already pointed out that this measure may not be called taxation, but it feels like taxation, it costs like taxation, it is collected like taxation and it is spent like taxation. If it is not taxation, then it is the next best thing to it. A rose by any other name will smell as sweet and a tax by any other name will be as obnoxious.
It may be that the standing orders read out by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, permit us to proceed down this road and to dispose of very large amounts of public money by taking them out of the pockets of private citizens and putting them not into the Chancellor's pocket but, according to the words of the amendment, into the pocket of the Secretary of State. That may be the case, but to the common man it will be remakably like taxation. The other place is within its rights, simply by a Speaker's Certificate, to say that if a matter is to do with taxation then it is not to do with your Lordships. It may not be proper for the other place to behave in that way on this occasion, but we should then be arrogating to ourselves a power of taxation without the responsibility to the elector.
It is the convention—and it is a sensible convention with which we should agree—that only those voted into Parliament should be entitled to decide what shall be the cost of that vote to those who voted for them. That makes very good sense. We should agree with that. If we do not, we are putting ourselves in the position of Charles I, which was insecure and unpopular. Regardless of what are the conventions, the man in the street would not take kindly to your Lordships saying what he should pay on the very large scale proposed by the noble Lord opposite.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that there are not many men in the street earning over £350 per week?
Lord Elton: My Lords, there are quite a lot, but it is the principle which counts. If this House is to start dipping into private pockets of one sort of person today, it will be another sort of person tomorrow. That is not something which this House should be doing. I believe that this argument applies to a whole string of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and other noble Lords. I hope that your Lordships will remember what has been said in debating this amendment so that it will not have to be repeated endlessly. If not, I for one shall be disposed to remind your Lordships.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, although my noble friend Lord Henley is in charge of this Bill from the Government side of the House, I am venturing to reply to the amendment for the same reasons as I replied to Amendment No. 1 at the Committee stage three weeks ago. That reason derives from the fact that, although given the lengthy and complex wording—and one might be forgiven
26
for not recognising it as such—the first paragraph of the amendment repeats exactly word for word Amendment No. 1 which was moved and withdrawn by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in Committee exactly three weeks ago.
Its effect would be to oblige the Secretary of State to uprate child benefit each year in line with the retail prices index and would remove the discretion which the present law allows of requiring that the level of child benefit should be reviewed but having regard to all the circumstances prevailing at the time.
Whatever the merits of the case—and I realise the amendment generates deep feelings—I must say that this is a course that we are now being asked to go round for a fourth time in a period of 12 months. A year ago, during the Social Security Bill 1989, the House agreed to an amendment which provided for the annual uprating of child benefit and asked another place to think again. Another place did think again and subsequently I had to inform your Lordships that the amendment had been disagreed to for the reason of the Commons' financial privilege.
We had the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, three weeks ago, which the noble Lord moved and finally withdrew, and here we are yet again. I do not think your Lordships would thank me, at the start of a long day on this Bill, if I covered in detail ground which was covered only three weeks ago. But one point I must emphasise.
Once again the amendment would effectively be putting child benefit, a tax-free supplement to families whose major source of income is earnings, into the same category as national insurance benefits, which are the major means of support for people whose earning capacity is interrupted. The consequence of that would be to require the Secretary of State to give an absolutely automatic increase to child benefit, regardless of the fact that that would give no extra help to the least well-off families, those on income support or family credit, amounting to 1·5 million families with some 3 million children.
The Secretary of State would also be prevented from taking into account the fact that other families have seen substantial increases in their take-home pay. In other words, had the amendment been in operation this year, it would have committed the spending of some £250 million in a way which, as rightly stated by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, could hardly be described as effective.
By contrast the Government have tried—and I think met with success—to direct extra help to where it is most needed; that is, over and above normal upratings to families with children through their income related benefits; extra help which, since April 1988, now amounts to over £350 million a year in real terms. We have also found extra help through income support and housing benefit for over 2·5 million less well off elderly and disabled pensioners and we have made very real improvements to the incomes of half a million seriously ill or disabled people, including children.
Despite those few remarks which I felt I must make from this side of the House, although we have kept the debate short with regard to the merits of

27
the case, I take seriously what was said by my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Cockfield regarding the situation of family support. However, the Government have taken steps to try to ensure that the most vulnerable families with children have been protected; hence the reform of social security in April two years ago. That reform channelled an extra £200 million a year to families with children; that is despite the fact that, in relation to families with children where the head is in work, over the period since the Government came into office the real value of take-home pay has risen by 34 per cent. for a married man on average earnings with two children compared with a very small percentage during the period when the party opposite were in government in the 1970s.
However, that is not the end of the amendment. The second half of the amendment would introduce a special new child benefit contribution, payable by people with higher earnings on that part of their pay or if they were self-employed, on their profits, which are currently above the limit for national insurance contributions. When the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, were planning this amendment, it may have seemed a good idea at the time to pay for annual upratings by inventing a special new contribution, but with respect to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, it is an idea which does not survive closer inspection. It is a long-standing principle of national insurance that entitlement to benefits paid out of the National Insurance Fund depends upon contributions having been paid in. But child benefit is paid without any contribution conditions. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was absolutely right when he said that child benefit is not a national insurance benefit. Its cost is met from the Consolidated Fund, which means that the costs of child benefit are met by taxpayers in general: that is why subsection (2) of the amendment has to provide for the new special contributions to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
I believe that both my noble friends Lady Carnegy and Lord Elton were correct in saying that they suspected that the new special provisions would amount to nothing more nor less than extra tax-raising; the one function which historically lies outside the powers of your Lordships' House. It must also be said that the mechanism for raising what would be extra tax, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asserted when he said that it would be extremely simple administratively, would be almost impossible to operate and account for.
If the amendment were allowed employers would have to calculate, deduct and account for these extra payments on a new and separate range of earnings and at a different percentage rate from the general run of national insurance contributions. That would be a nightmare, not only for employers, but also for the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security with their checking and accounting role.
Unless the new contributions could be accounted for and recorded separately, which would mean changing the documentation and computer software of every business in the land, it would be impossible to check whether the new contributions had actually
28
been paid. So not only would this special new contribution be almost impossible to operate but, quite apart from the fact that in recent years the aim has been to reduce employees' national insurance contributions rather than to increase them, it is wholly wrong in principle to expect a particular body of national insurance contributors to pay for a non-contributory benefit. If we were to accept the amendment, why stop here? Why not introduce a special national insurance contribution to pay for a bit of income support of perhaps family credit?
I said to your Lordships earlier that the amendment asks the House to go round the same course for a fourth time in a period of a year. Although it is entirely a matter for the privileges of another place, I agree with noble friends who raised the question of whether we should be considering what is in effect an extra tax-raising proposal. I believe that we should not be considering any such thing and I ask your Lordships not to agree to the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been a good and, perhaps I may say, fairly predictable debate. It has shown how many noble Lords are prepared to ignore the Standing Orders of the House.
I deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about the money going to the better-off. I made clear that on income of over about £500 a week the contributions would be greater than the benefits and therefore, in that case, an adjustment against the better-off. To go to the other extreme and dealing with the poorest, the Benches opposite always seem to think that the only poor people in this country are those on income support or family credit. We must remember that a substantial number of people just above the poverty line do not qualify for income support or family credit and would certainly benefit from an uprating in child allowance. As I mentioned, there are about 800,000 children whose families are not eligible now and do not receive family credit.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who said that this is a transfer payment and that there is no direct cost to public funds. I made clear that the cost would be only 1 per cent. on incomes above £350 per week, amounting to £250 million to £300 million a year. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, perhaps rather grudgingly, that I was technically right. I think that just means that I am right.
We were supposed to be showing some naivety in not recognising what the other place would do. I do not propose again to read out the Companion to Standing Orders but I believe that all noble Lords have got the message and almost all have been in contravention of the Standing Orders.
Reference was made to national insurance contributions and tax being mixed up. I am self-employed. I pay the Class 4 NIC. It is a separate figure. It is clearly stated. It is not a combined figure on my annual tax bill. I know exactly what it is. In using the National Insurance Fund for purposes for which it is not designed, there is a very good precedent. What about the rebate of national

29
insurance, which some people have described as a bribe, to persuade people to go into personal pension plans and away from SERPS? That is a use of the National Insurance Fund for what the noble Lord called ingenious reasons.
We have had the argument over and over again about child benefit regardless of income. I repeat that we do not hear that argument when discussing mortgage interest relief, the business expansion scheme, personal pension plans, self-employed retirement annuities, and so on.
Of course, if we are to believe what we read in the press, Mr. Newton is pressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an uprating in child benefit next year. It may be election year. Who knows? If there is an uprating it will be interesting to hear the arguments of noble Lords opposite who have said that an uprating in child benefit would be unfair. We will see what they say if the Government do decide to uprate the benefit next year.
The argument was put forward that this is not national insurance but a tax. There are those who sincerely believe that national insurance contributions are simply another form of taxation. I have to say that that view has been reinforced by the actions of the present Government who have raised the contribution rates substantially while cutting benefits. That is fundamentally wrong. People pay taxes to finance the whole range of public expenditure. They pay national insurance contributions for two purposes: to earn future entitlement to benefits and to enable the National Insurance Fund to provide benefits to those currently in need of them. The range of benefits financed by the National Insurance Fund varies over time and has become rather narrow under the present Government. The proposed new clause would widen the range by including the 1990–91 and the 1991–92 increases in child benefit as a charge on the fund.
The noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, asked about the cost of the various amendments on the Marshalled List. Why do we consider social security Bills at all in this House? Every amendment to the Bill, from the Government and from the Opposition, involves some increase in public expenditure. What we have to do is to help the Government to choose their priorities by indicating the various changes and improvements that we would like to see. Some the Government accept and some they do not.
We then have this business about the awful increase in public expenditure that would result from this measure. That argument is a bit rich coming from the Government Benches when we are told on good authority that the Department of the Environment will need £3 billion to £4 billion next year just to hold the poll tax at present levels. I suggest that noble Lords opposite consider that fact before criticising the Opposition for proposing increases in public expenditure.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, appeared to introduce an interesting idea when he said that his party—he was obviously assuming defeat at the next election—would defeat a Labour manifesto commitment to increase child benefit. Whatever happened to the Salisbury doctrine?
30
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said it all. He advanced the argument for the uprating of child benefit. His phrase that inflation is a tax on fixed incomes and the poor and that a refusal to uprate child benefit is a special tax on mothers with young families certainly struck home.
I should like to make clear that we are committed to removing the upper earnings limit and to making up the loss in child benefit since the last general election. There is no absolute commitment by the Labour Party to uprate child benefit annually. It is only fair to point that out.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, only quoted half the socialist doctrine. It is,
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
That is exactly what the amendment does.
If the national insurance contributions are a tax, as noble Lords opposite keep telling us, and the party opposite believes in equity, as I am sure it does, why do its members support the cut-off for the upper earnings limit of £350 a week? That is an extremely unfair tax, if one thinks about it. The Leader of the House said that we were being asked to go round the course again. Yes, we are being asked to go round the course again but I suggest that this is a novel and, as described, an ingenious approach. The ingenuity of the approach has, with respect, led noble Lords into some fair old contortions.
The extra help to those on income support and family credit, as I said, has come from other families. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, said in the paper published by the Centre for Policy Studies:
"The extra Family Credit for poor families with dependent children (and the extra for single parents) is being provided not by the population at large but by other parents through savings on Child Benefit".
We have also heard reference to the use of the National Insurance Fund to provide the incentive to opt out of SERPS. Yet the Government took away the earnings related unemployment benefits earned through contributions over time. Therefore, filching from the National Insurance Fund is not unheard of, even under this Government.
The cost of the new clause, which is around £250 million to £300 million as a transfer payment (not a tax) from one group to another—the noble Lord laughs but it is in fact a transfer payment from one group of national insurance contributors to another class of recipients—is the amount that families will lose next year if child benefit is not uprated. There is no cost unless the Government are prepared to freeze child benefit next year.
We have had an extremely interesting debate. There is only one way to deal with the amendment. I ask the opinion of the House.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 136.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hylton, L.

Airedale, L.

Jay, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Aylestone, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Birk, B.

Kearton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kennet, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Leatherland, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Listowel, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carter, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Longford, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mayhew, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mulley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ogmore, L.

Ezra, L.

Peston, L.

Falkland, V.

Phillips, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Foot, L.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L.

Galpern, L.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Gregson, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Grimond, L.

Stallard, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Walston, L.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Hunt, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Craigavon, V.

Allerton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Annaly, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Annan, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Arran, E.

Derwent, L.

Auckland, L.

Eccles, V.

Balfour, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Effingham, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elibank, L.

Beloff, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Belstead, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Bessborough, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Blatch, B.

Elton, L.

Blyth, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Boardman, L.

Ferrers, E.

Borthwick, L.

Foley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gainford, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Grantchester, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Camoys, L.

Greenway, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gridley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Carnock, L.

Cavendish, L.

Halsbury, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cockfield, L.

Havers, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hayter, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Henley, L.

32

Hesketh, L.

Orkney, E.

Hives, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Hood, V.

Pender, L.

Hooper, B.

Porritt, L.

Hylon-Foster, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Ingrow, L.

Reay, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Renton, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Renwick, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Romney, E.

Kimball, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Lauderdale, E.

Shannon, E.

Layton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Long, V.

Somers, L.

Luke, L.

Stockton, E.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathspey, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Swinton, E.

Mancroft, L.

Terrington, L.

Manton, L.

Teviot, L.

Margadale, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mersey, V.

Trumpington, B.

Milverton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Morris, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wise, L.

Nelson, E.

Wolfson, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wynford, L.

Onslow, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.38 p.m.
Clause 1 [Attendance allowance for the terminally ill]:
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 3, leave out from ("a") to ("and") in line 5 and insert ("severe progressive and incurable disease and his life expectancy is short;").
The noble Lord said: There was an interesting debate on 21st May concerning the extremely delicate subject of the definition of the terminally ill. I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I fully support the general intention behind Clause 1, which is to remove the six-month waiting period for attendance allowance for those who are defined as terminally ill. That is a good intention which we support wholeheartedly.
The only point of discussion in relation to that subject was how the terminally ill should be defined. I should like to remind your Lordships of the Government's definition in the Bill:
"A person is 'terminally ill' at any time if at that time he suffers from a progressive disease and his death in consequence of that disease can reasonably be expected within 6 months".
On the last occasion the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I proposed very similar amendments which would have introduced a degree of greater flexibility into the definition. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, when replying for the Government, gave understandable reasons as to why he preferred the Government's formulation. However, on reflection I am not entirely happy with the wording. It is such an important and delicate matter that it is worth trying to get it right. For that reason the noble

33
Baroness, Lady Seear, and I have put down a slightly different version which reads as follows:
"A person is terminally ill if at that time he suffers from a severe progressive and incurable disease and his life expectancy is short".
I argued on the previous occasion that anyone who is terminally ill and who has to surmount the considerable hurdle of qualifying for the higher level of attendance allowance is, by definition, in a very poor state of health. According to Section 35(1) of the principal Act, in order to qualify for the attendance allowance the patient must be so severely disabled physically that by day and at night he requires from another person frequent, prolonged or repeated attention in connection with his bodily functions. Therefore, in order to qualify for the attendance allowance he must meet those quite stiff conditions. My argument on that occasion—and it remains the same today—was that anyone who qualifies for attendance allowance under Section 35(1) of the Act is likely to be so poorly that a six-month prognosis hardly comes into consideration.
I understand from Professor Eric Wilkes, one of the joint chairmen of Help the Hospices, that all survey work confirms that for the great majority of terminally ill patients the intense need is over a period of two months, or even less. Only a tiny minority of them will survive for six months or more, although a number of them will certainly do so.
There are other interesting and suggestive figures in existence. The Department of Social Security estimates, according to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, at col. 613 of Hansard of 21st May, when we debated the matter on the last occasion, that 58,000 people will benefit from these changes at a cost of £35 million for a full year. I wonder how those figures were arrived at. Each year approximately 140,000 people die of cancer and similar diseases. Therefore, I can only assume that 58,000 is the number of patients who are expected to die at home. Sharing £35 million among 58,000 patients amounts to £603 each, which would represent the higher rate of attendance allowance being paid for a period of 17 weeks or approximately four months. That is twice the normal survival time identified by Professor Willem Therefore, the Government's estimate may not be reached, let alone exceeded.
In the circumstances, it increasingly seems to me that writing in the six-month time-limit with its implicit sentence of death within that period is unnecessary as well as inhumane. If we take the many terminally ill patients who will survive for only two months, together with the few who survive for more than six months, the average will work out well below the Government's six-month limit. I submit that it is the average which will dictate the financial outlay, not the few atypical cases. Therefore, I suggest to the Government that the new wording I have proposed in the amendment embodies quite sufficient safeguards without incurring the rather dreadful overtones which are written into the Government's version.
Having said that—and I think those points were worth making—I must admit that I am a realist and that I understand perfectly well that the Government
34
rejected the previous amendment on the grounds that it took the matter too wide. I also accept that what I propose now takes it even wider. Therefore, I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to rise and say that he welcomes or accepts what I have proposed. However, what I should like to hear—and I think that this is a reasonable proposition—in this extremely difficult area is an undertaking from the Government that they will look closely and monitor the effect on take-up of the phraseology in the Bill as it is at present.
Moreover, if we have any grounds for believing after, let us say, a year that it it is not working as well as we had hoped, that many people are falling through the net and that take-up has not been as we expected it to be, I should like to know that the Government would then be disposed to look again at the matter in a subsequent social security Bill. In that way, we would have a year to look at the operation of the clause as proposed by the Government. In my view that is not an unreasonable proposition and if the noble Lord is able to say something along those lines I shall be happy to withdraw my amendment. However, in the meantime, I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I rise to express my support for the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has made all the relevant points most admirably. However, I have a small but very important point to make. The Bill as it stands refers to where death,
"can reasonably he expected within 6 months."
There is a note of doom about that phrase which one would wish to avoid if possible. We think that our amendment is less cruel to people facing the likelihood of dying very quickly. For the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, put forward I think it is unlikely that what is proposed would lead to any significant increase in expenditure. It would be more a humane way of expressing what we all feel.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am sure that I am not alone among practising doctors in very often being caught out when trying to estimate how long a patient with a terminal illness has to live. A minority of people seem able to keep the grim reaper at bay for far longer than expected, whereas others are not so lucky and are carried off by a sweep of the scythe unexpectedly quickly. There are often more of those than there are of the others. I sometimes find that if patients are told that they have only a very short time to live or, as in the words of the Bill, death is expected within six months, they will turn their faces to the wall and give up hope.
I do not think that it would be very good news to hear the words expressed in the amendment, but they are greatly preferable to those contained in the Bill at present. I have not consulted the professional organisations but I believe that most doctors would hesitate for some time before putting their names to a specified length of time a patient was expected to live. For this reason I support the amendment and also the request that the noble Lord should give the matter further thought.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too hope that my noble friend will arrange for the matter to be considered. There may be technical factors involved of which we are not immediately aware. But I was impressed by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I should have thought that the essence of the matter is that the disease should not only be progressive, as cancer generally is, but also incurable. It would be a mistake to limit the expression "terminally ill" to a case in which death,
"can reasonably be expected within 6 months".
I should have thought that a time limit of any kind was inappropriate in the circumstances which we are considering. However, any medical person can give a prognosis that life expectancy is short. Therefore, by accepting the amendment, we would be much more likely to be in the realm of certainty, which is where we ought always to try to find ourselves when legislating.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment. We discussed the matter in Committee, as the Minister will remember. All noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment have put the case extremely well, and I am sure that the Minister will have listened with particular care to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Rea.
As we have agreed on each occasion when we discussed this both on Second Reading and in Committee, it is a difficult and sensitive matter and Members on all sides of the House wish to get it right. I am sure that the amendment has been tabled in that light. I hope that the Minister can give us an answer which will show, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, that at least the Government will consider this approach.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Renton has said. I ask my noble friend the Minister to think carefully about whether not necessarily this formula but some formula other than that in the Bill can be devised. I had in mind the possible effect on the patient who learns that he has been granted the allowance, and who if he is a person of some education and background can discover that he has received it only because the doctor has indicated that he is unlikely to last six months.
I agree that it would not be nice to know that one's doctor had indicated that one's expectation was short, but there is a certain imprecision about that phrase which I can well see from the administrative point of view is a nuisance but which from the patient's point of view may be relevant. There is something unhappy about granting an allowance which, if the patient concerned were to look at the statute or ask any legal adviser, he would learn was granted on the basis that he was under sentence within six months.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am pleased that everyone in the House welcomes the clause generally. All noble Lords recognise that there are problems of definition. I do not see the amendment as being the way forward. I hope that I can convince the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that that is the case. If he
36
feels that he can do better at a later stage it will be right to reconsider the matter because it is a difficult one.
As your Lordships will be aware, the effect of the amendment, as the noble Lord admitted, would be to widen the scope for payments to be made and to make it difficult for claims to be adjudicated. It relaxes the test of likelihood of death within six months by introducing an indeterminate prognosis that death from the illness can reasonably be expected within a short time. As we all know, the purpose of the clause is to enable those who die of a progressive disease within the six months after they claim attendance allowance to be able to qualify for and receive the allowance at least a few weeks before they die. If the amendment is accepted the qualifying period will be removed for people who may live considerably longer and who can in any case receive the allowance after six months under the existing rules.
Everyone who has spoken feels that it is desirable to remove the reference to an expectation of death within six months. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to there being a note of gloom contained in the provision. We fought long and, hard about the phrase, but we concluded that the definition must be specific.
I shall deal with the issue of doctors. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, who, as his noble friend Lord Carter stressed, has a great deal of experience in these matters, said that a doctor would not like to give such a stark warning that the patient was going to die. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter also referred to that point. Doctors are not being asked to give a prognosis. That will be decided by the attendance allowance board on the basis of information about the claimant's medical condition in the form of a factual report provided by the claimant's doctor; so it is not the claimant's doctor who says that in his view the claimant will die within six months. That is a matter of adjudication to be decided by the attendance allowance board.
The short life expectancy definition for which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asks can obviously mean anything from a few days to a few years. We believe that it would be impossible to adjudicate upon such an imprecise definition fairly. It would be confusing for the doctors making the decisions and for the claimants and their advisers.
I come now to the undertaking sought by the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Rea. We accept that the question is a difficult one. We have decided that the clause as it stands is the best way forward. Nevertheless, I give noble Lords an assurance that we shall study how the provision is working. As the provision is in primary legislation, I imagine that further primary legislation would be required if within a year or so it were found that the measure was not working well enough, but I would have to seek advice on that point. In the meantime, I give an assurance that we shall keep an eye on how the provision works.
I stress that we found the decision a difficult one to make. We must therefore monitor how the provision works. If, as the noble Lord suggests, it

37
does not work correctly, it will obviously be open to the Government at some later stage—not in the Bill because we are talking about monitoring for a year or so—to come back and seek a new definition. On that understanding, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is seeking some elucidation.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he tell us how the process will work? He says the doctor who knows and has examined the patient will not be the one to say that the limit is six months. He then went on to talk about some committee which does not see the patient but sees what the doctor says. It, in its infinite wisdom, says that there is a six-month limit. How will that be done? It seems an odd way to determine upon what date a person will die.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to follow what the noble Baroness has said. Do the Government not care that they appear to the country and to the voters to be an uncaring Government? This is another clear example of that attitude. They have a dispassionate idea that some committee will say that the person may or may not die within six months. If the Government are worrying about the money, the balance may be that some people will die before the six months. Therefore, surely the determination does not need to be in specific months.
I find it strange that the Government, who will have to go to the country eventually, discuss this matter in such an uncaring and dispassionate way. The Minister has just said that the Government will consider the matter and may change their point of view within a year or two; but we are dealing with legislation now. This seems a small point upon which they could give way. What is the consideration? Is it money? There cannot be any other reason. Do they not care how they appear?
This is the House of Lords at its worst. People do not come to listen to the debate, but they will flock in to support the Government without having heard the argument. Can we appeal to the Government to be compassionate for once on a simple and straightforward issue?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness's intervention has not been helpful. She will be aware that Clause 1 was brought forward as a result of representations on this matter made during the passage of last year's Bill. The Government have responded. There are, as all noble Lords have accepted, great difficulties over definition. We have tried to find a way around the difficulties, and we are finding a way around them.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, I said that it may in the end be found that our definition is not the right one and that we may have to seek to make changes; that, in the meantime, this is the best that we can do; and that I did not think that the amendment, which widened the definition excessively, was the right way to proceed. At no point did I mention the subject of cost. I was careful
38
not to do so. I hope that noble Lords noted that point. There is a cost implication involved, but I did not bring that point into the discussions. I hope that the noble Baroness will take note of that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked about the Attendance Allowance Board. I said that information on the claimant's medical condition was provided in the form of a factual report produced by the claimant's doctor. The Attendance Allowance Board is made up of eminent clinicians and specialists, with a wide range of knowledge and experience over the whole spectrum of medical life. The board will use its medical judgment to decide whether conditions are met from the information provided by the GP's factual report which will list the diagnosis, the present condition and treatment.
I hope that that will satisfy the noble Baroness. She will know that a great many applicants for benefit have to go before some board because there must be a process of adjudication. The noble Baroness would be the first to say, "Oi", if there were no form of adjudication; there must be one. I now refer the matter back to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. He has tried to come some way towards me. I do not believe that he has quite taken on board my argument that the average length of survival dictates the financial position. I gave figures to show that in many cases, if not the majority, it does not reach six months. It is an argument that ought to be borne in mind.
With regard to widening the definition too far, the word "short" should quite clearly exclude such long-term incurable diseases as the results of a stroke, multiple sclerosis or similar cases. Perhaps the noble Lord would tell me this before I decide what to do. Whatever is stated in the statute—and it seems to me that it will remain as it is—it is important that the definition should not appear on the form. Perhaps I may take it that the form which the doctor has to complete and which either the patient or the patient's representative might see would not contain the definition that it is proposed to put in the statute. Is that the position?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord about the details on the form that the doctor would have in front of him. I am not sure what the position is but I shall let him know.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, it is an important point. We should like to see the form in draft before it is agreed.
The noble Lord was kind enough to encourage me to try again to see whether by this process of approximation we could do better in the final stages of the Bill. In view of what he has said—he has given an undertaking that the Government will keep the matter under review—I am inclined not to pursue the matter at Third Reading.
I hope that the Government have taken fully on board that the short debate we have had this evening indicates the concern of noble Lords. The House will wish to keep a close eye on the matter. We shall

39
expect the Government to give us answers before the next social security Bill, or at the time of it, on the experience of the formula and the take-up. If necessary, we can come back to it on the next Bill. We are told that we shall have a social security Bill every year in the House and I imagine that that will be the case next year.
Given the undertaking by the noble Lord that the Government will take this seriously, keep it under review and monitor it, we shall no doubt probe with Questions before we come to the next round of social security legislation. On those grounds, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 10, at end insert:
("(8) In the Social Security (Attendance Allowance) (No. 2) Regulations 1975, regulation 2(1)(c) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we debated this amendment and it was withdrawn at the Committee stage in order to give the Government a chance to consider the matter. We said that we would come back to it on Report to see how they had got on with their consideration.
The amendment concerns the requirement that those applying for the attendance allowance must have been resident in Great Britain for at least 26 weeks in the year immediately preceding the claim. As we said at Committee stage, it is not at all clear why the requirement is imposed. The first and most important qualifying requirement is that the claimant is,
"ordinarily resident in Great Britain".
When we discussed this in Committee, the Minister agreed that his right honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Nicholas Scott, had said in another place during the Committee stage that he would look at the provision. To be fair, although the Minister did not promise an amendment at this stage of the Bill, perhaps he could tell the House whether the Government have reached any conclusion on the matter.
At Committee stage we raised the problem of the terminally ill, which was discussed on the last amendment, involving those who come home literally to die. Surely they at least should be excluded from the requirement, which seems to be met in any case by the first qualifying requirement,
"ordinarily resident in Great Britain".
I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think that I can take the noble Lord much further today. As he knows, at the previous stage I stated that my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security had said in another place during the Committee stage that he would examine this provision. He intends to consider the area of non-contributory benefits in general, as I said on the last occasion. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that it would be right to examine this entitlement as part of that consideration.
40
I cannot help the noble Lord about the timing, but as soon as possible I shall be the first to let him know. In the meantime, I hope that he can withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I had hoped that the Minister would be able to tell us when the long promised review would be complete. After all, it is not that technical and I should have thought it was comparately straightforward. I have heard what the Minister has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("The homeless: entitlement to benefits
. In Schedule 1A,. Part I, of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, after paragraph 4, there shall be inserted the following—
"5. A person who has experienced a period of homelessness lasting for 7 days or more, shall be automatically entitled, except that in these circumstances entitlement would be for 3 months following the last day of homelessness.
5A. For the purposes of the above paragraph homelessness is defined as having no accommodation in a night shelter, or other similar emergency short-stay hostel.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to deal with the problem of a small number of homeless young people by enabling them to have a breathing space in which to find accommodation and a job. It provides that income support should be paid to young people who have been homeless and that that income support is to be paid for three months. We know that young people aged between 16 and 17 are not automatically eligible for income support. They either have to prove estrangement or that they come into some other limited special category before they are considered for benefit.
We know that in 1989 the Government allowed a useful and welcome concession for young people in night shelters. These young people will be considered for income support and we understand that in practice it has meant that they receive it. However, when they move out to take up places in hostels, they lose this privilege and are not automatically entitled to benefit, needing to prove estrangement or to make a special case.
The amendment will assist young people who have been homeless for a week or more. Once young people find accommodation in a hostel or return home, as we all appreciate, they need a breathing space of a few weeks to sort out their lives, get their clothes together and decide what to do. An automatic entitlement to income support for three months would give them this valuable time and improve their chance of eventually finding a job or a suitable training scheme.
The second and equally important benefit of the amendment is that it will assist young people in finding accommodation or returning home. Many establishments at present will not house 16 and 17 year-olds because they know that if they are unemployed or not on YTS they will receive no income. Hostels, hotels and parents might be more willing to accept young people if they pay their way until they find a job or a training scheme. The

41
precedents for this amendment include the regulations applied to young people just out of school or detention who are entitled to income support during the child benefit extension period. We feel that to accept the amendment would not involve a great cost. It would help to solve a real problem. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I am glad to support the amendment. It makes the vital point of providing a breathing space. Anyone who has advised young people in a crisis, as any university teacher has, must realise that that can be absolutely vital. Disasters which seem quite overwhelming if people have to carry on the next day as if nothing has happened seem a great deal smaller if there is a week or two in which to get on their feet and absorb and digest what has happened.
The amendment also deals, I think satisfactorily, with a block in the progress of teenagers obtaining housing. Hostels are normally in business; the owners have to make a living. If they have to rely on teenagers who they know are unlikely to receive income support, who may have to wait a long time for a YTS place and therefore may be unable to pay the rent, naturally they have misgivings.
There are reports of a good deal of trouble in this area. Haberdasher's House at Centrepoint reports that it has to rely on charity to pay the bills. However, not every hostel or hotel that might take in teenagers can do so. If it could be made clear that those people had a three-month entitlement to income support, it would enable them to get a place to live for long enough to look for a job or for a YTS place and get themselves into sensible employment. That is, after all, normally what we want to see at the end of the day.
The Government's concession on income support for those in night shelters has been welcome. It has worked a great deal better than a number of other concessions in this area. However, what is difficult with the problem of accommodation is to get people beyond that stage. The estrangement premium, although we welcome it, works a lot less effectively than the night shelter measure.
I shall refer to a case history as I think it illustrates how the difficulties arise in this area. A 16 year-old from Nottingham quarrelled with her parents and left home on 15th January this year. She found herself living on the streets. She could not find a YTS place and she lost all her possessions. She got into a night shelter and obtained income support. She managed to get on her feet and left the night shelter at the end of the maximum period of stay. However, then she could not obtain a place to live because she had no income support. Some six weeks later she found herself back in the night shelter and obtained income support. Then she was referred to a hotel where she received no income support. She positively wanted a YTS place as she wanted to be a hairdresser. However, she could not get a place and the was finally evicted for rent arrears.
That is an example of a teenager who was trying to break out of the cycle of dependency but has not succeeded because the way was barred. That is an inefficient and inhumane procedure. The
42
amendment would provide a much better way of achieving the objective we all have of getting young people into decent employment than the situation as it is at present. I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I was happy to add my name to this amendment when asked to do so. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has referred to an alarming and serious case. There must be many like that. We have to bear in mind that no young person normally makes himself or herself voluntarily totally devoid of any kind of shelter. Such people hope to find a place with a friend or relation, but if they fail to do so they end up on the streets. However, we want to keep them off the streets.
The Minister may be aware that for some considerable time now—something like a year and a half—I have been in correspondence with his right honourable friend Mr. Nicholas Scott about the particular difficulties that have been posed to individuals and organisations who operate hostels by the changeover from the former system of benefit and support for individuals and hostel finances to the current system. I know that the Government have tried to be helpful. They have introduced interim arrangements and modified arrangements and have carried out a lot of consultations and discussions. However, the fact remains that some hostels still fear that they may have to close down. I suggest that the amendment would help them to remain in business.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to give his support to this amendment. I believe it contains something real and worthwhile. I also have received correspondence about cases, such as the case mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I am sure that there are many young people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, do not wish to be out on the streets but who desperately want to find employment. The thing which has struck me in recent years and which endlessly makes me ask why it occurs is the sight of young people begging.
When I inherited my title and first started to come to this House I cannot remember seeing at Paddington Station young people sitting down at the tube entrance and begging. I have started to see that happen in perhaps the past two or three years. I have been asking myself ever since why that happens. I still ask myself that question and I would still like an answer to it.
I believe that Her Majesty's Government have tried and are trying to solve this problem. Possibly the Government could be helped by responding sometimes to some of the methods suggested by noble Lords on the opposite side of the House. If Her Majesty's Government feel that they cannot accept the amendment, it would be nice if they gave a concrete reply stating why they cannot accept it. I ask the Government to do that thoroughly.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I wish to add my support to the movers of the amendment. I

43
follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said. Since the Government changed the methods of payment for hostel provision and for the young people we are discussing, the problem has got worse. One could go as far as to say "thank you" for the meagre amount which is given. However, any of us who are working with young homeless people know of the problems that exist. I have knowledge of the work of St. Basil's in Birmingham which is the largest organisation in that city that helps homeless young people. Its books show that every year the organisation helps about 1,500 young people.
While the interim payment is helpful to start with, St. Basil's finds that if young people are not willing to go through the programme of rehabilitation to encourage them to remake their lives and to encourage them to leave the night shelters and enter hostels, the initial payment is completely wasted. The rehabilitation of these young people is important. Many of them have gone through severe traumas in their own homes. As others have said, no young person leaves home and walks the streets voluntarily because he thinks it is exciting. Most of these young people are in quite a state. One needs to carry out concentrated work with them in order to help them.
The initial payment gives these young people a little breathing space but it does not help the organisations such as St. Basil's which are in the position of helping these young people. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to Centrepoint in this connection. St. Basil's is constantly asking for charitable funds despite the fact that it is a charity itself. It approaches all kinds of organisations for funds to keep the whole thing running. It receives inner city partnership money but, like all local authorities, Birmingham has many calls upon its finances. Therefore many charities find themselves being given a lesser amount by the city. At present St. Basil's is undertaking a major fund-raising campaign. It needs to raise £1·5 million within the next 18 months in order to keep its work going.
The initial funding which has been agreed, about which the Government have changed their minds, is wasted money unless it is continued for at least three months. Obviously one would like it to continue for longer, but it is a wasted investment if it is provided only for the short time envisaged at present. Therefore, I urge the Minister to tell the House this afternoon that the Government realise the seriousness of the situation. All of us are very concerned about young people sleeping out. It is something that we cannot accept and ought not to accept. When people see young people sleeping out they say, "Why doesn't the Government do something about it?". In supporting the amendment this afternoon I am asking what more the Government can do to help the young homeless.
Baroness David: My Lords, the amendment has great similarities with Amendment No. 41 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and myself. The Minister will know what I feel about Amendment No. 41, for all the reasons already given. I too, support Amendment No. 4.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall respond later to Amendment No. 41. I have already discussed the amendment with the noble Baroness. Perhaps I may also say that I am happy to investigate any individual cases of difficulty such as the one mentioned by my noble kinsman Lord Russell, as is the Training Agency.
This amendment seeks to extend eligibility to income support for homeless and 16 and 17 year-olds for a period of three months.
As noble Lords know, income support was withdrawn from the majority of 16 and 17 year-olds in September 1988. Instead of relying on state benefits young people are being encouraged to invest in their own future by continuing in their studies, getting a job or taking up the Government guarantee of an offer of a suitable YT place. That guarantee is being met. It applies to all young people who want and are able to undertake youth training, including the homeless.
Income support is still payable to the most vulnerable groups of young people. I must stress that homelessness is no bar to entitlement to income support, which is paid without time restriction to, for example, disabled people and lone parents. Other young people who either have no parental home or have good reason why they cannot live at home are entitled to income support during the same period as the child benefit extension period.
In addition to the normal rules, income support can be paid where the young person would otherwise suffer unavoidable severe hardship. This safety net enables young people at serious risk to receive benefit while looking for a job or youth training place. Since November 1989 every young person claiming benefit is automatically considered under the severe hardship provision if not otherwise entitled to income support.
These rules are delicately balanced to offer financial help to vulnerable youngsters, without providing an incentive to leave home. The amendment, if accepted, could encourage some young people to sleep rough rather than look for accommodation.
We recognise that some youngsters, especially the homeless, need special consideration in the provision of a YT place. We have not ignored that need. In March of this year the Secretary of State for Employment announced a package of measures to ease access to YT. Those measures especially help the homeless.
First, homeless young people who are willing to enter YTS but are not ready for a mainstream place, for example, because they are not presentable to employers, will automatically be referred for initial training. Secondly, direct links between hostels and individual training providers are being developed, building on the success of a pilot scheme in Birmingham where all those dealing with homeless young people, including initial training providers, social workers, careers officers and hostel staff, were brought together. It resulted in effective procedures and contacts between those groups, improving the help initial trainees receive. As a result, any homeless young person who has been offered a hostel place is

45
found an initial training place on the same day. That secures the hostel place and, if it subsequently emerges that the young person is on an inappropriate initial training scheme, a transfer to another provider will be arranged. This provides a model of how to develop resource networks to help training providers and other professionals to take appropriate roles in supporting trainees with their problems.
In addition, improvements are being made to the way applications for YT places are dealt with. These include the establishing of guarantee liaison officers in each Training Agency area office to act as a focal point for investigating those rare cases where there is difficulty in YT placement. Guidance to careers officers is being revised so that it adequately covers the importance of taking account of the special needs of difficult and vulnerable groups.
I cannot accept the amendment because it does not seem to me to be in the best interests of the disadvantaged young people involved. The existing benefit provision and the improvements to the YT operation which I have described ensure that help is available for those who are vulnerable, especially the homeless. Consequently, no young person need be without an income. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before my noble kinsman sits down, would he agree that the use of the perverse incentive in the context of going out to sleep rough credits teenagers with a degree of perversity worthy of the Marquis de Sade?
Lord Carter: My Lords, obviously that was a very disappointing answer. I said when I moved the amendment that very little cost is involved. Every time we try to deal with the situation the argument seems to founder on the assumption—which is almost an obsession with the Government—that young people belong at home with a stable job, on a training place, are never estranged or subject to abuse or violence, and live in a loving environment. Life For many young people is not like that.
The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, put the point extremely well. He said that he has seen changes in the past few years. I am sorry to say that it is the changes in the social security regulations which have brought about the problems for young people that the noble Lord described.
It is very difficult to understand why the Government cannot accept the very modest change that we propose. We hear about the guarantee of a YTS place, but we are advised that that is not the case in many areas. When the Government say that our proposal would encourage young people to sleep rough in order to obtain income support, I wonder whether the members of the Government live in the real world. There was no attempt to understand the problem that we described. I am tempted to divide the House, but I shall withdraw the amendment and have one last attempt at changing the Government's mind at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Severe disablement allowance.
In Part III of Schedule 4 to the principal Act, for paragraph 2 there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

"Severe Disablement allowance (section 36)

The weekly rate specified in section 6(1)(a) of the Pensions Act"").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment was discussed at Committee stage but withdrawn in the hope that the Government would reconsider their objection to the amendment, which seemed to be entirely on the grounds of cost.
The severe disablement allowance is a basic, non-contributory, income-replacement benefit payable to people of working age who are incapable of work and who have not paid national insurance contributions which would entitle them to the equivalent of the contributory incapacity benefit; namely, invalidity benefit. Severe disablement allowance is paid only at 60 per cent. of the basic rate of invalidity benefit because the Government consider that people who have not made any or the correct number and type of national insurance contributions should receive less than those who have paid at the full rate.
The purpose of the amendment is to increase severe disablement allowance to the rate of the basic invalidity benefit and to end the discrimination which exists between those who have been able to work and thus make national insurance contributions and the severely disabled who have never been able to work and therefore receive only 60 per cent. of the basic invalidity benefit. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, accepted the need for additional help and accepted a recommendation of the Social Security Advisory Committee that SDA should be raised progressively until it reaches the same rate as invalidity benefit, but she turned down the amendment on the grounds that it would cost an additional £110 million a year.
The amendment which is now before the House gives the Government the opportunity to say that they will at least make a start in reducing the differential between SDA and IVB, although we understand that they may not be able to go all the way at the beginning. I should like to ask the Government three specific questions: first, is there a firm commitment to uprate severe disablement allowance; secondly, is there a timetable for the uprating of SDA; and, thirdly, are the age-related additions to the SDA, about which I am sure we shall hear when the Minister replies, the planned first stage in such an uprating and, if so, when can we expect the second and subsequent stages? I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. This is another of a crop of amendments to which we come from time to time which deal with the difference between contributory and non-contributory. The severe disablement allowance is lower because it is non-contributory.
Although I understand the force of the contributory principle and the arguments put for it,

47
if one applies a contributory principle to benefits for disability, one discriminates according to the age at which people become disabled and particularly therefore against congenital disability and disability which happens in youth. That infringes the principle of equal benefits for equal disability which is a principle of some importance.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as the noble Lord explained, the purpose of the amendment is to increase the basic weekly rate of severe disablement allowance to the basic weekly rate of invalidity benefit.
There is, of course, a link between the two benefits in that they are both available to people who are long-term sick. Invalidity benefit is the contributory benefit; severe disablement allowance is non-contributory and thus available to people who have not paid the required national insurance contributions.
Both severe disablement allowance and its predecessor, non-contributory invalidity pension, have always been at a lower rate than invalidity benefit on the basis that it would not be fair to people who are paying national insurance contributions to pay non-contributory benefit at the same rate for the same contingency.
We know of the representations which have been made to pay the two benefits at the same rate. There was a recommendation to that effect by the Social Security Advisory Committee in its report, Benefits for Disabled People: a Strategy for Change. In framing its recommendation, however, it acknowledged that it would be necessary to move by stages towards the alignment of the rates. The reason for that is the considerable additional expenditure, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred, which the change would bring about. We estimate that the gross cost would be around £250 million a year and the net cost around £110 million a year.
Our policy for the future of benefits for people who are disabled was set out in The Way Ahead which was published on 10th January this year. That set out our conclusions based on our review of the current benefit system in the light of the findings of the surveys of disability undertaken by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. One of those conclusions was that priority for additional help should be given to people disabled earlier in life.
The action which we are taking currently is to introduce age-related additions to severe disablement allowance in Clause 2 of the Bill. For people who become incapable of work before they reach age 40, that will mean that they will receive an additional £10 a week, making a total of £38·20, by way of severe disablement allowance. The cost of bringing in those additions will be £50 million a year.
In principle, there is nothing between the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the Government on this issue. It is a question of what is achievable. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that this is a positive step based on the report's, recommendations. The noble Lord and the noble
48
Earl, Lord Russell, tempt me to go further, but this is a positive step and I hope that, in that positive spirit, the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I did not realise that I was tempting the noble Baroness to go further or too far.
Again, that was a disappointing answer. The argument is that it is unfair to those who have paid national insurance contributions. The disabled have not chosen not to pay national insurance contributions; they have not paid them because they are disabled. That is the point of the amendment. The Minister mentioned a net cost of £110 million. It was pointed out earlier with regard to the first amendment that we on this side of the House propose amendments which cost money, but that cost shows just how much the refusal to uprate severe disablement allowance costs the disabled. The age-related element is a start, but it does not go nearly far enough. We must therefore ask the opinion of the House on this matter.
5.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 117.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hughes, L.

Airedale, L.

Hunt, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jay, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Barnett, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Listowel, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McNair, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mayhew, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Milverton, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Northfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Phillips, B.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Seebohm, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gregson, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hampton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hanworth, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Walston, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Wigoder, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Auckland, L.

Aldington, L.

Balfour, E.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Beloff, L.

Allerton, L.

Belstead, L.

49

Bessborough, E.

Layton, L.

Blatch, B.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Blyth, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Boardman, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Manton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Margadale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carnock, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mottistone, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mountevans, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Munster, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nelson, E.

Cross, V.

Norrie, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Onslow, E.

Davidson. V. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Deedes, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L.

Pender, L.

Derwent, L.

Perth, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Porritt, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elles, B.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Romney, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Foley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Somers, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stockton, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Strange, B.

Gridley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Halsbury, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sudeley, L.

Havers, L.

Swinton, E.

Henley, L.

Terrington, L.

Hesketh, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hood, V.

Ullswater, V.

Hooper, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Ingrow, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Wise, L.

Killearn, L.

Wolfson, L.

Kimball, L.

Wynford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.43 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Income support: equal treatment of over and under 25's
(1) In paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 2 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, after the words "(applicable amount and polygamous marriages)" there shall be inserted the words "except that, for this purpose, any person aged less than 25 to whom any paragraph in Part II of Schedule 1A applies or would apply if he were aged 16 and had not reached the relevant date determined under regulation 13A(3)(b) shall be treated as if he were aged 25".
(2) In paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 2 to the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, after the words "17(a) and (b)", and in paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 1 to the Community Charge Benefits (General) Regulations 1989, after the words "8(a) and (b)", there shall be inserted the words "except that, for this purpose, any person aged less than 25 to whom any paragraph in Part II of Schedule 1A to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 applies, or would apply if he were aged 16, claiming income support and had not reached
50
the relevant date determined under regulation 13A(3)(b) of those regulations, shall he treated as if he were aged 25".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an ambitious amendment. For some time and for a good deal of last year we have heard about various detailed problems arising from the treatment of young people under social security. The argument of this amendment is that the problems keep coming back because the whole policy of treating differently over-25s and under-25s is a mistake and ought to be abandoned lock, stock and barrel. I also remind the Government that there will be only one more social security Bill in which they can put right this matter before a general election and that footage of young teenagers on the run is good box office.
I should rather have the situation put right now. However, I think we have to address the whole issue of whether there is any sensible justification for treating people under 25 differently from people over 25 in our social security system. Their costs are exactly the same: their housing costs the same, their transport costs the same and their food costs the same. The only possible justification for treating them differently is the one that was given by the Minister's right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place when she said that they:
have a home to live in belonging to their parents".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/6/88; col. 704.]
That is not true by any means of all the teenagers who end up sleeping rough. Forty per cent. of them have been in care and have no home to go to; some 40 per cent. of them have been thrown out by their parents. We are reminded of just how often that happens. Human parents, just like parents of fledgling birds, appear to reach a point at which their patience snaps. Sometimes they reach it too soon and at an inappropriate moment. We cannot continue with the policy of supposing that teenagers ought to live at home unless we are prepared to grasp the nettle of enforcement and place an obligation on parents to house the teenager. If we do not do that, we put very severe economic pressure on the teenager to do what the teenager is often absolutely unable to do. That seems to me to be misguided, not to say extremely inefficient, and capable of giving rise to very considerable hardship, which I shall not retail again because it has already been brought to your Lordships' attention.
There is also the question of whether it is wise for family relations and for mental and physical health to insist that in all circumstances, however difficult, parents and children beyond the age of 18 should always continue to live in the same place. There are some cases in which parents and children develop what I can only describe as an allergy to each other. In such cases I cannot see that it does any good to insist on yoking them together. In fact many of us are used to meeting situations—not very many but they exist—in which one can only help the persons concerned by advising that they live on their own.
This policy also attempts to achieve something which in the whole history of mankind has never been accomplished. Never has there been a time when all people under the age of 25 who could not otherwise support themselves have been induced to live at home. The idea that one can run away and

51
seek one's fortune is as old as the hills and it is beyond the power of this Government to eradicate it.
We are told that if we change the law in this point we shall create a "perverse incentive" to leave home. I have done my level best to get my mind round that doctrine. I cannot do it. To me it does not make any kind of sense whatever. In the first place the sums are wrong. No social security benefits that people are likely to receive will equal the whole cost of independent living. Nor indeed will they match the comforts and the physical provisions of a well appointed home. If the Government think that there is an economic incentive to leave home, they have simply done their sums wrong.
In fact, I believe that that is the result of a very internalist departmental view. It is the effect of comparing benefit when living at home with benefit when living away from home and not taking any other factors in the equation into account. It is only from that internalist perspective that the doctrine of the perverse incentive could possibly have been arrived at.
It also implies a very curious conception of human nature. Most teenagers with whom I deal are a great deal more concerned with bringing their emotional lives under control than with making themselves a few extra shillings. They are concerned about long-term emotional satisfaction, not immediate financial profit. I do not say that they are indifferent. It is just not their highest priority.
I simply cannot imagine any of the people whom I teach leaving home, throwing up all the comforts of a well appointed house and breaking emotional ties—which matter considerably to most of them and which it is at present in fashion to take seriously—to endure the very dubious pleasure of being a teenager on the run and sleeping on the streets in the weather that we had in January, which was not particularly inviting.
It is a very strange notion that people will adopt those priorities. To those who advance such arguments I can only say that the words of John Stuart Mill seem to be appropriate:
"We will not do such persons the injury of supposing that their conception of human nature is drawn from their own consciousness".
I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I fully support the amendment, which stands in my name also. The noble Earl has moved it so admirably that there is little left for me to say. Those who have brought up people of this age group know that they cost as much as those over 25 in the amount they eat, what they wear, the space that they take up and so on. I endorse the noble Earl's other point. Although there are moments when parents and children long to be apart, the perverse incentive is not there. I warmly support the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, apart from the merits of the amendments, I hope that your Lordships will reject it because it creates a great deal of confusion.
52
We deal with primary and subordinate legislation in quite different ways. Primary legislation is intended to state matters which are of lasting effect and which should, although they do not always do so, state the principles on which we legislate. Subordinate legislation is intended to deal with more detailed matters, sometimes filling in the details that the primary legislation does not fill in for good reasons. Subordinate legislation can also be more easily amended and is therefore suitable for matters that need to be amended from time to time.
However, this provision amends the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 and the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, which would create more confusion than noble Lords opposite have fully realised. We have the statute book and the separate volumes of collective subordinate regulations. We do not normally have cross-references on the statute book to the subordinate regulations. I do not recollect there being insertions in the book of regulations saying that the regulation has been amended by statute. We do not proceed in that manner. I therefore hope that on reflection the method used by the amendment will be considered to be not only unusual but unsuitable.
On the merits, rightly or wrongly, we have been able to justify various examples of age discrimination on our statute book. There is reference to the age of 16 for some purposes and the age of 25 for others. Without going into the precise merits of using those ages in relation to those regulations, I do not think a case has so far been made out for changing the law as proposed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton has spelt out the rather odd nature of the amendment. It seeks to amend two sets of regulation by statute. Apart from being odd and inconvenient, it is a perfectly futile method of proceeding. In the event of the amendment being carried against the Government, there is nothing whatever to prevent the Government using their regulation-making power to withdraw the amended regulations and replace them in their present form. The operation is therefore legislatively futile.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl or the noble Baroness in whose names the amendment stands, whether they have any idea what the provision would cost. It seems unfair for them to ask your Lordships to consider on its merits a proposal which they have so far shown themselves unwilling to cost.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the last two speakers have given technical reasons for not achieving the alteration put forward by my noble friend. That may be right. But we should obtain their help to make the alteration unless they profoundly disagree with it. If they do, I cannot think why.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thought that my noble friend Lord Renton explained why he disagreed with the amendment on other than technical grounds, but so be it. The amendment seeks to give the over-25 rate of personal allowance to certain income support claimants under that age who have to live away from home. It also introduces similar provisions for young

53
people claiming housing benefit and community charge benefit. The young people involved are mainly those who have no parents or who cannot or do not live with their parents for certain prescribed reasons.
There are a number of reasons why the Government are unable to support the amendment. First, a straightforward distinction in benefit levels on the basis of age and family circumstances was one of the main elements in the simplification of the new income-related benefit system introduced in April 1988. The House will recall that under the old supplementary benefit scheme distinctions were based on householder or non-householder status.
That scheme proved to be extremely complicated both for claimants to understand and for our staff to administer, involving detailed and often personal questioning to establish entitlement. The effect of the proposed amendment would simply be to reintroduce many of those complexities into the new arrangements, together with a new level of questioning necessary to determine whether someone had good reason for living away from home.
The House will be aware that arrangements along those lines were introduced in July last year to enable certain 16 to 17 year-olds to qualify for income support at the higher 18 to 24 year-old rate. However, those changes were made in recognition of the particular problems facing a relatively small group of the most vulnerable youngsters. It would be a very different matter to extend similar provisions to all young people under the age of 25, as the noble Lord who moved the amendment has proposed.
That would involve a considerable increase in operational costs, not only for local social security offices but also for individual local authorities, which are of course responsible for administering the housing benefit and community charge benefit schemes. I remind the House that under the changes introduced last July, the higher 18 to 24 year-old rate of personal allowance was extended to all 16 to 17 year-olds claiming housing benefit only, not just those in the special circumstances prescribed for income support. There were therefore no operational implications for local authorities.
But I would not wish the House to think that the Government are opposing the amendment purely on operational grounds. The levels of income support for young people under the age of 25 not only take account of the fact that the majority are likely to live in someone else's household but also reflect the lower earnings expectations of this age group generally. I am sure that the House will agree that it would be wrong for benefit levels to provide an attractive alternative to seeking work or training or an encouragement for young people to leave home unnecessarily. That was the position under the old supplementary benefit scheme and I have no wish to reintroduce these perverse incentives into the reformed structure.
As I mentioned earlier, last year the Government recognised that the level of benefit was causing difficulties for some 16 to 17 year-olds and we took steps to improve the position. But I do not accept
54
that the same problems apply to the level of benefit paid to 18 to 24 year-olds. I believe that this is adequate, without being over-generous. I would, of couse, remind the House that those entitled to income support will also qualify for the maximum housing benefit and community charge benefit covering 100 per cent. of their eligible rent and 80 per cent. of their community charge. I would also point out that lone parents and couples over 18 already qualify for the over-25 rates in recognition of their extra responsibilities and that anyone who is entitled to a premium will receive it at the full rate irrespective of their age.
My noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter rightly said that changes in this area would be more appropriately dealt with through secondary rather than primary legislation. They said that we should not go down the road of amending regulations in primary legislation. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked about the cost of the amendments and I am advised that it would be some £47 million.
We remain committed to the age-related structure of personal allowances and income support in its present form. It provides the most straightforward and effective approach and I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, on any matter concerned with parliamentary drafting one must listen with care to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I sympathise profoundly with his arguments against putting general principles into regulations. He and I have often spoken together about the matter. But it was not I who put the general principle into regulations.
We in this House cannot amend regulations unless we invoke a procedure by passing an Act authorising ourselves to do so. Once a provision is put into regulations we can use legislation only to remove it. I share the noble Lord's regret that that is so but I feel entitled to say, "Please, it wasn't me; I didn't put it there".
That is now the only way in which the problem can be addressed. We cannot refrain from addressing it simply because the Government put more general principles into a past regulation than we should like to see. Perhaps in future the Government will be careful not to repeat the same mistake because it is liable to lead to legislative confusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, rightly and properly raised the question of cost. My noble kinsman, whom I thank for his reply, gave a figure of £47 million. With an injustice of this magnitude I should not regard the cost as an obstacle if I were entirely convinced by it. But I am sure that my noble kinsman will concede that in the costing there is an element of the hypothetical. Under a different benefit regime we do not know how many teenagers living away from home would succeed in obtaining a place to live and in obtaining employment. Therefore, instead of being a charge on the Exchequer they would become net contributors. That is the whole basis of my approach to the Bill.
We are blocking off opportunities which will allow people to escape from dependence on benefit and

55
obtain employment. This is an extreme example of that. Increasing the number of taxpayers is a far more painless method of paying for a programme than is raising the rates of taxation. It is my contention that accepting the amendment will have the effect of putting more teenagers in employment and, therefore, increasing revenues. I shall not be surprised if, in the end, there is no net cost. If there is it will be small. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is not convinced. His position is conjectural; so, I admit, is mine. But when we have what is a crying injustice I do not see that we can do anything else.
My noble kinsman the Minister dealt with the lower rate and justified that by claiming that there is a lower earnings expectation. But his argument does too much; it commits him to things he may not have intended. I shall take one obvious example; the average earnings expectation of women is lower than that of men. I hope that my noble kinsman is not about to introduce the same argument for saying that we should give women lower social security benefits than men. If he does so I shall oppose it because it would be discriminatory. I believe that the present policy is discriminatory in the same way. As for the doctrine of perverse incentive, I can say no more—words fail me. I commend the amendment to the House.
6.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 113.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hughes, L.

Airedale, L.

Hunt, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hylton, L.

Barnett, L.

Jay, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carter, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lockwood, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

McNair, L.

David, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L,

Northfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ennals, L.

Peston, L.

Falkland, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Richard, L.

Foot, L.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Russell. E. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gregson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hanworth, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Walston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Allerton, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Ampthill, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Auckland, L.

56

Balfour, E.

Layton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Beloff, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bessborough, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blatch, B.

Manton, L.

Boardman, L.

Margadale, L.

Borthwick, L.

Merrivale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mersey, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mills, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Nelson, E.

Cockfield, L.

Norrie, L.

Colwyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orkney, E.

Craigavon, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Pender, L.

Cross, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Deedes, L.

Romney, E.

Denham, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elles, B.

Seebohm, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Stockton, E.

Elton, L.

Strange, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Foley, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Swinfen, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Swinton, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Terrington, L.

Gridley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Halsbury, E.

Trumpington, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ullswater, V.

Havers, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hives, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Hooper, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Hylon-Foster, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Ingrow, L.

Wise, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Wynford, L.

Kimball, L.

Young, B.

Lauderdale, E.

[*The Tellers for the Contents reported 54 names, the Tellers for the Not-Contents 113 names. The Clerks recorded 54 and 114 names respectively.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause:
("Uprating of income support for 16 and 17 year olds.
In paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 2 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, delete the table and insert the following—

"Column (1) Person or Couple

Column (2) Amount

(1) Single person who lives with his parents, or any person acting in the place of his parents, and aged

(a) less than 25;

£28·80

(b) not less than 25.

£36·70

(2) Single person who does not live with his parents, nor any person acting in the place of his parents.

£36·70

(3) Couples.

£57·60".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8. I admit immediately that these amendments have the same technical problem as that raised on the last amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. However, it is open to the Government to agree to amend the regulations to achieve what we wish to achieve on this matter. If the Minister agrees to that, we shall withdraw the amendment.
We now return to the problem of providing income support for 16 or 17 year-olds. Amendments were proposed in Committee to deal with that problem but the Government were unable to accept them despite the fact that considerable unease was expressed on all sides of the Committee regarding the effects of the changes in benefit regulations in 1988. They removed benefit from 16 and 17 year-olds. However, the Government have been forced to concede some changes in the regulations since then.
The effects of that removal are well documented: the difficulty of finding and paying for accommodation which results in the vicious Catch-22 situation of no home, no job; no job, no home; the increase in youthful crime and begging; the creation of cardboard cities for the young homeless, and many other undesirable social effects which we have discussed on a number of amendments.
Young people are said to be guaranteed a YTS place to compensate for that removal of benefit. Youth Aid estimates that at least 45,000 16 to 17 year-olds are without a job, a YTS place or any benefit. The cost of applying these amendments to those young people would be £70 million or £80 million. However, we should ask ourselves about the social cost of not helping them. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pointed out the cost of the police, the courts, the prisons and the health service. I believe it is a social obscenity that a rich country allows substantial numbers of its young people to live it such appalling conditions.
All that seems to stem from a curious obsession by the Government that young people belong at home in employment or on training schemes, living in a stable family background. That is a perfectly laudable objective but is a long way from the home lives of many young people.
In the recent recess I visited Prague and I had many interesting discussions regarding the new freedoms there. More than once I was asked: how is it that a rich country like yours has on its streets young people who are begging and living in cardboard boxes? I was told that that would not have been possible under their previous regime, oppressive though it was. I had no answer to that question. To accept this amendment would mean that that question would never need to be asked. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I intend to contribute only one point on this amendment. I wish to answer a question asked of me by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on 24th May. She asked me to give detailed evidence of cases of people who had applied for YTS places and were unable to obtain them. I have a
58
file of some 130 hardship cases of which, on my calculations, 70 are of people who had applied for YTS places and were unable to obtain them. Those come from one organisation and I am told that a much larger file is on the way. I should be grateful for my noble kinsman's advice on how, in what form and to whom he wishes those cases to be presented.
They seem to me to come under a number of fairly regular headings. By far the commonest heading is pregnancy, the employer saying very reasonably that a girl who could not complete the training was not suitable for the YTS. The second category is illness. For example, a girl was not accepted for the YTS because she was epileptic. Again, one can understand the employer's point of view, but that girl must live. We have here the problem of the dual nature of the YTS; namely, that it is both a government scheme to support teenagers who could not otherwise live and an employer-led scheme to provide worthwhile work for employers. There is a potential contradiction there.
The third very common category is that of those who did not obtain a YTS place because of the short time for which they were available. For example, several cases in that category were of people intending to join the army. They were to join up at a date two or three months ahead but were not given a place because they could not do anything useful in the time available.
There were cases of behaviour problems where of course one can see the employer's point of view. However, starvation is not usually thought to be the appropriate punishment for behaviour problems. There are problems regarding geographical area. Last year it was Glasgow; this year it seems to be Manchester and Chesterfield where the supply of places simply is not sufficient for the need. There are problems of geographical availability. I was not surprised that one case came from the Western Isles.
There are problems with poor English. Again I can see the employer's point. Poor English limits a teenager's usefulness to an employer, but I hope that it does not deprive him or her of the right to live. That is not all. Since we discussed YTS in Committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, again repeated the government guarantee of a place for every teenager, we have had some striking press publicity regarding the difficulties of YTS.
In the Independent on 31st May the chairman of the East London Managing Agents Network, Mr. Ernest Large, said that it was not able to offer a guarantee to the next batch of school-leavers. He said that the consensus is that East London can no longer offer the guarantee.
In the Independent on 4th June the National Council for Voluntary Organisations said that the cuts in YTS funding from the Government mean that the voluntary sector's contribution is at risk. Voluntary and community groups provide 7 per cent. of YTS places. In the Daily Telegraph on 8th June, which is not normally thought of as part of our Left-wing press, Sir Clifford Chetwood, chairman of the Construction Industry Training Board, was quoted as saying that he was undertaking a fundamental review of youth training programmes

59
because of government cuts. They provide 10 per cent. of the total YTS places. In today's Independent we have a headline,
"Charities set to lose 5,000 training places as funding is cut".
In those circumstances I wonder whether when my noble kinsman replies he will repeat the doctrine of a government guarantee, and whether if he does so, he will risk finding, as junior Ministers do from time to time, that he is occupying a position whence all but he have fled.
There are other cases of people who genuinely cannot be expected to apply for YTS places. For example, someone who has been thrown out of her parent's home, and when found has not eaten for three days, clearly needs a little while before she is fit to undertake training.
A surprisingly large number even among 16 and 17 year-olds are carers. For example, one young person was engaged in caring for a blind father. I know that my noble friend Lady Seear will say more about that later. There are cases of considerable distress on which I shall not elaborate. Forcing people in those situations to rely for subsistence on applying for a YTS place, which probably is not there anyway, is appropriately described as social cruelty.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I feel sympathetic to the amendment. I received some material on the matter and, taking into account what has been said today and at different times on the subject, I am happy to support it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I reinforce my noble friend's comments regarding the effects of cuts in government spending for schemes of this kind—schemes for special needs groups with which I am associated. I specifically refer to young offenders, who are difficult to train and place. The cuts in government funding have led to drastic reductions in the training offered and because of that the people concerned will find it extraordinarily difficult to earn any money.
When the Bill was drafted I have no doubt that the Government believed that they were funding all people who wanted a YTS place. That is no longer so. If the noble Lord cannot comment on it this evening perhaps between now and Third Reading he will look at the implications of the changes which the Government have made regarding the cuts in funding because they drastically alter the situation.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, this amendment is much narrower than the previous one. I support it on the grounds of the cost not only of clothing but also of shoes, as any parent who has children in this age group will readily understand. Many of these young people are still growing and therefore need not fewer but more clothes and shoes in the course of one year than older people.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble kinsman spoke of the position of junior Ministers at the Dispatch Box. I thought he intended to quote,
"The boy stood on the burning deck".
60
I cannot remember how it continues, but I seem to remember he was all alone.
Perhaps I may first say that I shall be very pleased to see any of the cases collected by my noble kinsman. He asks where they can be sent. He can send them to me at the Department of Social Security, Richmond House, Whitehall. I will certainly look at them.
I shall deal with the amendments in opposite order, starting first with Amendment No. 8, which seeks to change the provisions for 16 and 17 year-olds by extending eligibility to income support to any 16 or 17 year-old who is unable to secure employment or a suitable place on a youth training scheme.
Income support is not payable to most young people under 18 years of age. It was withdrawn from the majority of 16 and 17 year-olds in September 1988. The Government did that to prevent young people going straight into the benefit culture on leaving school. Dependence on state benefits so early on in a person's career is clearly not in the interests of the young person, their families or society as a whole. The withdrawal of benefit was accompanied by the introduction of a guarantee of the offer of a suitable youth training place for anyone who wants one. That guarantee is being met.
There is no reason why a young person who wants and is able to undertake youth training should be without a place. As my noble friend Lady Blatch said in Committee in March of this year, there were approximately 160,000 unfilled youth training places. On that occasion she went on to quote the number of unfilled places throughout the kingdom in every area, again in answer to the claim by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that there were geographical black spots, which I do not accept.
Perhaps I could touch on the newspaper articles quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—the Independent articles of 31st May and 4th June and the Daily Telegraph article of 8th June. The top priority for training and enterprise councils is to meet the youth training guarantee. That is properly a matter for the training agency. It will investigate any cases where it is alleged that the guarantee is not or will not be met and will take remedial action.
Income support is still payable to the most vulnerable groups of young people. It is paid without time restriction to, for example, disabled people and lone parents. Other young people who either have no parental home or have good reason why they cannot live at home are entitled to income support during the same period as the child benefit extension period. Whether or not a young person is offered a place in his or her chosen field depends on the circumstances. If he or she does not apply until the child benefit or bridging allowance is about to run out, it may not be possible to provide what is wanted right away, but every effort will be made to find a suitable place as quickly as possible.
In addition to the normal rules, income support can be paid where the young person would otherwise suffer unavoidable severe hardship. That safety net enables young people at serious risk to receive benefit while looking for a job or YT place. Since

61
November 1989 every young person claiming benefit is automatically considered under the severe hardship provision if not otherwise entitled to income support.
Apart from extending entitlement to young people estranged from their families, we have not been persuaded of the desirability of any major change. We remain convinced that our policy on young people is the right one. The income support rules provide help for those youngsters who may be incapable of work or training while also offering temporary help to those who may not be able to take up training or job opportunities immediately.
We have always recognised that some youngsters need special consideration in the provision of a YT place. That does not mean that we should give up on them. Indeed, we cannot afford to give up on them. Their problems can be accommodated in a number of ways: first, through YT itself, which aims to provide quality training tailored to the needs of the individual. This includes those youngsters with special training needs such as those who lack motivation or who have disabilities. Secondly, initial training offers in-depth assessment and remedial help for young people who would otherwise have difficulty in being accepted or coping with YT. This is intended to bring youngsters with particular problems—for example, the homeless and those with severe emotional or behavioural problems—to a point where they are ready for mainstream YT.
In addition, in March this year the Secretary of State for Employment announced a package of operational improvements in dealing with applications for YT places. These included the establishing of guarantee liaison officers in each Training Agency area office to act as a focal point for investigating those rare cases where there is difficulty in YT placement and the revision of guidance to careers officers so that it adequately covers the need to take account of the special needs of difficult and vulnerable groups. The existing provision and the improvements to the YT operation which I have described ensure that help is available for those who are vulnerable and that no young person need be without an income.
Turning to Amendment No. 7, this seeks to introduce a scale of benefit rates for the under-25s which would be determined on whether or not they live with their parents or guardian. Those people under the age of 25 living with parents would receive the equivalent of the present 18 to 24 year-old rate, while those who live away from home would receive the over-25 rate.
We have discussed the rationale behind the present age-related allowances in some depth in regard to Amendment No. 6, which the House recently rejected. Therefore, I shall not go over those arguments again. I simply say that it would not be acceptable, or indeed right, to introduce into the system something that would clearly act as a perverse incentive to the under-25s to leave home unnecessarily.
On a practical level, this amendment may look deceptively simple to operate but we must look at the principle involved. The amendment would mean
62
that any young person who chose to move to a nearby relative's or a friend's house could increase benefit by almost £8 per week while to all intents and purposes the household circumstances would be the same.
I have already said that the Government consider that the present arrangements for under-25s provide adequate income in different circumstances. There is no justification that I can see for increasing the benefit presently paid to 16 and 17 year-olds who are living at home with parents. The present 18 to 24 year-old rate payable to those youngsters who have no option but to live independently is adequate without being over-generous.
Finally, I should touch on the question of cost, as I always ought to do. I am advised that these two amendments would cost around £74 million. The present arrangements enable the Government to be flexible in responding to the special needs of certain groups while retaining a structure which is straightforward and effective. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may point out that he has not referred to the fact—and there is no argument about this—that the Government have cut the amount of money available for all these schemes, including the money going to the TECs. Large numbers of people concerned with these schemes have been making representations to the Government in that respect. The noble Lord may say that it has been found that previously the schemes have been grossly over-funded. I do not think many people would agree with that. If that is not the case, the Government must at least admit that such cuts are making it more difficult to fulfil the undertaking. Perhaps the noble Lord will agree to review the position now that these cuts are taking place to see whether the Government can say, as they have said previously, that there are places available. What was true in the past is not going to be true in the future with less money coming forward.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I said that there were about 160,000 vacancies throughout the country in March of this year. I also repeated the Government's guarantee that all young people will he able to take up a YT place.
Lord Carter: My Lords, when we were discussing last year's social security legislation and the subject of disability benefits I said to the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that it would save the time of the House if he stood up, said "OPCS survey" and then sat down. In discussing this subject today if the noble Lord were to stand up, say "a perverse incentive" and sit down it would be equally time-saving.
Again, his answer was very disappointing. The Government seem to be completely stone-faced on this issue. They refuse to accept the problem, as they did when they first introduced the changes in the regulations which led to the problem and were then forced to make concessions—concessions which had

63
been pressed on them from the outset. There seems to be a gulf in the understanding between the Government and those people who have to deal with the problem.
The Minister referred to 160,000 unfilled places. As I said in moving the amendment, we are told by Youth Aid that there are 45,000 young people without a job, a YTS place or benefit. I ask the Minister: what are those 45,000 young people supposed to do? It is clear that the Government cannot understand or recognise the problem, but to divide the House would achieve nothing. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elliott of Morpeth): My Lords, before calling the next amendment I have to inform the House that the figure for those voting "Not-Content" in the last Division was wrongly given as 113. The figure should have been 114.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Housing benefit for under-25s
. In section 22 of the 1986 Act, after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) In relation to housing benefit the applicable amount for a person aged under 25 shall be the same as if he were aged 25".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Russell I briefly move this amendment. This is very much in line with the case that we have been making on previous amendments. The removal of housing benefit for the under-25s can be a serious handicap to people in that age group who have to be away from home. In particular, it affects the position of students—a point that we have made on a number of occasions—and specifically graduate students, who are not now able to receive housing benefit. We wish to see that restored and that is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, this amendment would abolish the lower applicable amount for young people aged under 25 in housing benefit only. It would have the effect of basing the calculation of housing benefit on the full adult rate of personal allowance in all cases, irrespective of age or personal circumstances.
The House will of course be aware that as a prudent Administration we are concerned that public funds should be disbursed both sensibly and sensitively. Every change to the existing scheme of income related benefits carries a cost. The estimated cost of this amendment at current benefit rates would be about £11 million. We are realists and as such we recognise that in reality the overwhelming majority of single people live at home with their families. This position is reflected in the structure of housing benefit, community charge benefit and income
64
support, which all have a reduced personal allowance for younger claimants. A lower benefit rate acknowledges the reality that most of those aged under 25 are non-householders, with no liability for housing costs. Equally important, these young people have lower income expectations than older people, as I said on earlier amendments. It is therefore right that the benefit system should also reflect that.
Common rules which apply to income support and housing benefit, together with the latter's rent taper, apply to extra income. This means that all young people in employment or on YT who successfully claim housing benefit, and who must be living independently in order to be eligible, will be left with at least their income support applicable amount to live on after paying their housing costs.
As I have already said, we consider it right that this applicable amount should be lower for single people under the age of 25 than for those aged 25 and over. We have discussed this on all previous amendments. Those who are lone parents or who are disabled will benefit from the special premiums and higher earnings disregard which apply to those groups, irrespective of age. For couples and lone parents there is no age divide above 18 in recognition of their special status.
There is a scheme to help with housing costs. It should not offer young people the incentive to leave home by increasing the applicable amount in income support.
The Government undertook to monitor the effects of the 1988 social security reforms and they are continuing to do so. We have responded to representations of 16 and 17 year-olds who are living independently and finding it difficult to manage on the lower rate of benefit. We do not accept that the same situation applies to the rate for 18 to 24 year-olds. We consider that that rate is sufficient without being overgenerous.
I am sure the House will agree that it would be wrong if benefit levels provided an attractive alternative to seeking work or training or encouraged young people to leave home unnecessarily. That was the position under the old supplementary benefit scheme. We are concerned not to reintroduce those anomalies into the reform structure. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I do not find that to be a satisfactory answer. The noble Lord has repeated the points that he made in the previous debate. He has again produced the argument that because expectations of earnings are lower the benefits rates should be lower. He did not answer the point made by my noble friend that one does not apply that argument because women's expectations of earnings are lower than those of men, and the logic of that situation would require them to do so. However, the noble Lord is obviously quite implacable in regard to that matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Severe disablement allowance: age related addition]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 11, at beginning insert:
("( ) In section 36(4) of the principal Act, for paragraph— (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(c) he does not satisfy the prescribed conditions as to presence in Great Britain; or".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment returns to a problem that was raised at Committee stage when the response of the Government was not wholly satisfactory. The requirements for applicants for severe disablement allowances are that Great Britain must be their normal place of residence, that they must have been resident in Great Britain for 10 our of 20 years prior to the claim, and that they must have been physically present for each of 196 qualifying days of incapacity.
The residence requirements do not coincide with those for invalid care allowance, attendance allowance, mobility allowance, housing benefit and income support. The Minister of State, Mr. Nicholas Scott, undertook in another place to examine the problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, confirmed at Committee stage in this Chamber that the Gavernment were reviewing the situation with a view to rationalising the various anomalies.
The Minister wrote to me and pointed out that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in reply to an amendment that I moved in Committee had quoted a cost of £14 million a year. It appears that that figure was incorrect and that the amount should have been £1·4 million. Perhaps those who advise the noble Baroness will remind her whether it was Gladstone or Disraeli who had trouble with "those damn dots". The answer was wrong by the power of 10, but I do not propose to say any more about that matter. I think that is extremely decent of me!
The amendment gives the Government an opportunity to reveal the outcome of their review and to convince the House that the expenditure of £1·4 million is so great a burden on the social security budget of £54 million that the amendment cannot be accepted. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not comforted by the fact that I did not spot that mistake in my previous presentation. I am only comforted by the fact that so many other people did not spot it.
Severe disablement has, in common with the other non-contributory benefits for people who are disabled, qualifying conditions relating to residence and presence in Great Britain. The presence conditions are that a person claiming the allowance must be present here and have been present here for 24 weeks out of the continuous period of 28 weeks for which a person must have been incapable of work before qualifying for severe disablement allowance. The presence conditions are therefore fairly easy to meet.
The residence conditions are that the person must have been resident in Great Britain for 10 of the last 20 years (or 10 years since birth in the case of a
66
person aged 20). The effect of the amendment would be to remove the power to make regulations relating to residence and thus the current so-called 10 in 20 test.
That test is different from the tests which apply to the other benefits for people who are disabled; namely, attendance allowance and mobility allowance. The test for severe disablement is the same as applied to its predecessor, non-contributory invalidity pension. When the latter was introduced in 1975 the residence test which was adopted was the same as for non-contributory retirement pension. There is an affinity between the two benefits in that they are available to people who have not paid the required national insurance contributions to qualify for the contributory benefits provided for the same purpose. On the other hand, attendance and mobility allowances are benefits which are provided specifically to help with the extra costs of disability and they have no contributory counterparts. The residence and presence conditions are much easier to fulfil for those two benefits.
We are already looking at the question of whether or not changes should be made which will bring the tests for those benefits more into line. The tests for attendance and mobility allowance are being considered in preparation for the new disability allowance, which will bring those two benefits together. We are looking at the tests for severe disablement allowance at the same time. I am not able to tell your Lordships when we shall be able to reach a conclusion, as there are a number of other questions which have to be considered in modifying current arrangements to fit into the disability allowance. It would be premature at this stage to accept that the residence test for severe disablement allowance should be removed altogether.
There are points of principle to be taken into consideration, such as the relationship between the eligibility criteria for contributory and non-contributory benefits that are provided for the same purpose. There is also the question of cost. At this point, I should like to apologise to your Lordships for an error which was made in quoting the cost when the amendment was debated at Committee stage. The gross cost of providing severe disablement allowance to our estimate of 1,000 people who would be expected to gain from the amendment is £1.4 million. That is still a substantial sum.
The point has been made that the test affects the mobility of labour, but the point to bear in mind is that some people who are working abroad can qualify for contributory benefits by paying national insurance contributions while abroad or through reciprocal arrangements with other countries. We are aware, however, that members of their families may not be able to gain entitlement in that way.
We are aware of the representation made on behalf of service families who have spent a number of tours abroad in the 20-year test period. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, expressed concern in relation to that point at Committee stage.
We believe that the number involved is very small. A social security commissioner has held that, in

67
certain circumstances, it may be possible for a person to be regarded as resident here even though abroad on consecutive tours of duty. We already have special arrangements to help members of service families with the presence criteria and we are looking sympathetically at finding a way of making arrangements to help with the residence criteria. The extent to which we need to act on that matter will to a great extent depend upon what conclusion we reach about the appropriate residence conditions for claimants generally.
In conclusion, I hope that the points I have made show that it would not be advisable to make a change to the residence rules for severe disablement allowance without carefully considering the effect it would have on its relationship to other benefits. We have the matter in hand, but, because of the need to consider these possible implications for other benefits, I do not think that I can give a date by which we can reach our conclusions.
I hope nevertheless that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment so that residence and presence conditions for benefits for disabled people can be considered in the round.
Lord Carter: My Lords, this is a highly complicated matter. One is tempted to observe that the Minister's reply would perhaps be easier to understand in the original Sanskrit!
We understand that a review is being carried out. I thought that the noble Baroness should have spared us the description of a substantial sum of £1·4 million among 1,000 people. She sounded almost as convincing about that matter as about the figure of £14 million that she quoted at Committee stage. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Exemption for summer vacation employment
. In section 20(12)(d) of the 1986 Act, at the end there shall be inserted the words "provided that no person shall be treated as not available for employment solely on the grounds that he is a student during the summer vacation appropriate to his course." ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords we were successful with two or three amendments at Committee stage in relation to students and housing benefit. However, the present amendment proposes to retain the student entitlement to income support during the summer vacation.
The Government published draft amendment regulations on 19th February. They will have the effect of taking students out of entitlement to housing benefit all year round and income support and unemployment benefit during the summer vacation. To date, those regulations have still to be laid before Parliament. The intention is to redefine the student's period of study so as to include the summer vacation. That is stated in the draft amendment regulations. It will have the effect of deeming the student during the long vacation as being not available for employment, and therefore not entitled to income support: availablility for work being one of the main conditions for entitlement to income support.
It is our contention, and that of the NUS, that by every definition other than that of the Government's proposal, during the summer vacation a student is available for employment, and therefore should be entitled to income support, subject to meeting the normal conditions of eligibility.
Indeed, considering that it is impossible for a student to finance himself or herself during the summer vacation on the amounts of money available under the Government's new system for financial support, students will need to find employment. While virtually all students endeavour to find work, it is not always possible to do so. What provision do the Government plan to make for that?
The amendment seeks to ensure that students who actively seek work, but who do not succeed in securing a job, will not be left destitute, hence the change in status from availability for employment to non-availability for employment created by the extension of the period of study to include the long vacation. That, in our opinion, is ill-considered and will cause many students and their parents a great deal of financial hardship. It will of course make them more dependent upon their parents, which is what we thought the Government were trying to avoid.
During the numerous debates on students and social security throughout the passage of the Education (Student Loans) Bill, it became clear that the Government did not know how much money in total is presently expended on social security benefits for students. The total figure of £68 million which was offered was sometimes confused with the total for housing benefit. During the 15th Sitting of Standing Committee B, Mr. Robert Jackson, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said:
"We should compare that with savings to the Exchequer from the withdrawal of students' access to benefits calculated on the basis of the Research Services Limited surveys of £68 million only"
However, during debate in your Lordships' House on Monday, 19th March, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, used that figure in answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, to refer specifically to the removal of housing benefit:
"As I understand it, the value of the benefit withdrawn is £68 million". [Official Report, 19/3/90; col. 47.]
Further Parliamentary Questions answered on 5th June by Mrs. Shepherd confirmed that confusion. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, repeated in the debate on 26th March that students obtaining housing benefit at the moment would claim about £68 million. So there is no agreement.
The point being made here is that the Government are not in possession of the figure for the expenditure on social security benefits for students. Until that information is known, they should refrain from taking students out of social security. The amount of money in the hardship or access funds to be set up by the Government is totally inadequate to begin to meet the needs generated by loss of benefits. Grants are to be frozen at current levels from this year, and the loan facility does not compensate for loss of benefits.
During other debates on the Bill the House was informed of the great hardship experienced by 16 to

69
18 year-olds as a result of their income support being withdrawn. Similarly, the Government's current problems regarding the poll tax are an example of what can happen if major changes are pushed through without sufficient forethought and without adequate information.
The Government should think carefully and act extremely cautiously before withdrawing the income support safety net from students. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the case in favour of the amendment is that students cannot live on the amount of money available to them at present unless they are available for employment during the long vacation. That is pretty well common ground among all the people who teach them. In theory, though, I can understand the Government's case here. I understand the argument which says that they ought not to be available for employment during the long vacation.
I have this afternoon been trying to explain to my special subject class that they need to read 1,200 pages of original sources during the long vacation to be able to cope with the work next year. Clearly they cannot do that unless, for a substantial part of the vacation at least, they are not available for employment; but if that were to be realistic, there would have to be a realistic level of support for 52 weeks of the year. While there is not, availability for employment during the vacation is a necessity.
I should like to ask my noble kinsman one other question. We are told that there are in prospect regulations designed to disentitle students from social security benefits. If those regulations were to come forward while the present Social Security Bill is still under consideration, we could have a rather confused situation. I should be grateful to receive the Government's assurance that any decision on that issue will wait until a decision has been taken about our amendments which will shortly be sub judice in another place.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendment, if carried, would prevent the Government from carrying out their policy of withdrawing income support, and housing benefit from most students. By doing so it would lead to a substantial increase in public expenditure and maintain the inappropriate administrative burden that student claims place on local authorities and Department of Social Security local offices. The amendment goes even wider. It would maintain, against our intent, the current position whereby students can claim income support during the summer vacation. Top-up loans are intended to provide financial support over the whole academic year. To allow able-bodied students to have recourse to an income maintenance benefit such as income support would result in an element of double provision.
The benefit entitlement of students was debated at length during the passage of the Education (Student Loans) Act and we have heard the arguments many times but, in view of the obvious concerns that the amendment displays, I feel that a re-statement of the Government's position is needed.
70
It is a fundamental plank of the Government's student support policies that financial assistance provided to students out of public funds should be directed through the education system according to educational criteria. We do not believe that the social security system is an appropriate mechanism for channelling support to students for the following reasons. First, the decision to undertake full-time study is a decision to opt out of the labour market: it is not the function of the benefit system to subsidise able-bodied people without family responsibilities in that way. Nevertheless, we recognise the need to protect those in vulnerable groups, such as students with families and disabled students, and have undertaken that those in such groups will retain eligibility for benefits.
Secondly, the benefit system was never intended for the support of students. For a variety of reasons the scale of student claims has increased significantly over the past two decades, putting an unintended and inappropriate burden on the welfare system; and, thirdly, the short-term, cyclical nature of students' benefit claims generates administrative problems and costs which are out of of all proportion with the amounts actually claimed.
For all those reasons, the Government believe that it is now appropriate to remove students' entitlement to benefits and place the responsibility for student support where it properly belongs—with the education system. Not only is support through the benefit system inappropriate for students, it is also unnecessary. The Government's policies are generous to students, giving the great majority more in loans than they might otherwise have claimed in benefits.
From the independent survey carried out on students' income and expenditure we estimate that in 1990–91 those students who claimed benefits would have received an average of £315 over a full year. Instead of that level of benefit, students will have available a loan of, in most cases, £420.
The total amount available to students in loan and access funds will far outweigh what would have been available in benefits. We estimate that in the first year of the scheme expenditure on loans will be £178 million compared with savings on social security expenditure of only £68 million for those within the scope of loans. Additionally we are making £25 million available in the access funds. The Government will be spending well over £100 million more on students next year as a result of the new student support system.
We acknowledge that there is concern in some quarters about the effect on individuals of the loss of benefit entitlement and we accept, of course, that a few students might have been able to claim more in benefits than they will have available in loan. I can reassure your Lordships that the Government have not neglected the position of such students: if a small number of students are in financial difficulty as a result of the withdrawal of benefit entitlement, they will be able to apply for assistance from the access funds.
However, I am sure the House recognises that we must be fair to the taxpayer. The amendments would

71
deprive the taxpayer of a substantial part of the savings made by removing students from the benefit system. To compensate, we are already making more resources available to students. It would be an unnecessary and inappropriate burden on public expenditure if they were to retain access to the benefit system as well. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, would she be good enough to answer the question already put to her? It was when the regulations under the student loans Act withdrawing social benefits from students will be laid. Can she also remind me whether they are subject to the affirmative or negative procedure?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give assurances on both points. The regulations will not be laid until this Bill has received Royal Assent. It is my pretty firm understanding that they are subject to the affirmative resolution.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down could she answer one question? Do the Government expect students to work in the long vacation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, whether a student works in the vacation is very much a matter for the student.
Baroness David: My Lords, I do not consider that an answer. I wonder whether the Minister can try again. I do not believe that that is at all a satisfactory answer. We heard the old arguments over and over again while we were going through the student loans Bill, and now we hear them on the Social Security Bill. We clearly do not agree about the expenditure and what the student will have to live on, whether or not it will be adequate. We believe that it will be inadequate. Some students will not have enough to live on if they cannot get work in the summer vacation, without becoming dependent on their parents. Some parents may not be able to support them.
I should like to have better figures. I hoped that the noble Baroness would write to me and say how the Government work out their figures. I read out figures that were contrary. Some were based on housing benefit, which the amendment has nothing to do with. What are the Government's figures? What do they believe has been paid in social security, and do they expect students to manage on the amount available for them to live on, considering the amount that they have to pay out?
If the noble Baroness cannot give me any of those answers now, I hope that she will try to write to me. In the meantime, I shall withdraw the amendment and reserve my right to come back at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Determination of days for which benefit is payable
. In section 17(2)(a) of the principal Act, at the end there shall be added the words "provided that, in the case of a student, nothing in any such regulation shall prevent any day on which he is attending his course of education from being treated as a day of unemployment." ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, again this amendment concerns support for students but deals with a rather different matter: to preserve students' entitlement to unemployment benefit during vacation.
The draft amendment regulations which were published on 19th February included the intention to take students out of entitlement to unemployment benefit during vacations. This is particularly harsh. Unemployment benefit is a contributory benefit so only those people who have made enough of the appropriate class of national insurance contributions will actually receive it.
The rationale forming the Government's arguments regarding students and social security has been that students have voluntarily withdrawn from the labour market and therefore should not be entitled to social security. This, however, does not deal with the issue that many students will have worked before going to college and will therefore have paid national insurance contributions. They would be entitled normally to receive unemployment benefit, certainly in their first summer vacation, on the basis of those contributions.
In the case of such students, their contributions will count for nothing save entitlement to their pensions. Furthermore, such students will face double jeopardy in that, on completion of their courses, they will be ineligible to claim unemployment benefit as it will be more than a year since they last paid national insurance contributions.
The unemployment benefit situation will be particularly detrimental to mature students who may have worked for a number of years before taking the decision to pursue a course of higher education. Those are students who are deemed to be independent by the DES mandatory award regulations.
There is a particularly strong moral argument here: that a group of people who have totally satisfied the contribution conditions to receive a benefit are being denied entitlement solely on the grounds that they are students. This is an unprecedented move and we contend that it is totally unacceptable.
The Social Security Advisory Committee, in the report on the proposals to the Secretary of State—which was extensively leaked to the press in mid-May—showed itself to be very concerned about the matter. It described the intention to withdraw unemployment benefit from those students who had paid the required national insurance contributions as,
"a breach of natural justice".
The Government are also unsure as to the amounts of money that will be saved as a result. I shall give two examples. First, in a reply to a question from

73
Andrew Smith, MP, on 5th June 1990 to the Secretary of State for Social Security as to the savings to public expenditure expected in respect of the proposed withdrawal on entitlement to unemployment benefit, Gillian Shephard replied:
"In the next financial year reductions in public expenditure are estimated to be £51 million from housing benefit and £28 million from income support and unemployment benefit. It is not possible to provide a disaggregated figure for unemployment benefit as separate details of claims are not kept".—[Official Report, 5/6/90; Col. 568.]
Secondly, in reply to another Question from Andrew Smith to the Secretary of State for Social Security, again on 5th June 1990 (at Col. 569 of Hansard), regarding the numbers of students currently in receipt of unemployment benefit during the long vacation, the answer from Gillian Shephard was:
"I regret that information on the numbers of students receiving unemployment benefit is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost".
Those replies not only reinforce the uncertainty on the potential savings for the Government via benefit withdrawal to students—the figures have changed yet again from those I gave on the last amendment—but confirm that the Government do not know the consequences of their actions.
In the light of the doubts surrounding the effects of taking students out of social security entitlement, I had intended to ask the Minister to reassure us about the amendment regulations. I believe that she has already done so, and I am satisfied that these will not be laid before the Bill receives Royal Assent. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, when we discussed the first amendment today dealing with child benefit, noble Lords opposite waxed long and eloquent about the sacrosanct nature of the national insurance fund and the relationship of contributions to benefits. Those noble Lords will be able to deal with the points that my noble friend has made about the obvious lack of relationship between contributions and unemployment benefits to students.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am a little puzzled by the drafting of the amendment. I understand its intention, which the noble Baroness explained perfectly clearly. However, apparently it provides that the regulations could not treat any day on a course as being a day of unemployment. Does that cover term time when a student is supposed to be working? It seems a little odd that the student should be able to establish that he was unemployed, when he was working during term. He was quite plainly not available for any other employment. Although I have a great deal of sympathy, as the noble Baroness knows, with the general objection to the withdrawal of social security benefits from students, I wonder whether the amendment goes too far.
If I am right in the way in which I read it, it provides that the term during which the student is working in college or university should be treated as a time of unemployment. If so, it seems to be going too far, although recalling my own undergraduate days, it might have been applicable to one or two of my contemporaries.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment particularly as it applies to mature students. Any government ought to encourage this group, if only because of its much higher degree of motivation as compared with the general run of students in the country. We must remember that grants for mature students are, in most cases, discretionary. Many local authorities refuse to take up that discretion and make use of it. Therefore those who have contributed over quite a number of years in some cases to national insurance and social security should be entitled to benefit in the way suggested.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this amendment, if carried, would prevent the Government from carrying out their policy of withdrawing unemployment benefit from most students. That would lead to a substantial increase in public expenditure, which, alone, would be unfortunate but the effect of this amendment goes even wider. It would recreate an entitlement that was withdrawn in 1986. It would enable students to receive unemployment benefit not just in the summer vacation but also at Christmas and at Easter. That would result in an inappropriate financial double provision by the state.
The aim of unemployment benefit is to provide a short-term measure of compensation for people who are normally working but who have to face an unforeseen contingency of unemployment. The Government do not believe that students fall into such a category. Indeed the position of a student during vacation might be likened to that of an employee on recognised or customary vacation from normal employment, and who is unable to claim unemployment benefit. Students have chosen to follow a course of study and will now have all their financial needs dealt with under the education maintenance arrangements.
Top-up loans are intended to provide financial support over the whole academic year. To allow able bodied students to have recourse to an income maintenance benefit such as unemployment benefit would result in an element of double provision. Furthermore, I should point out to noble Lords that in practice very few students meet the contribution conditions for unemployment benefit. For those who have paid contributions, their value will carry forward for the purposes of other benefit entitlement and for retirement pension eligibility.
The benefit entitlement of students has been debated at length—I have said that once before and I must repeat it—during the passage of the Education (Student Loans) Act. We have heard the arguments many times, but in view of the obvious concerns that these amendments display I feel that we must continue to restate the Government's position. It is a fundamental plank of the Government's student support policies that financial assistance provided to students out of public funds should be directed through the education system according to educational criteria.
At the risk of repeating myself I should say that we do not believe that the social security system is an appropriate mechanism for channelling support

75
to students. The benefit system was never intended for the support of students. Further, the short term, cyclical nature of students' benefit claims generates administrative problems and costs which are out of all proportion with the amounts actually claimed.
For all these reasons the Government believe that it is now appropriate to remove students' entitlement to benefits and place the responsibility for student support where it properly belongs—with the education system.
In response to a point raised by the noble Baroness about the efficacy of the figures that we use, I should say that an independent survey was carried out on students' income and expenditure. We estimate, as a result of that survey, that in 1990–91 students who claimed benefits would have received an average of £315 over a full year. Instead of this level of benefit, students will have available to them, in most cases, loans of £420. The total amount available to students in loans and access funds is £178 million. Based on actual data, the loss of income support will be £68 million and £25 million will be available in the access funds.
We acknowledge that there is concern in some quarters. On the previous amendment I said that we would make provision for the most vulnerable. I apologise for the repetition but there was an insistence on these two very similar amendments being taken together. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, these two amendments deal with two different matters. One deals with contributions from national insurance funds whereas the other deals with the matter of being available for work. I should say to the noble Lord. Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that I understood that Amendment No. 12 represents the technical way of dealing with the matter and that the wording is directly related to that of DSS draft regulations and the way the Government wish to withdraw the unemployment benefit. I am not an expert on drafting amendments but I was assured that what I had stated in the amendment would achieve what I had intended. I hope I am correct on that point.
As the noble Baroness said, she has repeated the figures. We do not agree with those figures. The figure of £315 may represent an average but there may be many students who cannot manage on that and who will lose out. We are sure of that. We simply do not agree on the figures. However, I do not think the noble Baroness answered the moral question concerning a person who has paid a contribution. I refer particularly to the mature students whom the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned. Is it fair that such people should not be able to draw the benefit which is due to them if they cannot find work? I hope I shall receive a reply to that point.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am looking for some confirmatory nodding heads but my understanding is that a mature student would receive benefit until his contribution element ran out. However, it
76
appears that I am wrong on that. I must write to the noble Baroness on that point.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am not satisfied. There is a moral problem here and a breach of natural justice. I shall divide the House.
7.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 97.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Airedale, L.

Lytton, E.

Birk, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Seebohm, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton, L.

Walpole, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Walston, L.

Lawrence, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Henley, L.

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Auckland, L.

Hives, L.

Balfour, E.

Hooper, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belstead, L.

Ingrow, L.

Blatch, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Boardman, L.

Kimball, L.

Borthwick, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Layton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Liverpool, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Long, V.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnock, L.

Manton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Margadale, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Merrivale, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mersey, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Mills, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Milverton, L.

Cross, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Morris, L.

Denham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Elles, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Norfolk, D.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norrie, L.

Elton, L.

Onslow, E.

Ferrers, E.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pender, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Reay, L.

Greenway, L.

Rees, L.

Gridley, L.

Rennell, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Renton, L.

77

Romney, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Trumpington, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Strange, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wynford, L.

Swinton, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.23 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Report stage should not be resumed before 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Bill
7.24 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
From a personal point of view, I thank the honourable Member for Ealing, North, Mr. Harry Greenway, for asking me to take the Bill through your Lordships' House. Over 30 years ago I broke my back riding in a point-to-point race. When racing, even 30 years ago, we all had to wear skull caps. Mine was specially made because I have a rather large head. Not only did I break my back; I had numerous other injuries. I was concussed and had a suspected head injury. I have always given thanks for the protection of my skull cap.
On many occasions I have visited hospital accident departments and neuro-surgical units. It is a tragedy to see so many young people there. Only last week I received a letter from a young woman who had had a riding accident some years ago in which she sustained a head injury. I quote a few words from her letter:
"I was found to have left hemiplegia after being unconscious for 6/8 weeks. I am just about going out of my mind with trauma and frustration".
This is 10 years after the accident.
I have had many telephone calls from people who are worried that this Bill might be delayed.
The Bill makes it an offence for a variety of categories of adults to cause or permit a child to ride a horse on the road without wearing protective headgear. I have already been lobbied by a number of people with specific experience which demonstrates how a hard hat could have prevented serious injury or death. I am sure that many of us know of such accidents. Without doubt children wearing proper head protection are safer than those who do not. Indeed, in the debate on compulsory rear seatbelts for children in cars the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said specifically that to compel people riding horses to wear crash helmets would also save lives.
It is estimated that in Britain 3½ million people regularly ride horses. It is difficult to know how
78
many of them suffer accidents on roads which result in injuries that require medical attention because information is not collected comprehensively. However, a study in the West Midlands in 1988 concluded that there are about 1,460 horse rider casualties a year on the highway requiring medical attention. Up to half of those are children. Approximately a third of all rider injuries are to the head.
Wearing a safety helmet is one of the simplest ways of ensuring one's safety when riding. It is particularly important that they are worn when riding on the road because accidents to riders in those circumstances are more likely to be severe than accidents in the field. Studies by the British Horse Society suggest that helmet wearing rates among children are possible up to 80 per cent. However, there remain the 20 per cent. who do not wear helmets and the possibility that some of the helmets in use are not to an appropriate standard or are inappropriately fitted, severely limiting protection.
Wearing an appropriate helmet may not prevent death—a rider may suffer multiple injuries—but helmets reduce the severity of head injuries and prevent minor injuries. Even a seemingly small bump to the head may cause complications. Recovery from serious head injury may be a long and difficult process for both the patient and his or her family and friends. Indeed, recovery may never be complete. For example, a head injury can lead to a fundamental change in personality.
The Bill makes it an offence for adults who are capable of stopping a child from doing so causing or permitting a child to ride a horse without wearing protective headgear. The most obvious category of adult is the parent or guardian. The Bill also covers owners of horses, people in possession of a horse and employers. It is illegal to employ a child under the age of 13, but many 13 year-olds, in particular girls, will work in stables at weekends for the opportunity of a free ride.
The Bill sets the penalty for the offence at level 1 on the standard scale—£50. This is not a large amount but it is to be hoped that prosecutions will in any case be extremely rare. Experience from similar legislation, such as that concerning seat belts or motor cycle helmets, shows that when a law is made which is so obviously sensible, road users will obey it without enforcement.
Clause 2 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations allowing exemptions. Those exemptions may include certain classes of children on, for example, religious grounds or exclude the riding of horses in any particular circumstances. At this stage it is difficult to see what exemptions might be made, but the clause as drafted will allow them to be included if suitable cases are made in consultation.
The regulations will define protective headgear and will also require that the headgear is properly worn on the head and properly fastened.
Clause 3 defines "horse", "regulations" and "road". During the Report stage in another place, the definition of "road" was amended. It was accepted at the time that the definition as amended may be inadequately drafted and that is unfortunately the

79
case. I shall therefore move an amendment at Committee stage to ensure that the definitions have the same intent as at present but are legally workable. Clause 4 allows the legislation to be extended to Northern Ireland by an Order in Council, subject to the negative resolution procedure. Clause 5 states that the Act shall come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
The Bill is limited to riding on roads. That does not mean that helmets are not necessary when riding off the road. They are vital pieces of equipment whenever riding a horse. However, we must be realistic when making legislation. Enforcement of a law requiring helmets to be worn at all times would also mean that the police would have to be given a power of entry—something which I am sure we would regard as unacceptable. That does not mean that the Bill will have an impact only on horse riding on the road. Children who are required to wear helmets when young are more likely to continue to wear them as they grow older. Again, if they wear helmets on the road, they will be more likely to wear them off the road.
Legislation such as this is sometimes attacked as trying to create a nanny state. I understand the reasoning behind the argument that people have a right to make a choice about protecting themselves. However, such an argument does not apply to children. Adults are able to make a reasoned decison whether to wear protective headgear. Children may not. They need to be protected so that they reach adulthood and are able to make up their own minds. Responsible parents already ensure that their children wear protective headgear. The Bill addresses the irresponsible minority who do not. Responsible parents also have a right to expect that other adults exercise the same duty of care.
At present, action can be taken only after an accident. Compensation is a poor substitute for protection. This is such an easy wrong to put right. Even though the numbers are not great, there should be no deaths or serious injuries due to the lack of appropriate protective headgear. If only one child is protected to live a healthy adult life, the Bill is worth while. A vote against it is a vote against the protection of children. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Masham of Ilton.)
7.35 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out all the words after ("that") and to insert ("this House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading because the Bill would override parental judgment and authority; would unnecessarily create yet another criminal offence; and would pave the way for further erosions of individual freedom and choice in the name of safety").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it goes without saying that everyone who takes part in a debate on any controversial subject in this House, whatever side he or she happens to be on, means well. There are few people more well-meaning than my noble
80
friend Lady Masham, who introduced the Bill with exceptional clarity, which is an enormous help to us all.
In addition, my noble friend is also notably kind hearted. I am sure that it is this, in conjunction with her very unhappy experience of 30 years ago, that has prompted her to take up this Private Member's Bill which originated in another place where surprisingly—this may astonish noble Lords—it went through virtually on the nod at Second Reading with no debate whatever. Given the adverse future implications for personal freedom inherent in the Bill and given that, if it succeeds, we shall be the only country in the world with such a measure on the statute book, that lack of involvement and interest in another place—a few intrepid souls apart—is somewhat alarming. However, it looks as though we may make up for it this evening, and it appears that my noble friend Lady Masham has mobilised a formidable array of talent to support her case.
We all greatly mourn the untimely death of our late noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne. I have an additional, possibly selfish, reason for regretting that he is no longer with us as this was just the kind of legislation which infuriated him. He would have been able to lay into it far more effectively than I am capable of doing.
It so happens that I have just finished rereading the marvellous account by the distinguished travel writer, Mr. Eric Newby, of his voyage around the world in 1938 and 1939 at the age of 18 in a cargo-carrying sailing clipper as the lowest of the low—an apprentice seaman. The spartan living conditions, the extremely primitive sanitation, the disgusting food, the almost total absence of safety equipment or medical facilities, the bullying—both physical and verbal—and the extremely strict discipline would, if applied today to a terrorist murderer serving life imprisonment, a seaman or an army recruit, cause 100 apoplectic MPs to rise to their feet in indignation. Yet that rough, tough treatment does not seem to have done any permanent harm to Mr. Newby, who went on to achieve a magnificent war record and successful series of careers. It could be argued that, if he had not been knocked about so much just before the outbreak of World War II, he might not have come through that war so successfully, if at all.
It is also worth pointing out that, if the old newspapers of the 1930s are an accurate guide, people took things like road accidents much more in their stride, notwithstanding that they were more frequent than they are nowadays, both absolutely and in proportion to the number of cars on the road. The general attitude seemed to be that "accidents will happen". I fully accept that we may regard our grandparents' generation as excessively callous. There may be some truth in that; but they in return would regard our generation as excessively "windy", to use the jargon of that time. Surely there can be some happy medium in which the voluntary use of reasonable safety measures can be vigorously encouraged, reinforced perhaps by differential insurance premiums and measures of that nature, without bringing in the heavy hand of the law to

81
make common sense compulsory, to extirpate error. It is only through trial and error—particularly error—that people learn to become responsible. I should say, in parenthesis, that I am fully in favour of strict employers' liability legislation, because an employee is not a free agent and is not master of his or her own destiny. That is a totally different matter.
This Administration have constantly spoken of diminishing the power of the state and of restoring more power over their lives to individuals and families. The Bill goes in the opposite direction, by overriding, as my amendment states, parental authority and judgment. The gentleman or lady in Whitehall or Westminster does not always know best and, even when he or she is largely right, he or she can only lay down blanket rules which are not capable of taking account of special circumstances. For example, intelligent parents—not stupid ones—may be perfectly well aware that what is technically classified as a highway is in their case a little-used road ending in a cul-de-sac or an unmade farm road over which no more than half a dozen tractors or four-wheel drive vehicles travel in any 24-hour period. I know several roads like that near me. Such a road is obviously perfectly safe for riders despite being a highway in the purely technical sense. In contrast, the parents may be equally aware that another stretch of road is so narrow and so busy that no rider should go anywhere near it unless dismounted and leading the horse—and perhaps not even then.
But if this Bill becomes law, the child will now be able to protest, "The Government say that it is perfectly all right for me to ride along there provided that I wear a hard hat". Incidentally, I should say that the parent or guardian is also in a better position than the Government to know whether the horse or pony in question is docile and used to traffic or high spirited and likely to shy at every single noise or object.
I said that this Bill will override parental authority. Because the Bill catches people up to the age of 14, it will also undermine it, in so far as teenagers—who are chronically rebellious and normally will be riding out alone (teenagers do not normally ride with their parents)—will in practice do whatever they want knowing that it will be their parents and not they who will end up in court, always assuming that the police officer who spotted the offence has some magical means of ascertaining the age of the teenager and gas the technical expertise to know whether or not a helmet is properly fitted.
More importantly, this Bill will also create yet another criminal offence. Why do I use the qualification "yet another"? It is because, as I pointed out in our debate last month on civil liberties, since 3rd May 1979 between 800 and 900 new offences have been created by this Government, of which about 200 provide for the possibility of imprisonment as well as the possibility of a fine. In contrast, only about half a dozen activities have been decriminalised. Surely it is time to put a brake on the creation of new offences except when they are vitally necessary. The police have their hands quite full enough with terrorists, rapists, muggers, burglars, and so on.
Why not first of all try persuasion by means of a propaganda campaign? It will not cost any more, as, even if the Bill becomes law in whatever form, there will have to be a publicity campaign anyway to make riders aware of the new restrictions imposed by the Bill. It cannot be repeated often enough that we would be the only country in the world with a law of this kind. Even Sweden, that paragon of compulsory social democratic virtue, has no such law. Indeed, as noble Lords will know, in most Continental countries even moped riders—riders of motor cycles of 50 cc or less—are exempted from having to wear crash helmets. In most Continental countries that includes riders in their early teens.
Finally, there exists the danger—indeed, the strong probability—that the passage of this Bill would pave the way for further erosions of freedom and choice in the name of safety. At the moment parents are perfectly at liberty to thumb their nose, as it were, at the medical profession. They can refuse to have their children vaccinated against, for example, whooping cough. In other words, in that particular sphere of health and safety the parents' judgment is paramount, however mistaken the experts may consider that judgment to be.
How much longer will parents be able to retain that right after this Bill becomes law, given that so many more children are affected by failure to vaccinate than are affected by riding accidents? Will school boxing be banned, as opposed to merely being discouraged? Will school rugby be banned, given that injuries in that sport are at least as numerous as equestrian injuries? How much longer will children be able to continue to ride pedal cycles without helmets, given that accidents on bicycles are vastly more frequent than riding accidents?
I cannot believe that the zealous guardians of our well-being will confine themselves to regulating children. As an occasional cyclist I do not want to be forced into a helmet any more than I do as an occasional horseman. I have exercised polo ponies on occasion but have never played polo. I have not ridden competitively nor have I ever wanted to do so: I fully accept that if one is competing it is a very different matter. There are certain rules and regulations which have to be obeyed, as in any club. But like tens of thousands of people who are non-competitors I ride for fun, and to relax. In my view, in order to relax one needs to be unencumbered and not helmeted like an American footballer. In the immortal words of Cole Porter: I like the free, fresh wind in my hair; life without care.
While I am on that tack, perhaps I may say how good it was to see the splendid lady who successfully appealed against the officious motor cycle policeman in Richmond Park who had accused her of galloping at 30 miles an hour uphill, cantering away for the benefit of the press photographers with her hair streaming out behind her and not a hat in sight. As is well known—there is no secret about it—the more senior members of the Royal Family do not wear hard hats; nor do many mounted policemen, although by definition mounted police officers spend most of their time riding on tarmac; nor do most cavalry officers on ceremonial duties, where the same thing applies.
But, it will be argued, this Bill applies only to those under 14. Indeed, but it will surely feed the appetite of those who aspire to extend it to adults. I do not deny for one moment that it is a good thing for children to wear hard hats when riding on roads, though it certainly will not automatically save them from the consequences arising from irresponsible drivers of cars, lorries or motor cycles. It will merely reduce the accident rate slightly.
Let us first try persuasion, by making the statistics known to parents who have no particular reason to be aware of the statistics at the moment, except those who are deeply involved in the riding world, and by treating parents as the adults that they are. Let us try that first before introducing yet another restrictive albeit almost unenforceable criminal offence, one which is without precedent in the history of Europe. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out all the words after ("that") and to insert ("this House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading because the Bill would override parental judgment and authority; would unnecessarily create yet another criminal offence; and would pave the way for further erosions of individual freedom and choice in the name of safety"). —(Lord Monson.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Masham on her lucid explanation of the Bill that is before us this evening. I, as well as RoSPA, which has helped me with some figures for my speech, warmly welcome the Bill. The same cannot be said about the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, which to my mind is, with respect, fundamentally irrelevant.
Leisure accident surveillance system data recently made available from the DTI estimate that 30,000 people a year receive medical treatment in accident and emergency units for injuries received from horses, ponies and donkeys. There are on average five fatalities per year from horse riding accidents. The majority of the victims in both fatal and non-fatal accidents are girls in the age bracket of 10 to 14 years.
In a paper on riding accidents presented as far back as 1985 by the Child Accident Prevention Trust it was said that 20 per cent. of accidents occurred on roads and only 5 per cent. on bridle paths. It was interesting to note that the types of injuries sustained were similar in nature to motor cycle injuries. A neuro-surgeon at Nottingham showed that the incidence of falls from riding is one per 350 hours of riding whereas from motor cycling it is one per 7,000 hours of riding. Surely that is a reflection on the improved steering and braking system of a motor cycle compared with that of a horse. Motor cyclists have to wear a hat, so it stands to reason that a horse rider who is younger than a motor cyclist should also wear one.
It is vitally important to protect the vulnerable and vital parts of the body from injury. Besides
84
damaging the brain, head injuries can cause an increase in the occurrence of epilepsy. I shall return to that matter later. However, noble Lords may be interested to know that if one has suffered from epilepsy one is banned from driving until one has had a period of three years in which one has not had a fit.
Just over a year ago there was a report in the Daily Telegraph headed: "Hard hat law urged to cut riding injuries". The Medical Commission on Riding Accident Prevention said that it was so concerned by the rising level of injuries that it wanted legislation to make it compulsory for children to wear well fitting and securely fastened riding hats. At last that is about to happen.
As the noble Baroness said, a young person between 14 and 17 years of age is more able to make a balanced judgment on the need to wear protective headgear when riding a horse than a child of 14 who therefore needs to be protected by those adults responsible for him or her. There is no doubt that falling off a horse and landing on one's head on a road or hard surface can cause the most horrendous results, sometimes resulting in the death of a young child. The amendment of the noble Lord states that the Bill would
"override parental judgment and authority."
I suggest that such judgment to protect one's child out riding is far more preferable than what might happen if the child were not wearing a hat.
The amendment continues that it would,
"unnecessarily create yet another criminal offence."
I suggest that it is a criminal offence if a parent lets a child ride without a hat and have an accident which results in permanent brain damage and subsequent loss of life.
Lastly, the amendment refers to,
"further erosions of individual freedom and choice in the name of safety".
Let me tell your Lordships what I went through when my daughter came off her horse 12 years ago. Because the hat she was wearing was ill-fitting and substandard, it came off before she hit the ground, head first. For many days and nights with a cracked skull she lay in a hospital bed with her mother or me beside her for 24 hours a day while she was in a concussed state not knowing who or where she was or what had happened. Thank God after many weeks she recovered, only later to have epilepsy as the doctors had said she would.
Is that a further erosion of individual freedom and choice in the name of safety? No, my Lords. Freedom of choice in the name of safety is to let your child live as long as possible, to enjoy life and to do what all young people wish to do safely without going through the agonising time that she and we did, day in day out, for what seemed a lifetime. That is why I believe that the amendment is fundamentally irrelevant.
Wearing a hard hat will reduce pain, suffering and disability. It will save NHS spending on accidents and release money and beds for other medical services. It will create a safer situation for all riders.
Unlike Noel Coward, who advised Mrs. Worthington not to put her daughter on the stage, I

85
should be happy to advise any Mrs. Worthington to put her daughter on a horse so long as the basic ground rules for safety were observed: in other words, that one wears a BSI hat. I wish the Bill well and hope that the House will reject the amendment out of hand.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I speak in support of the Bill only because I was under the impression that it was already compulsory for children to wear safety helmets when riding on a public highway.
It astonishes me that, while it is against the law to ride a moped or motor bike without a crash helmet and while we accept the need for seat belts in motor cars, we allow young children to ride their ponies on a public road without requiring them to wear any form of safety hat or helmet. We should not be deterred by being the only country in the world to pass this law. After all, we are the only country in the world with a House of Lords.
As my noble friend Lord Brougham has said, statistically riding is up to 20 times more dangerous than motor cycling. That has been recognised by those concerned with the administration of racing, polo and eventing. That makes it all the more extraordinary that no one had addressed the dangers to those most at risk; namely, young children on roads.
Let me briefly set the scene. A young boy or girl, by definition inexperienced, possibly on a temperamental pony given by parents who may well have had no experience of the dangers involved and are thus not aware of what could happen to their child, is currently allowed to operate like any other road user save that he or she is untaxed, unlicensed, unrestricted, untested and untrammeled by the safety regulations which apply to other road users. Add the hazards of juggernauts, fast buses, speeding traffic, thoughtless drivers and the natural animal fear of the mechanical and we have a recipe for disaster simply waiting to happen.
I recently had the opportunity to talk to one of the country's leading consultant neurosurgeons, Mr. John Firth, from University Hospital, Nottingham. He has been closely associated with the design of suitable safety helmets for riders. His opinion, to which I believe the House should give due weight, is that the current performance of helmets constructed to BS4472 means that the vast majority of head injuries are now unnecessary and unacceptable.
When one adds up the costs of these avoidable accidents, the literally vital importance of the Bill is brought home. There is the physical and emotional cost of brain damage in terms of blighted lives and blighted hopes, the strain on parents who have to bring up a brain damaged child and the financial cost to the National Health Service of these accidents which are unnecessary. There is also the knock-on effect of postponing other neurosurgery to deal with emergencies caused by the lack of a simple safety helmet. To prevent that, with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is not wimpish.
86
Passing the Bill into law will also correct the anomalous position that arises when children sent to a riding school see their instructors wearing suitable safety headgear as required by the Health and Safety at Work Act, yet they, the pupils, are not similarly protected by the law as it now stands.
I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that there is generally too much legislation. I hope to be able to support him on occasions in repelling the advance of the nanny state on other fronts. However, in this case I believe that the amendment is misconceived. I do not believe that parents should have the freedom of sending their son or daughter onto a public highway with no protection for the reasons that I have outlined. The so-called freedom to do so is not freedom but ignorance and irresponsibility. Far from undermining parental authority I feel that most parents would welcome the Bill as reinforcing it.
An Arab proverb states that,
"The grave yawns for the horseman".
The Bill will go a long way towards closing the mouth of that grave. I support the Bill and will vote against the amendment.
7.58 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, I should like to join others in congratulating Mr. Greenway on bringing the Bill forward in another place and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, on introducing it in this Chamber.
I must admit that until five years ago a cloth cap on my head was good enough for me. Some might say that if I fell on my head it would improve it, but I have not done so yet and I now wear proper protective headgear. Anyone who has witnessed a young person riding a runaway pony along a road will agree that it is a terrifying sight. When it comes to the crunch one realises how important a riding hat or helmet is to the safety of the child.
The 1973 Bill related to wearing helmets on motor bicycles. Ten years later, in 1983, legislation made it compulsory to wear seat belts in the front seats of cars. Both laws are now generally complied with. Why? It is because everyone sees the need for prudence and sensible protection. People generally conform through habit. Publicity and general awareness have mounted rapidly. Few children now ride hatless but, sadly, as noble Lords may have noticed, a minority are still content to ride along a main arterial road with nothing on their heads. How unwise those children are. Some noble Lords may have seen the press cutting of the young lady who was posing for the press in Hyde Park. She galloped past the cameras with nothing on her head. What a stupid lady she was.
The Jockey Club, the British Horse Society and many other riding organisations have been extremely active in promoting the use of protective headgear and now generally insist on it within their own rules. The Jockey Club has figures to show that by wearing a British Standard Kite-marked helmet the head injury rate from falling off a horse can be cut from 62 per cent. to 15·2 per cent. It insists that all riders, stable staff and, indeed, its trainers wear protective

87
head gear. It calculates that over the past 10 years there have been over 600,000 occasions when the rider has been wearing a helmet and only three head injury fatalities.
We have heard a great number of statistics, but one wonders how many people actually ride. The noble Baroness said that the number is 3½ million; the British Horse Society says that it is 1½ million. It may be more; it could be less.
I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that in its memorandum TA57/87 dated January 1989 the Department of Transport recognises that there are no reliable statistics concerning accidents on the roads. The memorandum goes on to state that there is some evidence to indicate that the number of accidents involving horses is increasing and that the potential number of accidents may further increase. I believe that the majority of accidents of all kinds occur in stable yards, stables, maneges and often out in the fields as well as on the roads. The majority of road accidents involve motorised vehicles travelling at speed. On occasions they involve animals such as dogs which run out under the horse's feet. Sometimes they are due to the road surfaces, which are becoming less suitable for riding.
While I appreciate the feeling expressed in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I, like other noble Lords, cannot agree with it and find it totally irrelevant. I do not see how the amendment will help to make riding safer in the future; and that must be the welcome aim of the Bill. We hope that the Bill will reduce the number of accidents to those under the age of 14 years. It will also act as a general reminder in the future. We hope too that those under the age of 14 and affected by the Bill will have grown into the habit of wearing proper headgear when they become adults and cease to be covered by it. I hope that in due course the age limit will be raised to 18 years or removed completely. However, I appreciate the reason why the Bill is so framed at the present time.
Clause 1 deals with protective headgear and the way in which it should be worn. Headgear has been produced to a specification commercially convenient to the trade. In general previously written specifications have been ignored. At present the accepted helmets are the jockey skull cap, British Standard 4472, which it is accepted is probably as good as you can get. But even that skull cap when loosely worn on the back of the head is a neck-breaker.
Most riding clubs use British Standard 6473 and many variations which go under the wording "tested to British Standard 4472 standard" but they are of mixed merit and design. The helmets come in four sizes—0, 1, 2 and 3—but some manufacturers do not produce size 0, which, with size 1, covers the age group affected by the Bill. It is important to obtain the proper size so that the hat fits securely; otherwise the result will be positively dangerous.
We hope that the Bill will have a deterrent effect and will not prove difficult to enforce. However, I can foresee circumstances in which an unqualified and unpaid guide or instructor may get children to
88
change ponies at a rally, trek or cross-country ride and a child may fall wearing an ill-fitting hat. That is not an uncommon occurrence. I am anxious to know where the responsibility will lie in such cases. Will it lie with the parent or with the willing helper?
Sadly the Bill falls short in that it applies only to those under the age of 14 years. The level of fines may be a little too low and the Bill will be difficult to enforce because it is limited to roads. However, I support the Bill because if children under 14 years old must wear protective headgear when riding on the roads they will continue to do so after that age. I sincerely believe that the Bill is a little too late and too narrow. However, I hope that it will create a greater general awareness and that all those who ride horses will wear the proper headgear at all times.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, has addressed your Lordships on many occasions. However, I submit that she has seldom raised a more important matter. I am an honorary vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, although I have not consulted it about the Bill. I rode during the war years, but not successfully, and have not ridden since. My eldest daughter rode for a number of years before having a family. She has not ridden since but was then a good rider and always wore headgear.
Of course we have too much legislation and too many restrictions. However, it is important to remember that we are discussing children under the age of 14 years. Parents are not always vigilant, particularly when such children go riding. My wife and I live two miles from Epsom race course where a number of riders, some quite young, go out on busy roads. There have been some horrendous road accidents, mostly involving people over the age of 14. However, a child under that age could be riding a horse which bolted because of a car coming the other way or for some other reason. I cannot believe that the Bill is an infringement on the liberty of the subject.
Sweden has been mentioned. I have been to Sweden and it has a population of four million. This country has a population of 60 million. Probably there are as many people riding in this country—not all of them youngsters—as there are in the population of Sweden. I believe that the argument put forward in that regard is vacuous.
Most important are our hospitals. I am president of the friends of our local hospital in Surrey. It has a casualty department although I do not know how many casualties result from horse riding. The city of Nottingham has been mentioned, and is where our eldest daughter lives. The university hospital has a first-class casualty department and no doubt those involved in horse riding accidents go there. Your Lordships are currently discussing the health service Bill. In doing so we have discussed ways of preventing more people from attending casualty departments because they are so over-worked. I believe that the Bill will contribute a great deal towards fewer people, although perhaps only fractionally, attending casualty departments.

89
There is nothing sadder than a young child being seriously injured or worse as the result of an accident which could have been prevented. The helmets worn should be of a certain British standard and I hope that the Bill will provide for that. Considering the number of accidents involving young people in this country, some of them avoidable, I believe that the Bill will go a long way towards preventing more tragedies.
8.9 p.m.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, I wish to add some brief comments which emphasise and support many of those already made this evening. It has been proposed that the Bill should be declined a Second Reading because it would pave the way for further erosions of individual freedom and choice in the name of safety.
However, I must disagree with that point of view. What greater loss of freedom is there than that of loss of life or severe disablement? As we have heard, horse riding is one of the most dangerous sports but, nevertheless, it continues to grow in popularity.
When a rider is thrown or falls forward from a horse, the part of the body most likely to hit the ground first is the head. The head is the most vulnerable part of the body and without proper protection the skull is more likely to be fractured which could result in death, paralysis or brain damage.
I support this Bill. If anything, I would support legislation which extended not only to children but to riders of all ages who take their horses onto roads. I too find it illogical that we should require adults who ride motorcycles to wear safety helmets and not have the same requirement for horse riders. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, I believe that that issue needs to be addressed.
It is accepted by all the major societies responsible for the administration of equestrian sports that safety is of paramount importance. For all competitive events and examinations run by the British Showjumping Association and the British Horse Society, which includes the Pony Club, it is mandatory that protective headgear is worn. The protection afforded to the rider is well recognised by those organisations and the requirement to do so is strictly enforced.
I have talked to a number of young riders including my 13 year-old niece who spends every moment of her time riding. She is one of the typical 13 year-olds mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. All those young riders strongly supported the proposed legislation. However, there will be other young riders whose inexperience, or in some cases foolhardiness, may result in a failure to appreciate the benefits of wearing protective headgear. It is not just children who are foolhardy. An irresponsible adult may fail to safeguard not only himself but also the inexperienced child from the sort of accidents which I have already described and whose consequences this legislation seeks to prevent.
Lastly, I raise the point that it is all very well to consider personal freedom, but what about responsibility? In the case of a riding accident, failure
90
to wear protective headgear could result in a death or injury which might have been avoided. The responsibility must lie with the adult in charge at the time, and the consequences would impinge not only on the freedom of the injured person but on their relatives and on society. It has not been overlooked that those responsible for treating the victims of accidents which might have been avoided deeply regret the deployment of hard-pressed staff and scarce facilites which are much needed by other patients.
I believe that this legislation is rooted in common sense, and that it will help to ensure that a responsible attitude is taken by adults on behalf of children involved in equestrian activities. I am very happy to support the Bill.
8.13 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I wish to say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that his argument about the freedom of the individual perhaps goes too far on this occasion. He will remember very well how we joined forces over the legislation requiring the wearing of seatbelts. We used that same argument. I must say that while I entirely support the idea of the freedom of the individual, I have become a total convert to legislation which requires a sensible provision. That is without doubt of the greatest benefit. The result of the seatbelts Bill is that more and more people voluntarily wear them. The Wildlife and Countryside Act requires people to keep their dogs under control by putting them on leads. I have found from my own experience that more and more people who walk across my estate at home keep their dogs on a lead where before the passing of that legislation, they did not do so.
A Bill like this, which makes it mandatory for young people to wear protective headgear, should not be reacted against because it is not possible to enforce, which is the argument of some. The point is that it demonstrates to many people the sense of that provision and they will think twice before allowing young children to go out and about without protective headgear.
The knock-on effect of this legislation will not be policemen hiding under hedgerows trying to find people riding without protective headgear. However, if an accident occurs, then the adult responsible could find himself liable as regards insurance. I believe that that point would be taken on board. People think far more carefully when a law exists which requires that something must be done. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will bear that in mind.
No noble Lord has yet referred to anything particular in the Bill. Clause 1 refers to the wearing of protective headgear on the highway. I understand the reasons for that. However, surely there is just as much if not more danger through the failure to wear protective headgear in the countryside. A runaway pony trying to take a jump or which has been frightened by something which causes the child to fall off and hit his head on a stone is just as likely, if not more so, to happen in the countryside than on the highway. If we are to pass legislation of this

91
nature, I do not see why it should not be desirable to extend it to apply every time the child rides a pony. That would not be very difficult and I do not believe that that is very objectionable.
I have a good deal of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Mills, who asked why this legislation applies only to children under the age of 14 because it is common sense legislation. I am possessed of remarkably little common sense and have spent all my riding time wearing a top hat which is a useless piece of equipment to defend one's head. I should have worn a proper hard hat considering the number of times I came off. It is unfortunate for your Lordships' House that I am still here! I believe it is desirable for everybody to wear proper protective headgear. I support my noble friend, if that is not unparliamentary language as I have had the privilege of being her friend for a great number of years, in this Bill.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Manton: My Lords, I suspect that I have fallen from a horse onto my head more often than any other noble Lord with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Oaksey, who does not appear to be here this evening.
I strongly oppose the amendment. Several friends of mine in the past have been either killed or very seriously injured because they were not wearing protective headgear. All the major British horse societies now insist on a BSI-approved helmet. That headgear became compulsory over 10 years ago in the world of racing. How much more dangerous is it for young people on public roads? Not only they and their ponies can make a mistake, but so can a third party; for example, a speeding motorist.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, seems to be more concerned with parental judgment and authority than with child safety. How can he be so confident of parental judgment? Some parents are good and some are bad. Parental judgment cannot always be right. Finally, I add that being right in this case is for the child to wear a BSI-approved helmet. I oppose the amendment and support the Bill.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like to add the support of these Benches for this Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, brought forward a sensible suggestion. My only criticism is that it does not extend to enough people; it does not relate to the full range of people who ride nor to those who ride the whole time. One is in a potentially dangerous situation if one is on a large animal capable of travelling at considerable speed. One could easily fall off and thus it would seem sensible to have protection.
I am against the amendment because these dangers exist and some form of protection should be available. Those at greatest risk are those identified in the Bill. I should like to feel that it is only a first step towards a more comprehensive protection for all those engaged in this activity.
92
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, made certain other points regarding toughening people up and mentioned school rugby, a sport with which I am familiar. I should point out that when the pitch is frozen or baked hard one does not play rugby on it. One does not risk having one's neck driven into that ground by someone else. If the danger of two people slamming another into a hard surface is a situation which can cause injury, I suggest that a horse falling on top of someone, with that person's skull underneath that weight, with that great force would cause considerably worse injury.
8.21p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the Bill deserves the support that it has received throughout the evening. I shall refer to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, shortly.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said in her very clear introduction, around 1 million children ride regularly and only 80 per cent. of them wear safety headgear. Of that 80 per cent. many wear badly fitting headgear or headgear of poor quality, as we heard from almost all noble Lords who are familiar with this situation. A badly fitting hat is useless. It can fall off before the rider reaches the ground. A poor quality hat is just as bad; even if it stays on it may not give the necessary protection.
As we heard, the dangers are increased when riders take to public roads, and it is at that that the Bill is primarily aimed. Most riders these days, especially in suburban situations where much riding takes place, have to use public roads in order to reach their favoured path. They face the added hazard of motor cars. Many drivers are not familiar with the need to take extra care when horses are present; they drive too close and hoot their horns. Horse riders should have priority. It is surprising how few motor vehicle drivers are aware of that. In my experience very few of them give way as they should. The danger to young riders is especially severe when they are still learning to control their mounts.
The Bill has the backing of the British Horse Society and will help to reduce the risk of serious head injury. The British Horse Society also draws attention to the cost to the community of these accidents—as did the noble Lords, Lord Auckland, Lord Willoughby and others—as well as to the family caring for the victims of serious head injuries. Those victims may be confined to institutions for several years.
I received a moving letter from a Mrs. Teacher, copies of which I believe other noble Lords have received, who owes her life to the skill of a Nottingham neuro-surgeon, probably the same neuro-surgeon to whom several noble Lords referred earlier. Mrs. Teacher draws attention to the pressure such accidents place on the National Health Service to the disadvantage of others awaiting treatment for unavoidable medical problems. As others have said, it makes sense that the Bill should be passed thus ensuring that avoidable accidents are prevented.
I turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He feels that the proposal will pave the way for further erosions of personal freedom. As the

93
noble Baroness said in her introduction, we are speaking of children who need to be protected and who could hardly be expected to make such decisions for themselves. Of course their parents have a responsibility and many of them do ensure that their children are properly equipped. However, the figures given at the beginning of the debate speak for themselves.
Perhaps I could quote from the letter received from the British Horse Society. Of the 3½ million horse riders, most of whom have to ride on roads,
"Most of these people are not very experienced in the sense that they do not have a family back-up in knowledge of horses".
It is an increasing trend. There are a growing number of what might be called first generation horse riders. Their parents, with the best will in the world, are unaware of the dangers.
I should like to give one illustration similar to that given by the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, in his moving speech at the beginning of the debate. It is the kind of accident which can happen despite parental care and which meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, regarding parents choosing a docile mount.
A family of four with whom I am closely acquainted set out for a day's pony trekking. They were riding docile ponies and were wearing protective hats. One of the ponies was stung by a bee and bolted, frightening the other three. In the confusion a boy (aged around 12) fell from his pony losing his hat as he fell. Injuries to his head kept him in hospital for many anxious months and his sight is impaired, probably permanently.
That is a case where parental judgment and authority had been exercised but still the injuries were inflicted. If the provisions of the Bill had been in place the type of headgear worn would have been different and serious injury probably prevented. Given the choice I doubt whether those parents would have been too worried about an infringement of their individual freedom.
I not only support the measure, but I should like to see similar protection for young cyclists. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that we should be wary of infringement of civil liberties and I would stand with him on that issue through many pieces of legislation. However, where children are concerned there is a difference. I hope that the House will reject the amendment. I support the Bill.
8.27 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support the Bill and to have the opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on her speech introducing the Bill to your Lordships' House this evening. Although it is not a Government measure, it is one which the Government support as it will contribute to a reduction in the number of children killed and injured on our roads.
I agree with all the noble Peers who have pointed out just how important it is for horse riders to wear protective headgear. While of itself it will not reduce the number of accidents on roads involving horse riders, it will considerably reduce casualty severity.
94
While it is not possible to say quite how many children will benefit from the Bill, it is apparent that it will address at least some of the problems of child road safety. The provisional figures for 1989 show that 378 children were killed and 7,928 seriously injured on British roads. Deaths were down some 8 per cent. on 1998. It is particularly pleasing that child pedestrian deaths were down 14 per cent.
It is very difficult to identify particular causes of accidents to children. However, it is quite apparent that a lack of training is often a contributory factor. It is vitally important that parents ensure that their children are trained in road safety however they travel. In that context I particularly commend the British Horse Society for running its valuable riding and road safety test. Any parent of a child who is likely to ride a horse on the road should ensure that the child passes the test. I also commend to the House the training package Horse sense produced by the British Institute of Traffic Education Research on behalf of the British Horse Society. Parents who ensure that their child is properly trained greatly reduce the risk of them being involved in an accident. However, road safety cannot rely entirely upon the actions of the vulnerable road users. It is also important that drivers change their behaviour.
In 1989 road deaths were up 4 per cent. at 5,203, although serious injuries were down 3 per cent. at 61,803. Almost all of the increase in deaths was on rural minor roads; exactly the sort of road where horse riding takes place. Again it is difficult to identify causes. However, one major cause must be inappropriate speed. Sixty miles an hour is often quite inappropriate on such roads. All too often accidents are caused by local people who know the roads well, travel ridiculously fast and assume that there is nothing round the corner. If there is a horse rider, a walker or a cyclist an accident can be the inevitable result. The Department of Transport is investigating ways of altering the road environment to encourage drivers to drive at an appropriate speed.
A particularly interesting experiment is being carried out by Hampshire County Council. It has introduced a 40 miles an hour speed limit zone in the New Forest perambulation. The limit was introduced to help reduce the number of horses and cattle being killed. Before the limit was made vehicles had been measured travelling at over 90 miles an hour on narrow single carriageway roads. That sort of conduct is disgraceful. The council is looking at ways of introducing speed reducing engineering devices to make the limit self-enforcing. I commend those efforts.
Although the Bill creates a new offence, the penalty is to be set at the lowest level and it should not produce an extra enforcement load for the police. With over 80 per cent. of children voluntarily wearing riding helmets it is likely that the law will be self-enforcing. It is paradoxical that only when people are obeying a sensible rule is it appropriate to enshrine that rule in law. Experience has shown from, for example, the laws on seat belts and motorcycle helmets, that very high compliance can be achieved with little police effort. I fully expect the same to happen with this law. Statistics are not yet available for the improved safety record resulting

95
from the rear seat belts for children legislation passed in 1988, but it is estimated that about 200 fewer deaths or serious injuries a year have occurred.
I said that over 80 per cent. of children voluntarily wear riding helmets. It is probably more accurate to say that their parents or riding instructors insist on them using hard hats. I applaud their responsible behaviour and in no way does this Bill affect their liberty. What we are concerned about is the other 20 per cent. It is likely that some of their parents hand over the welfare of their children to a riding school in good faith expecting them to take the same care as they would themselves. They have the right to expect the law to protect them and this Bill will do so if it is passed, as I hope it is.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that Britain would be the only country in the world to have such legislation. I believe that Britain often does take the lead over such matters, and other countries then follow. We should be proud of that leadership in seeking to prevent tragic accidents. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, and I beg to differ over protective headgear for young riders.
We have heard tonight some very interesting, moving and sensible speeches. It is a particular pleasure to deal with legislation involving horses with the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. As young people, many years ago, we rode together in Ireland
The noble Viscount, Lord Allenby of Megiddo, queried the age limit and wanted to raise it. The Bill originally made it an offence for an adult to permit a minor to ride a horse without wearing protective headgear. The word "minor" includes anyone under the age of 18. Previous legislation such as that on child restraints in the rear seats of cars which puts a vicarious responsibility on adults, has been restricted to children under 14. The Government are strongly of the view that this legislation should be similarly limited. The law assumes that young persons aged 14 to 17 are able to distinguish between right and wrong. The Bill was thus amended to apply to children under 14.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and others, referred to the need for standards of protective headgear. That matter will go out to consultation and will be in regulations. I hope this evening's debate has helped in that respect. The proposal of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, would be very difficult to enforce because police power of entry would be required if the legislation covered everywhere. However, it is to be hoped that the 20 per cent. who do not now wear protective headgear will, if it is worn on the roads, also wear protective headgear in all circumstances.
I again thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will withdraw his amendment.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, at the beginning of my speech, I suggested that the noble Baroness, Lady
96
Masham, would probably have mustered strong support for her Bill. Indeed, how very well she has managed to do so! A number of harrowing individual cases have been described to us. The difficulty with such arguments is that if a Back-Bencher were to introduce a Bill making helmets compulsory for cyclists—we have already had one noble Baroness suggest such a course—or if another Back-Bencher were to introduce a Bill outlawing rugby in schools, an equal number of harrowing examples of severe injury would almost certainly be cited by noble Lords.
One could undoubtedly reduce injuries still further by outlawing every dangerous sport or activity; but how far does one travel down that road? One always hears about casualty departments when this sort of legislation is discussed. One can only lighten the load on casualty departments by outlawing every activity which is considered to be remotely dangerous.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Manton, thought that parental judgment should be subordinated to that of the experts in this matter. Presumably therefore he believes that parental judgment should also be subordinated in regard to helmets for cyclists and in regard to vaccinations, where at present parents have the right to disagree with the experts and get away with it.
We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, about irresponsible drivers of motor vehicles. Indeed, I entirely agree, not so much about cars but about motor cycles and, above all, sand and gravel lorries and similar vehicles. But hard hats will only help in a minor proportion of such resultant accidents: I am sure the noble Baroness will accept that. Surely it is better for the police to devote their energies to cracking down hard on dangerous drivers in preference to pursuing individual riders themselves.
If I thought that there would be a moratorium on further legislation of this nature I might relent in my opposition to this Bill; but the noble Viscounts, Lord Allenby, Lord Mills and Lord Mountgarret, have confirmed my worst fears. All three want the Bill to be extended right up the age scale. I am certain that the passage of this Bill will give the green light to those who are determined to restrict adults as well as children.
However, as luck would have it, six out of seven of my strongest supporters cannot be here tonight because of prior social or business commitments. Additionally, many noble Lords, as will be obvious, are having a well-earned dinner and will not have had the opportunity to hear the arguments deployed. Therefore, I will not ask your Lordships to march physically through the Division Lobbies; I will reserve that procedure for the Committee stage. Nevertheless, I should like to test the purely verbal and sendentary opinion of the House. I cannot therefore withdraw my amendment.
8.38 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, the original Question was, That this Bill be now read a Second Time, since when an

97
amendment has been moved to leave out all the words after "that" and insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The Question I now therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.
On Question, amendment negatived.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Social Security Bill
8.39 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Homeless people in bed and breakfast accommodation: payments to cover meals
In section 22(3) of the 1986 Act, at the end there shall be added the words "and the applicable amounts for homeless people placed as homeless under the Housing Act 1985 by local authorities in bed and breakfast accommodation without self-contained cooking facilities shall include an amount for each family member in respect of the additional cost of meals they are required to purchase prepared outside the accommodation."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after we have all had an excellent meal, this amendment deals with the loss of benefit to families living in bed and break fast hotels resulting from the change in benefit arrangements regarding the eating-out allowance. That loss can be as much as £70 per week in some cases. The eating-out allowance of £1·55 per person per meal was paid where there were either limited or no cooking facilities. I should like to ask the Minister what the rationale was behind the decision to treat homeless people living in bed and breakfast accommodation as though they were living at home. Are the Government satisfied that the decision has produced the desired result, whatever that was?
A report produced by the Department of the Environment in 1989 stated that 90 per cent. of units in bed and breakfast hotels had no cooker or inadequate cooking facilities.
Apart from the abolition of the eating-out allowance in April 1989 everyone now has to pay something towards hotel costs. Those charges are known as amenity charges and include a charge for breakfast, hot water, cooking, heating, lighting, water rates and 20 per cent. of rates. They are not covered by housing benefit. They are standard amenity charges which are laid down by the Department of Social Security and which have to be paid to the local authority. The charges are made regardless of whether the family eats the breakfast, whether the heating and hot water are working properly or whether there are adequate cooking facilities.
It is estimated that there are approximately 8,000 children living in bed and breakfast hotels in London alone. It is those children and their families who have suffered most from the April 1989 benefit changes.
The effects of irregular eating and poor diet on hotel families have been well documented. A report made in 1989 found that both adults and children
98
in bed and breakfast accommodation were malnourished and drew attention to a high incidence of weight loss in adults and low birth weight in babies. The abolition of the eating-out allowance, coupled with liability for amenity charges, has substantially exacerbated the problems. When one hears of problems of weight loss in adults and low birth weight in babies, one wonders whether we are talking about this country or a third world country.
The problem is not confined to the cities. I should like to quote some figures given by the district council in Wiltshire, where I live. It is a rural area consisting of small market towns and villages with a population of 67,000. Three years ago the budget for bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless familes was approximately £3,000 per year. Expenditure in 1989 and 1990 was £90,000. That figure is in relation to a small rural area. Fifty three per cent. of homeless people live outside metropolitan areas.
Organisations that work with homeless families in London report that families are experiencing severe difficulties in managing at the present levels of income. The 1988 report found that nearly a quarter of women were going without food from time to time because they could not afford it and one in 10 said that sometimes their children went without food.
The whole business is demonstrably cruel to some of the most vulnerable people in our society and it should be ended. The amendment seeks to do that. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, because I have missed most of his speech. However, I have very carefully read his amendment. Business was resumed rather quickly and I was not in the Chamber when he began.
I should like to say that I very much sympathise with the motive of the noble Lord and the purpose of the amendment. However, I find some difficulty of definition in its terms. For example, the word "breakfast" is a very flexible term. We are accustomed to two definitions of breakfast: one is the Continental breakfast and the other is the English breakfast. I hope that the amendment means the latter. However, we do not know.
There is a reference in the amendment to the additional cost of meals that those people are required to purchase. The question arises: what kind of meals? Does it mean a light snack for lunch or does it mean what many people call dinner and more elevated people describe as luncheon? So far as tea is concerned, is it high tea or low tea? In the evening, does it mean supper or something more?
I sympathise with the motive behind the amendment but we are leaving a lot of uncertainty for later definition in the new clause. Therefore, I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say about the matter.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not think that the difficulties of definition are quite as grave as the

99
noble Lord, Lord Renton, has suggested. There is a precisely delimited category of accommodation that is used by local authorities for the placing of people who are homeless under the 1985 Act in which meals are not provided. That is an identifiable category.
What meals those people choose to eat and what names they choose to call them by is their own affair. The purpose of the amendment is that they should be fed. They would be allowed a sum of money which was deemed suitable by the Secretary of State to allow that to take place. Beyond that point, what names they choose to give to the meals concerned is something which the Secretary of State and this House would not need to come to a decision about.
The amendment is more tightly targeted than the one which we debated on this subject in Committee. It applies specifically to those who are homeless under the 1985 Act. That is a precisely definable category and one that we can use. It applies to those without self-contained cooking facilities—again a term which can be fairly well defined. It avoids the use of the word "adequate", to which my noble kinsman in Committee took exception.
According to the classification by the Department of the Environment, 90 per cent. of those places have been found to have inadequate facilities for preparing food. I should like to give a few examples. One kitchen was shared by 15 families; one cooker was shared by 12 families, and one cooker was shared by 35 families. The shift system must present problems.
There is also a severe problem of money. Your Lordships can imagine that it is not very practical to eat out in London on the amount of money which is provided for people in that kind of accommodation. One example among many is that a family of two adults and four children receive a total sum, including child benefit, of £102·65 a week. That amounts to £17·10 per week each, which will not buy very many chips in McDonald's. One may see families in that category sitting over one plate of chips in McDonald's for a very long time. It is not an adequate nourishment. It is not surprising that the BMA has been reporting cases of malnutrition.
In that respect we must consider the question of costs. As always, I should like to ask the House to consider the costs of not accepting the amendment as well as considering the cost of accepting the amendment. The cost of ill health, as we have recently been reminded, is something about which the country and this House are very much concerned. If we spread ill health even wider, we may find that we are spending more money than we would save by passing the amendment.
The object of the exercise is to float people off benefit and get them back into employment. If one is suffering from malnutrition, one is not normally in a very good state to undertake a job interview. One comes in appearing listless, pale, vague and unable to pick up the point of the question. Overall you give your potential employer the impression that you are not alert—for the good reason that you are not. The effect of the present policy is to make it far harder for people to return to employment than it
100
would otherwise be. It is therefore far harder to escape from such accommodation and return to the ordinary world of work, which is the objective that we should all like to achieve. For those reasons, I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I owe the noble Lord. Lord Carter, an apology for not having been in my place when he began to move his amendment. He moved it in a matter of fact way, whereas he would have been justified in moving it with a good deal of passion and even emotion. Perhaps on this occasion the Government will admit that we are in a totally non-ideal situation, with families with children being forced by circumstances, by shortage, by the kind of housing crisis which we are in, into bed and breakfast accommodation. Nothing could be less suitable.
I would go so far as to say that to push a family with children into bed and breakfast accommodation is about the worst disaster that can befall them. Let us look at the position from the mother's point of view. She is accustomed and intends to cook, cater and provide for her children. During the period of enforced inactivity she is in effect being deskilled. She is losing those attributes of which she may justifiably be most proud.
We risk breaking up those families by a degree of imposed poverty. I hope that the Government have had sufficient time to reflect on the matter since the last stage of the Bill and that they will be able to come up with a more convincing and hopeful answer than last time around.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the House will recall that this matter was raised in Committee and that similar amendments were also discussed during the passage of last year's Social Security Bill. Quite frankly, there is little that I can add to what last year my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said and I have already said on those matters. I do not propose therefore to rake over all the old ground as to why the Government introduced the benefit changes for people living in bed and breakfast accommodation. Having said that, I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, that bed and breakfast accommodation is not ideal.
However, I must stress that the Government firmly believe that the solutions to the problems facing those families lie fairly and squarely in the hands of local authorities and not in changes to the benefit system. The Government's prime objective is to get people out of manifestly unsuitable and expensive bed and breakfast hotels by increasing the supply of permanent accommodation. Following the Government's review of homelessness legislation, as the House will be aware, the Department of the Environment has recently announced the distribution of £112 million to local authorities for schemes to go forward in 1990–91. Of that, some £88.5 million was allocated to London boroughs in recognition of the severe homelessness pressures that they face. That is specifically to increase the availability of permanent accommodation for those living in bed and breakfast accommodation and will provide about 15,000 extra lettings over two years.

101
I should point out that using bed and breakfast accommodation for those families should be the last resort when other, more suitable accommodation is not available. The Government fully support the Audit Commission study which shows that three-quarters of local authorities using bed and breakfast could end its use altogether by using better alternatives available locally.
I should also touch on the concerns expressed about the effect of making deductions from housing benefit for breakfasts which the family does not eat. I should say on that point, first, that it is for local authorities to ensure that the meals provided are of an acceptable quality when they place the family in the accommodation. Secondly, local authorities should establish whether families wish to eat the breakfasts provided. If they do not, it would be sensible for the placement to be arranged on an accommodation only basis, in which case no deductions from benefit would need to be made.
I return to the amendment. I must say that even if I were prepared to accept it in principle, which I am not, I certainly could not accept it in practice.
Like my noble friend Lord Renton, I have problems over the definition. The amendment as drafted refers to,
"people … in bed and breakfast accommodation without self-contained cooking facilities".
How many commercial hotels are there that have a cooker in every room? If such a situation existed, the establishment would not be bed and breakfast accommodation but would in fact be a block of flats or bedsits. I find it totally unrealistic to expect any hotel or bed and breakfast establishment to have the scope to provide such facilities. This in turn leads us to the heart of the problem.
The whole point is that bed and breakfast accommodation is unsuitable for those families. That is why local authorities are encouraged not to place them in such accommodation; and that is why the Government are committed to getting people out of bed and breakfast accommodation and into more suitable permanent housing. Furthermore, the amendment as drafted would create inequalities between those families who for one reason or another have not been placed by a local authority. As a final point, the income support rates are intended to cover all living expenses. People in board and lodging do not have the same household expenses as other claimants in normal accommodation; for example, on such items as furniture, general household equipment and household repairs and insurance. Consequently, any adjustments in benefit levels to take account of food would have to be countered by a similar adjustment to take account of reduced expenditure on other items. The House will appreciate that that would clearly be an impossible task.
For those reasons and the reasons I outlined earlier, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I do not intend to withdraw the amendment. The Government's answer was disgraceful. To deal with the terminology
102
of bed and breakfast, it is a well-recognised phrase in this context. There was no problem with the eating-out allowance before the change in the regulations. The amendment is intended in effect to introduce a boarder's premium. Why are the Government behaving in that way? When I moved the amendment I said that one could almost think that we were talking about a third world country. It is unbelievable. We are discussing the amendment in a thin House because most Members are having a good dinner.
The phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was an excellent one. He said that it was a totally non-ideal situation. That means that it is dreadful. Of course we should like to get these people out bed of and breakfast accommodation, but why do the Government not allow local authorities to build many more houses?
The Minister proudly said that £88.5 million is to be given to London. I pointed out that 53 per cent. of the homeless are not only outside London; they are outside the metropolitan countries. So we pass the buck to the local authorities. If the families are not satisfied with the breakfast, they can apply for accommodation only. Where do they buy breakfast in a market town in rural Wiltshire, which is where I live and where I explained that the bed and breakfast budget has increased from £3,000 to £90,000 in three years?
I admit that the drafting of the amendment may not be perfect, but this is no time for nitpicking, semantic games. That is no answer to the problem.
I do not apologise for taking up the time of the House for a moment to illustrate what is happening. A family comprising a single parent and four children aged under 11 living in a hotel in Shepherds Bush before April of last year received £104.80, in income support. The mother has no amenity charges to pay for the hotel. She also received £29 in child benefit. The hotel has only one kitchen in the basement, shared by 15 households. The family live on the ground floor and the mother has always found it difficult to cook in the kitchen because her youngest child is not away at school. He cannot go with her into the kitchen and she does not like leaving him in the room on his own while she cooks. It is also difficult for her to find time to use the cooker when it is free because of the demand of other families. The family has always been heavily dependent on take-away and café food.
In April last year her income support went down to £63.30 from £104.80. That was a cut of £41.50 per week. Added to that, she also has to pay £17.12 in amenity charges to Kensington and Chelsea. The woman pays these charges for the use of one room only. Although she pays for breakfast, the family never eats it as the quality is disgusting. The eggs are inedible and the toast is old and dry. Although she pays nearly £7 a week for heating, she has no control over it; it is either unbearably hot or too cold. For example, throughout July the heating was on full but every Sunday, even through the winter, it is switched off.
After payment of these amenity charges and the reduction of her income support, she has £46.18 per week for all meals and living expenses. That is for a

103
mother with four children aged under 11. I suggest that two or three of us could have spent that amount of money tonight on one meal. She has it for a whole week for all the family's meals and living expenses. I am not at all satisfied with the answer that the Minister has given and the only thing to do is to ask the opinion of the House.
9.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 68.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Airedale, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milverton, L.

Nicol, B.

Carter, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Seebohm, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hylton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lawrence, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winstanley, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Hives, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Hooper, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Arran, E.

Killearn, L.

Auckland, L.

Kimball, L.

Balfour, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Belstead, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Blatch, B.

Layton, L.

Boardman, L.

Liverpool, E.

Borthwick, L.

Long, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mills, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnock, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Reay, L.

Cox, B.

Rennell, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Renton, L.

Cross, V.

Romney, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Strange, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Elton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Trumpington, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Ullswater, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Wynford, L.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

Hesketh, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.8 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Entitlement to adequate level of benefits
.—(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this or any other Act, order or regulations, every person residing in any part of Great Britain, of whatever age, sex, parentage, nationality, or occupation, shall have a right to an adequate level of social security benefits.
(2) Any Provision of Part II or Part III of the 1986 Act or of any regulation made or direction issued under either of those Parts which, in conferring or restricting entitlement to or availability of any social security benefit or payment, discriminates or results in discrimination between categories of persons other than on grounds of differences in needs, shall have effect as if it applied to all such categories in the same way as to the most favourably treated category.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is in effect an equal rights amendment. It is designed to prevent discrimination in the social security system. The form of words is taken from Clause 10 of the European Social Charter which is the social protection clause. That document, including this clause, has, as far as we can see, been accepted without demur or any anxiety at all by 11 out of 12 of the member states. Nevertheless, although the principle is so clearly workable in other places it seems to cause great dismay to this Government.
When my noble kinsman spoke to this amendment in Committee he was kind enough to say:
"I shall not say that I feel the amendments are unnecessary; I feel that they are worse than that".—[Official Report, 21/5/90, col. 652.]
I am grateful for that remark. I hate having my amendments called unnecessary. When my noble kinsman says that, he is telling me that he finds the amendment necessary but unwelcome. I am not particularly surprised to hear that. No government like being accused of discriminating, particularly if they are.
There are three recent cases of discrimination against a category of people introduced in the social security system. Two of those cases constitute 16 and 17 year-olds and students. We have debated those cases today and I shall not take the House any further on that. Those are people who are discriminated against because of their age in one case and because of their occupation in another when other people of equal need are eligible for benefit.
The other case is the regional application of cash limits in the social fund which means that a particular misfortune which is eligible for benefit in Salcombe would not be eligible in Salford. I shall illustrate that point by one question which I am afraid is probably pertinent. If the Ravenscraig plant should be closed, would that be accompanied by an increase in the cash limit for the social fund budget for Motherwell? If that is the case, how soon would that occur and, if not, why would it not occur? If that were not the case, clearly there would be a discrimination involved here.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, provided us with a certain amount of exercise when the question was before us previously. He was much dismayed by the use of a broad general principle in litigation. As always the noble Lord gave me something to think about. He and I both come from

105
an English empirical tradition in which legislation has normally been specific. I like that tradition and I am at home in it. However, the strength of that tradition has always depended on the belief that the task of checking an Executive was one which fell to Parliament. This is a task which Parliament is now no longer as well fitted to discharge as perhaps it has been in times past. I need only mention the passage of Part I of the football membership Bill. It was Lord Justice Taylor and not Parliament who pointed out that that was impossible. That necessarily drives us back on the courts for providing checks on the Executive. They have to use wide general principles. I do not think that anything in this amendment is quite as wide or as vague a general principle as the doctrine used under Wednesbury in judicial review that the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable Minister could have taken it. Nevertheless that is a doctrine which appears to be workable.
However—I believe the noble Lord knows this perfectly well—that is not where the main operative force of this amendment would come if it were incorporated in legislation. Parliament being sovereign may do whatever it likes. It might repeal this amendment. If a successor Parliament whom we cannot bind should wish to discriminate it may do so, but it would have to repeal this clause in express words. Therefore the effect of the amendment would be that if a future Parliament wishes to discriminate against any category of people in social security legislation it must flag the point for the attention of our successors by repealing this amendment. That is very useful. If our successors wish to discriminate we cannot stop them. We can ensure that they do so with their eyes open. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment, to which I have put my name. As your Lordships will remember, the amendment was tabled in Committee when the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, had some fun with the wording of the amendment. In particular they were concerned about the word "adequate". I have looked at Hansard since then and I do not believe that the Minister dealt adequately—if I may use that word—with the main thrust of the amendment, which, as the noble Earl has pointed out, is all about equality of treatment.
The wording of the amendment makes it quite clear that there should be no discrimination except on grounds of difference in needs. That wording is crucial. We are talking about meeting basic needs. As was pointed out in Committee and as the noble Earl has said again this evening, the wording is in line with with the proposition contained in the Social Charter, a charter which has attracted the support of all members of the EC except the UK Government. I know that reference to the Social Charter does not make the amendment more commendable to the Government because the Government do not like the Social Charter, although I believe that they may very well have to come to terms with it sooner or later. In the meantime the amendment sets out what surely ought to be the objectives of any social
106
programme: that a safety net should be constructed so that citizens may at least have their basic needs provided for when they are unable to support themselves effectively for whatever reason, and that that safety net should be provided without discrimination.
In moving the amendment the noble Earl made reference to various cases of discrimination which seem to this side of the House to breach the whole idea of equality on which we believe social provision and social programmes should be based. I supported the amendment in Committee and I commend it to your Lordships this evening.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, relieved my mind when he explained that this particular amendment derived from the Social Charter. That explains its woolliness. Indeed, I have often thought of the Social Charter, as I think of this amendment, in terms of the well-known advertisement from the clothing industry that there is no substitute for wool. I do not believe that if the amendment were included in the Bill it would make the slightest practical difference because it is so vaguely and imprecisely drafted that it would have no effect at all. What is an adequate level of benefits? What is adequate in one person's view is inadequate in another's. What is inadequate for most of us may be more than adequate for somebody else. We are trying to legislate and not to issue declarations of policy, and it seems to me that the legal effect of the amendment would be negligible. I cannot see that any government proposal could possibly be made ineffective on the grounds that it was alleged to be contrary to this proposed clause and therefore inadequate.
The same applies to the second half of the amendment. What is the criterion? There can be differences of need, but the question is: what is your view of what is a difference of need? In practical terms that is something which it is impossible to lay down in legislation because it depends upon opinion. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I may have genuine and sincere differences of opinion as to what are realities of need in particular cases.
Having said that, and having said that I believe that the effect of putting this amendment into the Bill would be nil, I am against putting it into the Bill because I very much object to clogging up our legislation with meaningless, well-meaning, long-winded statements of view like this. I very much hope that your Lordships now throw it out.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when I first read subsection (1), I said to myself, as I have said on previous occasions, "Long live the expression of principle". But it is no good having expressions of principle which are too vague and too uncertain in their effect.
I find great difficulty over various things here. For example, the principle is to apply to:
"every person residing in any part of Great Britain";
but residing for how long? Surely there would have to be a qualification of residence, otherwise people would slip over from less fortunate countries and claim all our social security benefits, perhaps without having contributed much towards them.

107
I see that the amendment states that it is to apply,
"in any part of Great Britain".
However, if we look carefully at the Bill, we find that Clause 18 is to apply to Northern Ireland and that a power is given in Clause 27 to make regulations, obviously within the terms of the Bill, for Northern Ireland. So why should there be discrimination against Northern Ireland in a statement which purports as a whole to be non-discriminatory?
On the question of age, we discussed earlier—I do not wish to go over the ground again—an amendment in respect of which it was maintained by the Government and agreed by the House that there were necessary provisions to be made in discriminating in favour of or against people of certain ages. I leave aside questions of sex and parentage because obviously those are two matters which are not likely to give rise to much difficulty. If we accepted nationality, we would be in the same kind of difficulty as I mentioned in relation to residence. As to occupation, I should have thought that it would need to be qualified by the word "lawful" because, alas, we know that there are some people in regular occupations which are not lawful.
I hope that I have said enough to show that there must be a doubt as to the wisdom of accepting an amendment on those lines.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, a number of intricate and drafting points have just been raised on the government side. However, I should like to urge the Government to take sufficient time to reply in some detail to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, concerning regional cash limits on the social fund which I believe bear harshly on claimants in certain parts of the country.
Lord Henley: My Lords, when I responded to the amendment in Committee, I said that I was less than clear as to the intention underlying it. I think I can say that I am still less than clear as to the intention behind it.
My noble kinsman has said that it is an equal rights amendment and that it is based on Article 10 of the European charter. It may be of interest to the House to know that in that context the European Commission has formed an ad hoc group of officials, which includes a representative from this country, and has already highlighted a range of different approaches between member states in drawing up a set of common criteria relating to the question of what constitutes sufficient resources and social protection. Eight nations, including the United Kingdom, have been identified as satisfying those criteria.
The United Kingdom has a long history of social protection. We are pleased to work with other countries to enable them to benefit from our experience and to discuss with them the lessons that we have learnt from our experience to enable them to improve their position. However, we remain of the view that common legislation on topics such as minimum resources are inappropriate and unnecessary as member states are in the best position to recognise and meet the needs of the less well off.
108
I should also deal briefly with the question of the social fund and regional differences first highlighted by my noble kinsman Lord Russell and by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. My noble kinsman raised the question of what might happen, for example, in the the event of the closure of Ravenscraig.
I think that I can only refer to our record, which is one of flexibility and responsiveness. For instance, we held back money in 1989–90 and we shall do so again in 1990–91 to deal with unforeseen and heavy demands falling on offices after some disaster or unforeseen circumstances. For example, we allocated about £170,000 to five offices in north London to cover additional costs arising from the arrival of large numbers of Kurdish refugees in the summer of 1989. We also provided extra money for our Rhyl office to cover applications arising from the recent floods, which the noble Lords will remember, in North Wales at Towyn. I think that that gives more than ample evidence to demonstrate the flexibility offered by the social fund.
My reasons for being unable to recommend acceptance of this amendment are unchanged from when I spoke last. As I indicated the last time, the question of what is "adequate" for a particular individual inevitably involves the exercise of subjective judgment and is not a yardstick which can be given legislative force. Pinning the right to a level of benefit which can be regarded as "adequate" effectively nullifies the clause and renders it meaningless.
When we last debated the clause, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, intervened and asked why we considered that the word "adequate" was acceptable in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill but not in this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, again put that point and suggested that my response on that occasion was less than adequate. I hope that I can convince her otherwise on this occasion.
At Committee stage my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in a very helpful intervention, commented that there is all the difference in the world between the Secretary of State having to satisfy himself that certain provisions are adequate, for which he is answerable to Parliament, and laying down in a statute that a particular level of benefit should be "adequate". Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, himself pointed out on that occasion, every person will have different requirements.
The fact is that the use of the term "adequate" in that Bill was not of the Government's making. It was the desire of this House in an amendment that the word should be included, and the Government will, I am sure, be looking very carefully at that when it comes to be considered in the other place.
When I spoke on this clause in the previous debate, I explained why we have felt it right to devote such an unprecedented level of resources to the social security system. That is in itself a recognition of the obligation owed by the state to those of its citizens who have to live on limited incomes and depend on what the state provides. I commented on the wide range of needs which the social security system meets. I explained that our policies have been to protect the position of those most in need. I

109
explained how in many cases we have been able to go further and achieve improvements in the position of those dependent on benefits. I emphasised that one of the major objectives that we set ourselves in the major restructuring of the benefit system was to ensure that resources were most effectively targeted on those who need them most.
The reforms that we introduced in 1988 brought about a more flexible and responsive structure of income-related benefits which has enabled us to achieve that objective. The system of personal allowances and premiums has enabled us to target help effectively towards priority groups, reflecting the particular needs faced by those groups. I can only repeat the Government's view, that to attempt the assessment of individual needs in the way this clause would imply could have enormous administrative and financial implications.
I remain of the view that this clause would effectively undermine the very structure which has facilitated the achievement of those objectives. For once I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd Carpenter, who said that the amendment would make no difference. I am afraid that it would make a difference. What it requires is nothing less than that all categories should be treated the same—pensioners, lone parents, disabled people, families, single people, students, people in trade disputes, people who leave work voluntarily, people who care for the severely handicapped, people who do not satisfy residence and presence conditions laid down for particular benefits, war widows and so on. To treat them in the same way for all benefits (as this clause would seem to imply) would be counter to all logic. To bring their benefit up to one, most favourable, level would be inordinately expensive and would not help those most in need.

The noble Lord said that there was discrimination against certain groups. We would be the first to admit that there are occasions of favourable discrimination. We discriminate in favour of some groups. The amendment of the noble Lord would presumably prevent that. Perhaps I may give some examples.
The House will know of the favourable discrimination in the preferential rates of the war widows pension and other war pensions. War widows receive such discrimination in recognition of the special circumstances of their bereavement. There is special help in the benefit system for lone parents in recognition of the extra costs that they may face in particular when working. In income support there is a special premium when working. In income support there is a special premium for lone parent families or lone parents. The first £15 of any part-time earnings are disregarded. In family credit lone parent families receive the same adult credit as two parent families and one parent benefit is totally disregarded when calculating their income. From October the lone parent earnings disregarded in housing benefit and community charge benefit will rise from £15 to £25 a week. There are the age premiums in income support. The noble Lord's amendment would render all those impossible.
My noble kinsman on earlier occasions complained that he thought I might say that it was
110
an unnecessary amendment. He came back to that again today. I repeat that it is worse than unnecessary. It is wrong and damaging. It would tie the hands of Ministers in a wholly unrealistic manner. As I indicated before, it could spell the end of differential disregards for different groups or for any of the entirely justified special arrangements for groups which apply under the present system. I should be very surprised if my noble kinsman wished to do that.
I hope that in the light of that explanation my noble kinsman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he deal with one small point in reference to my observation? He referred to the position of war widows. But surely they are nothing whatever to do with the social security system. They are provided for under the Royal Warrant, which is quite distinct and separate. It would not be affected by this amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should certainly need to take advice on my noble friend's point. But certainly in relation to the other groups that I specified, we discriminate—we make no bones about it—in favour of certain groups. I have explained why we do so and which groups they are.
My noble friend may be right that war widows come outside the social security system because they come under the Royal Warrant. Whether my noble kinsman's amendment would affect them I do not know. I would have to take advice. I stand by the generality of what I said. We discriminate in favour of certain groups; and I see nothing wrong in that.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he look at the text of the amendment in the name of the noble Earl. Lord Russell, and myself? The second paragraph states,
"or results in discrimination between categories of persons other than on grounds of differences in needs".
In other words the amendment as phrased would meet the point that he has made.
Lord Henley: My Lords I am not sure that I accept that. I have received some advice. I refer to the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter on war widows. War widows have special disregards under the income related benefits. They benefit therefore under the social security system. The noble Earl's amendment would not allow that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have been interested to see what a lively response the amendment has provoked. It encourages me to think that it may have been of some importance and was worth putting down. It appears to have ruffled so many feathers that it may have been rather useful.
I welcome what my noble kinsman said about European co-operation so far as it went. I also welcome what he said about the social fund contingency fund. So far as it goes—and I stress the qualification—that is good. It looks as though the

111
argument about the social fund is bound to continue. That may well be so. But it would have to go a good deal further in the direction indicated before it met the problems.
There was an amusing discrepancy between my noble kinsman and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that the amendment would make no difference. My noble kinsman in effect said that it would wreck everything. They cannot both be right.
I also wonder why, if the amendment is either so insignificant or devastating as the noble Lords suppose, it has proved so remarkably acceptable on the other side of the Channel. Does social security legislation become so desperately more difficult as soon as one has sight of the white cliffs? I do not see why that should be the case.
Throughout the debates on the Bill my noble kinsman has also expressed a great deal of dismay whenever he has caught sight of the word "adequate". I understand that; the word is obviously a grave reproach and I can see why it is liable to cause dismay.
I understand and engage with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about legislation by general principle. However, if we are
112
not to have the reform of Parliament—and it does not appear that we shall have that within the next year—this is the way in which we must go. In any constitution there must be a means of saying to an Executive power, "No, you can't do that". It is now becoming very difficult to do that in Parliament with any powerful effect. If it is not done in Parliament, it must be done in the courts, and there it must be done by general principle.
The US constitution is not meaningless. Nor is it the best way to go about making the provision; I prefer this way if we can make it work. However, if noble Lords will not support the changes which will make it work, they must support the approach by the general principle. They must have one or the other.
At the end of the day I have not had what I wanted; namely, an explanation as to why the Government believe that they are entitled to discriminate. Instead I have a silence on which I shall forbear to make a Johnsonian comment which might cause unnecessary effect, if offence. However, I heard what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the effect of the amendment on Northern Ireland. I believe that he has a point and for that reason—and for that reason alone—I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Clause 7 [Computation of additional pension for purposes of invalidity pension etc.]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 7, line 8, at end insert:
("(4) Before the foregoing provisions of this section come into force, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on—

(a) the proportion of persons receiving an additional invalidity pension who are also receiving sick pay under an employer's scheme;

(b) the proportion of such persons who are not receiving such sick pay because of restrictions imposed by the employer's scheme and the nature of those restrictions;

(c) the extent to which such sick pay and invalidity pension together replace the earnings lost through sickness;

(d) the expected maximum duration of such sick pay;

(e) the extent to which such sick pay is expected to be adjusted to take account of increases in earnings or prices;

(f) the proportion of employees who, if they fell sick in the immediate future and remained unable to work for more thin 6 months, would become entitled to such sick pay.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee I said that Clause 7 was probably the biggest cost-cutting provision in the Bill. It abolishes the earnings-related invalidity pension established with all-party support in the Social Security Act 1975. The reason given is that the Government believe that to continue will inhibit the growth of occupational cover and also, through constraints inevitably imposed on their ability to do more for those with no such entitlement, widen yet further the gap between those who have never been able to work and those who have.
When we raised the matters in Committee, pointing out that not everyone was covered by an occupational sick-pay scheme, the Minister said:
"Over the last 15 years the growth of occupational sick pay schemes has been impressive. Nine out of ten employees are now covered for short-term sickness. Just under 60 per cent. … [have] longer-term cover … I believe that a tighter employment situation in the 1990s will lead to employers continuing to develop sick pay packages to attract people into their employment."—[Official Report, 21/5/90: col. 682.]
Of course, that would be admirable if it happened but there is no guarantee of that.
Moreover, coverage of such schemes tends to be patchy. Many of them cover only staff employees; manual workers are excluded. Part-time employees, mostly women of course, also tend to be excluded. Almost all occupational sick pay schemes have time limits, unlike the national insurance invalidity benefit which continues while it is needed or is replaced by retirement benefit. Many schemes do not cover recently-appointed employees. There is often a service requirement. Coverage is particularly low in hazardous industries and small firms. The construction industry is a case in point. Those are the industries where accidents resulting in prolonged disability are most likely to occur.
In view of the Government's reliance on occupational schemes filling the gaps left by the withdrawal of that benefit, it seems fair and reasonable to ask, as the amendment asks, for steps
114
to be taken to assess the degree to which sick pay from an employer's scheme is actually doing that. That is why the amendment spells out five categories on which the Government shall report before putting the proposals in this clause into effect. It will be seen that they cover some of the problems to which I have referred such as duration, whether the sick pay is adjusted to take account of increases in earnings or prices, the proportion of employees covered, and so on.
Finally, during the debate in Committee I suggested to the Minister that it might conceivably be possible to introduce some form of contracting-out arrangement if the Government are determined to proceed and believe that occupational schemes are fully able to fill the gap. I have not drafted such an amendment at this stage because I understand and appreciate that it would be very complicated to draft and would probably require fairly extensive consultations if the Government decided to proceed with such a scheme. However, when I made the suggestion I received the impression that the Minister did not entirely turn it down. Therefore, I should be interested to hear whether he has had further thoughts on the matter since our Committee stage.
In the meantime, if that or something similar is not possible, my amendment provides some sort of brake and safeguard before the scheme proposed in Clause 7 proceeds. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I support this amendment. Here we have a saving of some £350 million and, as a Parliament, it is proper that we should want to know what is happening to that money.
I agree with and shall not elaborate on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, about occupational schemes. There is much to be said in favour of them but their disadvantage is that they are inherently patchy. If your Lordships look at Mr. Frank Field's book on the underclass, he stresses very strongly how much that is made up of people who do not benefit from such schemes. If they are relied on, there will be a group of people slipping through the net who are not properly provided for, as the noble Baroness outlined. They will be cases of quite considerable hardship.
My other reason for misgivings about relying on an occupational rather than a state scheme is that I am worried about the element of tax on industry in this sort of proposal. I quite appreciate that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody must pay if we are to provide pensions for any sort of disability. The question is whether the cost should fall primarily on the taxpayer or on the industrial firms. It is a very competitive world industrially and any welfare measures which fall specifically on a firm will put up the price of its goods. Mr. Iacocca recently pointed out that the cost of health insurance adds 700 dollars to the price of a Chrysler car. I wonder whether the best way to deal with our balance of payments deficit is to put up our industrial costs, and whether it would not be more equitable, efficient

115
and better for our national life to share the costs around in the widest possible way—that is, by letting them fall on the taxpayer.
It is true, as GATT rules remind us, that you may not subsidise your industry. However, just as accountants tell us that we need not arrange our financial affairs so as to attract tax, so we need not arrange our industrial affairs so as to attract costs. I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Baroness explained, she tabled an identical amendment to this at Committee stage. This debate is therefore a re-run of the one we had on that occasion.
I appreciate that the reasoning behind the amendment is to try to establish with greater precision the extent of the growth of occupational sick pay for the long-term sick. But the very detailed information which the Government would need to collect to meet the requirements of the amendment would entail further extensive research and would not in our view be a sensible use of resources.
As the noble Baroness is aware, in 1988 the Department of Social Security commissioned a study into occupational sick pay cover by IFF Research Ltd. Its report filled a huge gap in our knowledge—the last similar study was in 1974—and showed that there had been a significant growth in occupational sick pay cover over the intervening 15 years. Over 90 per cent. of employees now have short-term cover and just short of 60 per cent. work for employers with long-term cover. That is three times as many as in 1974.
The noble Baroness, both today and during Committee, quoted figures from the report which showed that coverage is still patchy in some industries and that some employees who work for employers providing long-term sick pay cover may not always satisfy the qualifying conditions of the employer's scheme. I fully accept that there is still some way to go before we have reached the development of occupational sick pay that we should all like. But an increase in long-term cover from 20 per cent. to approaching 60 per cent. is no bad start.
The noble Baroness, in mentioning certain groups which she felt were not adequately covered, mentioned the case of women in the workforce. As I said at Committee stage, 61 per cent. of the female workforce are now covered, which compares favourably with only 54 per cent. of the male workforce. One should like both to improve, but the female workforce is at present covered better than the male workforce.
There is every reason to believe that the impressive growth in coverage over recent years has by no means peaked and will continue to improve. The Government will do all they can to encourage that, and I am sure that both employers and employees will play their full part. As I said during Committee stage, I believe that a tighter employment situation in the 1990s will in itself be conducive to the continued development of these schemes.
116
The noble Baroness asked me during Committee—she referred to it again this evening—if the Government would look into the possibility of introducing some form of contracting-out scheme so that employees not covered by occupational sick pay would continue to retain their title to additional pension under the present rules.
We have considered the noble Baroness's proposal, but I have to tell her that in our view there would be a real danger that that would merely inhibit the growth in occupational schemes which we are currently seeing. Some schemes might limit sick pay provisions to less than additional pension entitlement, while some employers might decide against the introduction of occupational sick pay altogether. That would be contrary to the objectives as set out in The Way Ahead. Moreover, the increased expenditure would seriously affect our proposals for improving provision for the more vulnerable among the disabled population.
In conclusion, I should like to re-state that although the growing coverage of occupational sick pay provides an important and vital backdrop to our proposals for additional pension it should not be viewed in isolation. This measure is a major element in our proposals for restructuring the benefits available to the disabled. The ever-increasing cost of additional pension paid with invalidity pension—if no changes are made it will increase from a current £450 million to £1·6 billion within 10 years—is only serving to widen the gap between those who have worked and those who have not. As your Lordships know, rather than continue on that path we propose instead to concentrate our resources on two new disability benefits—the disability allowance and disability employment credit—which will give major additional help to disabled people. The Government believe that that is the right approach.
The information requested in the noble Baroness's amendment could only be collected at additional time and cost, which would delay the Government's whole disability package. It is not in our view the sensible or right way to proceed. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord did nothing to reply to the very important point made by my noble friend as to who should bear the cost of these pensions—whether it is an appropriate burden to place on industry or whether it is something which is better carried by the taxpayer.
The Government's whole trend is to push every possible payment on to industry. I wonder whether they have worked out the implications of that. For example, many industries which are labour intensive will have to struggle to maintain their position. They are not highly profitable. If one places additional burdens on those labour-intensive industries it will be far more difficult for them to survive. The case for making it a taxpayers' burden rather than an employers' burden needs discussion and I am surprised that the noble Lord has not responded in any way.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Baroness. Of course we do not want to overburden industry with such expense. However, we have seen a growth over the past 15 years from some 20 per cent. to 60 per cent. in long-term coverage. In terms of short-term sick pay it is about 90 per cent. If over these past few years, when there has not been the tighter employment market, industry has been able to expand from 20 per cent. to 60 per cent. I see no reason why that progress cannot continue.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to learn that I regard his response as extremely disappointing. He has not adequately dealt with the point made by myself and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that there still remains a large proportion of the working population—perhaps what is now known as an underclass—without any kind of occupational cover. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made the point about the burdens being passed on to industry and commerce if everyone is now to be urged to introduce occupational pension schemes and that we would not noticeably be better served by making it a further requirement on the taxpayer or the community as a whole.
I have to say that, despite the reference to the improvement in the disability package, none of the organisations looking after the disabled that have been in touch with me—the Disability Alliance, RADAR, and so on—welcomes the abolition of the additional invalidity pension. Indeed, I have received extensive briefing from the disabled organisations, which are very concerned at what they see as a levelling down rather than a levelling up. There is great concern about what may happen, particularly to the poorer element of the working population, the less well paid and the people in transitory employment who become disabled and who then do not qualify for an occupational sick pay arrangement.
I do not intend to divide the House at this stage of our proceedings because it is late but I must record for the benefit of Hansard that I find the Minister's response extremely disappointing. Having said that, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7 line 8, at end insert:
("(4) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the expected long-term increase in the balance of the national insurance fund resulting from the provisions of this section and his proposals for applying that increase for the purpose of improving benefits for people with disabilities and those caring for them.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I do not intend to spend much time on this amendment because to some extent I have already made the case in speaking to Amendment No. 15. It is clear that the Government will save a substantial amount of money under the provisions of Clause 7. In fact, a figure of £350 million has been mentioned and
118
various estimates are floating around. Certainly a substantial amount of money will be saved once the clause is in operation.
The object of the amendment is to ensure that the money saved is to some extent devoted to the welfare of the disabled, and that seems to me to be the right approach considering that the money will have been saved on additional pensions for the disabled. The intention of the amendment is that the money should be applied,
"for the purpose of improving benefits for people with disabilities and those caring for them".
That seems to me the least that should be done in the light of the decision of the Government to do away with the benefit introduced, as I said in moving an earlier amendment, in 1975 on an all-party basis. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, this is another amendment which we discussed in Committee and I can only repeat what I told the noble Baroness on that occasion.
The Government have not sought to hide the expenditure effects of their proposals. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Disabled provided a very detailed Written Answer in another place on 26th January which set out our estimates of the savings and costs of all the proposals in The Way Ahead up to the year 2025–26. I would, however, stress that when referring to the Answer your Lordships would do well to note the cautionary words at the end to the effect that considerable margins of uncertainty must inevitably attach to figures that go beyond the end of the century.
As I pointed out when we discussed the matter in Committee, our proposals will lead to increases in expenditure on social security for the sick and disabled in every year until the end of this century. Expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled is projected to go up from £8·3 billion to about £12 billion by the year 2000.
No government could look with absolute certainty to future decades and commit future governments to specific benefit initiatives so far in advance. It will be for the Secretary of State of the day to decide on the priorities at that time. The report proposed in the amendment would therefore be a pointless exercise and I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to learn that I am disappointed with that response. It is quite clear that money will be saved by implementation of the clause and the Government do not intend to devote the money saved to further benefits for the disabled and their carers, as is proposed in the amendment.
There is not much point in dividing the House on the amendment. It is fairly late at night and we have a thin House. I therefore beg leave to withdraw it, although I repeat my disappointment with the response.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
("Conditions of approval of occupational and personal pension schemes
The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall amend the general conditions of approval of occupational and personal pensions schemes by the Inland Revenue so as to permit provision of payments out of any such scheme of an amount related to a person's accrued or prospective retirement pension under the scheme, such payments to be made throughout any period in which that person is entitled to the payment of an invalidity pension from the National Insurance Fund and to cease at the end of that period.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to follow on from the discussions in relation to Clause 7. The Government have made it quite clear that they intend to go ahead with their proposition to do away with the additional pension because they believe that the gap can be covered by the provision of occupational sick pay arrangements. The object of the amendment is to cope with that situation.
I shall not make out the case that I have already made in regard to the entire issue of additional pensions. On this side of the House we do not believe that there is any guarantee that the gap will necessarily be filled by occupational provision. However, the idea of the amendment is to nudge occupational schemes in the direction of providing payments out of pension schemes in cases where an individual is entitled to an invalidity pension from the National Insurance Fund. The intention is to try to fill the gap that inevitably occurs when there is disability and no provision is made for it.
The wording of the amendment is careful. We do not say that occupational schemes have to do so. We are saying that general conditions of approval of occupational and personal pension schemes by the Inland Revenue should be amended so as to permit the provision of payments out of any such scheme of an amount related to a person's accrued or prospective retirement pension under the scheme. It is entirely permissive. Such payments would be made throughout any period in which that person is entitled to a payment of invalidity pension. This is a sensible provision in view of the Government's view that occupational provision will eventually replace the additional pension which is being removed under Clause 7. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, as I added my name to the amendment—by mistake it has been added to the next amendment—perhaps I may support the noble Baroness warmly but briefly as she is such an expert on the subject and has reviewed the case for the new clause so clearly and compellingly.
The proposed abolition of the earnings related invalidity pension has caused widespread concern to disability organisations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said. Replies to Parliamentary Questions in the other place showed clearly that the main purpose of occupational pension schemes is for permanent retirement, and they in no way meet
120
the needs of those who may become disabled in mid-career and who may be able to return to work after two or four years or whatever.
If the Government believe in occupational pension schemes, and they have shown clearly that they do, if they abolish the earnings related invalidity pension they have an obligation to ensure that occupational pension schemes are encouraged fully to meet the needs of those who become disabled during the course of their working life. The new clause, as the noble Baroness said, is a small step in the right direction. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something encouraging on the issue.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Baronesses have explained, the amendment would require the Government to amend the tax rules for occupational and personal pension schemes to allow them to pay a pension to persons in receipt of invalidity benefit.
I should first make it clear that it would not be appropriate to change the tax rules for personal and occupational pensions in that way. Those rules exist primarily to ensure that the generous tax privileges enjoyed by approved schemes are used to provide an income in retirement. The tax rules are therefore concerned only with the limits on the maximum tax privileges contributions or benefits that may be paid.
That does not, of course, mean that the tax rules prevent pension schemes from providing for early payment of pensions. If the scheme trustees or managers are satisfied that a person can no longer carry on working, they may pay an incapacity pension, and a number do so. It is for the trustees to set their own criteria for determining incapacity: there are no tax approval conditions covering that point. The trustees' requirements for granting incapacity pensions may not therefore coincide precisely with the conditions which qualify a person to receive invalidity benefit.
Imposing requirements on the type or amount of benefits that schemes must provide is not proper to the tax rules and would fall to a Social Security Bill, should it be decided that that was desirable; but it is not a course that the Government would wish to follow.
It is important to remember that occupational and personal pension schemes are voluntary arrangements. No employer is forced to establish a pension scheme for its workforce, nor to provide particular amounts or types of benefits. Those benefits offered by pension schemes, or for which a person contributes under a personal pension scheme, reflect what can be afforded.
The new clause would allow a person in receipt of invalidity benefit to draw upon his or her retirement fund. The inevitable result would be to diminish the money set aside to provide for security in old age. Some employers may be prepared to make good that loss to the retirement fund, but that will not always be the case; and in the case of personal pension schemes, the loss will inevitably be a permanent one. It would also be wrong for the Government to force an increase in the employer's costs in this way.
I appreciate that the noble Baroness may have been motivated to move the amendment by the

121
Government's proposals to curtail future entitlement to additional pension with invalidity benefit, but I cannot accept the new clause.
As I have already made clear on previous amendments this evening, the Government will continue to encourage employers to introduce and enhance occupational sick pay schemes, thus building on the significant growth in those schemes in recent years; but we do not believe that statutory requirements should be imposed in the way proposed in the noble Baroness's new clause. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of the Government's position. Of course I understand that the main objective of pension schemes is to provide for an income in retirement. That point is not in dispute. However, a number of pension schemes already provide for an early pension where there is sickness or disability. All that my amendment sought to do was to nudge schemes in the direction of perhaps making this provision if they did not already do so. That why the wording is entirely permissive:
"so as to permit provision of payments out of any such scheme".
However, in view of the explanation and the lateness of the hour, I do not intend to press the amendment this evening. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
("Review of social security provision
The Secretary of State shall review social security provision for chronically sick and disabled people and shall lay a report on his review before Parliament by 31st March 1991.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State should lay before Parliament by March next year a report on the social security provision for chronically sick and disabled people. We feel that such a clause is important at this time because of the effects on disabled people of the 1986 Social Security Act, the shortcomings of the OPCS surveys which are now well known and the lack of meaningful consultation with the disability organisations on this Bill and on the White Paper, The Way Ahead. There is also the fact that this Bill makes straightforward cuts in disability benefits—notably the abolition of the additional pension and the abolition of the reduced earnings allowance.
We know that April 1988 saw the biggest changes in social security since the war. There was much concern during the passage of the Bill that disabled people would lose out. There has been no assessment of the effects of the Act on disabled people. There has been the scrapping of the domestic assistance payments; the move from flexible additional requirements payments to flat rate disability premiums and the move from one-off payments for essential items to the cash limited social fund, where payments are discretionary. Those are some of the main changes which adversely affect disabled people.
We feel that the major problems we face with the White Paper and the Bill on the OPCS findings are not only that the OPCS greatly under-estimated the costs that some severely disabled people face but fundamentally the survey was commissioned before the effects of the 1986 Act. This was pointed out at the time. The disability organisations estimate that at least 1 million disabled people have lost out because of the 1986 Social Security Act.
Your Lordships will be aware of the findings by DIG, the Disabled Income Group, which were published: Not the OPCS in 1988 and more recently Short Changed by Disability. At least the surveys document the extra expenditure resulting from disability. They show that this is much higher than the OPCS estimated. For example, the survey by DIG discovered that the most severely disabled people needed not far short of £90 per week compared with the OPCS estimate of about £12 per week as the extra cost of disability. The survey suggested that one in three disabled people in the sample admitted that they go without food from time to time because they cannot afford it. One in three of those questioned experienced continual debt and deep dissatisfaction with their financial lot.
When the OPCS surveys were first commissioned—and the Government should have credit for commissioning them—the Minister responsible for the disabled at the time. Mr. John Major, said that the results of the surveys were expected to be published in 1988 and would provide the evidence for a comprehensive review of benefits for long-term sick and disabled people. Of course we did not receive that comprehensive review but simply had the White Paper which was followed within a few days by this Bill.
The Minister must be aware of the deep sense of anger and frustration among disabled people and their organisations regarding the lack of consultation in producing the White Paper and the failure to implement the promise given by Mr. John Major of a comprehensive review of benefits. The amendment seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to conduct such a review and report to Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this amendment asks for two unnecessary provisions. The first is for the Secretary of State to do what he would do anyhow. Any Secretary of State for Social Security will review the various benefits which it is the duty of his department to administer the whole time. Imposing a statutory duty on him to do so has no practical effect whatever.
The second provision demands that he should lay a report before Parliament. That sounds plausible but it ignores the fact that any Secretary of State is responsible the whole time to Parliament and he or his colleagues have to answer questions put in either House of Parliament on any aspect of his administration. The Opposition in either House can always arrange a day to debate these matters. It is therefore wholly unnecessary to put into the Bill a provision providing for a statutory review, the two aspects of which will, as I have said, be operated in any case.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is of course correct as far as he goes. However, I do not think he has answered the underlying purpose of this amendment. It is perfectly true that review is always taking place. However, some reviews are a great deal more serious, comprehensive and substantial than others. The OPCS surveys are often mentioned by Ministers in this House as a reason for not doing anything yet. Those surveys have built up a large body of expectation. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, knows perfectly well that to build up a large body of political expectation that one is going to do something and then not do it may be rather unwise. That is the real point behind this amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his comments. It is now five years since the Government commissioned the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to carry out a major survey of the circumstances of disabled people. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, does not seem to think much of that survey. As has frequently been pointed out to us, that is a considerable length of time in the lives of many of these disabled people who may or may not be receiving some of the current range of disability benefits.
I quite understand that the noble Lord may argue that after five years of waiting for the comprehensive findings of those OPCS surveys he feels he can wait another year for the Government to conduct a review of existing benefits, and then produce a report. But I think that we must strike a balance between the desire for further consideration of our proposals and the need to see the Government act urgently on the findings of these reports. We would, I think, have been open to quite justifiable criticism if our sole response to the receipt of the six reports had been to say, "We shall come back to you in 18 months' time (or more) with our conclusions to see what all this means for the benefit system".
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that the OPCS surveys were used as an excuse for doing nothing. However, he now suggests that we should use the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, as an excuse for doing nothing for even longer. That seems quite extraordinary.
I recognise of course that noble Lords will differ in the interpretation they put on the findings of the OPCS reports. That is why we have looked and will continue to look with particular interest at the comments of Members of this House, and of those organisations with experience in this field, and at other smaller surveys which some of these bodies have commissioned.
But the prime lessons which we have drawn from the OPCS findings are, I think, not ones which we needed a full-scale formal review to establish. In particular, I think it shines through that much more attention needs to be given to promoting the independence of disabled people who wish to work and who, under the current arrangements, have no incentive to do so. Quite clearly we also need a
124
benefit structure which addresses itself to the needs and circumstances of disabled people, in particular those who have been disabled from early in life and have been deprived of the opportunity to benefit from the contributory system. Equally clearly there are people under pension age who need more help with the extra costs of their disability than they are currently getting and who are simply at the moment not qualifying for mobility allowance or attendance allowance.
We have set out the fundamental lines of our proposed response to the OPCS reports in The Way Ahead. The noble Lord should not fear that we are intent now on simply pressing ahead and ignoring his and others' comments on these proposals. But as it is we have set ourselves a deadline which is now less than two years off for the introduction of fully worked up new benefits precisely so that we have the time to make sure that these benefits will be smoothly delivered, will be widely known about and will have any rough edges knocked off them by the comments that the noble Lord and others will no doubt wish to make, as we work up the details in the light of those comments. To delay the essential, detailed work for another year and hence effectively to delay for at least a year the introduction of new benefits which will direct much-needed new assistance to new groups of disabled people would be unforgivable. In the light of the assurance that we shall continue in good faith to consider all the comments made by the noble Lord and others and all those groups with expertise in this field on our proposals as we work them out, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that the amendment was unnecessary. Would that it were so. The Minister referred to the good faith of the Government. I have to disappoint him. The Government are not trusted by the disability organisations working in this field. We had the OPCS survey. The message was that we should wait for OPCS. We then had the White Paper, without any consultation with disability organisations working in the Field, and we had the Bill within days of the White Paper. There was the promise of an independent review, then an internal review, then no consultation at all, the White Paper and then the Bill.
The OPCS survey was fine so far as it went. It provided some very useful information. Those fully worked-out proposals helped 8,000 people out of a total 6 million. We all know the real answer—there has been a Treasury victory over the results of the OPCS survey.
At this stage in the proceedings I do not propose to divide the House, but I have to tell the Minister that the disability organisations and disabled people do not feel able to place their trust in the Government in this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 25 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 28, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) In Schedule 20 to the principal Act (glossary of expressions), the entry relating to "entitled" and cognate expressions—

(a) shall be taken at all times on or after 2nd Septembr 1985 but before the passing of this Act to have had effect with the substitution, in the second column, of the words "sections 165A and 165B" for the words "section 165A"; and

(b) shall have effect as from the passing of this Act with the substitution for those words of the words "sections 165A to 165D".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 8, line 39, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("(5) Paragraph 48 of Schedule 10 to the 1986 Act shall have effect, and be taken always to have had effect, as if it had originally been enacted with the amendment made by subsection (4) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is again a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Late claims for widowhood benefits where death is difficult to establish]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 10, line 6, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("subsection (1) above").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment intended to clarify the wording of Clause 12. I invite the House to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 11, line 3, at end insert:
("(6) Regulations may provide that any of the provisions of this section shall apply subject to prescribed modifications where a man claims a benefit, entitlement to which depends on whether or when his wife has died.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with what appear to be two anomalies in the Bill. Clause 12 allows for late payment of benefits to widows where there is either delayed discovery of the husband's body or a claim arising from the presumption of death where the husband's body has not been discovered. The intention of the amendment is to discover, first, whether it is entirely clear that all the benefits to which the widow would otherwise have been entitled can be claimed as a result of the operation of Clause 12. In other words, is a widow who will receive the benefits as a result of Clause 12 in exactly the same position as a widow in the more normal situation where there is no delay in the discovery of the husband's body? Secondly, why is there an invidious distinction in the Bill between widows and widowers? In these days of equal opportunities and separate taxation, surely all surviving spouses should be treated equally. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Clause 12 is a provision which relates specifically to widows. The amendment seeks to extend the effect of the provision to widowers. In doing so it reflects, in part, an Opposition amendment which was put down in another place and was subsequently withdrawn after debate.
It may be helpful if I give a brief indication of the reasons behind this rather unusual but wholly beneficial provision. We have been concerned about the benefit position of a small number of widows who claim benefit late through no fault of their own. The type of case that we have in mind is where the widow's claim is delayed for more than 12 months because her husband has disappeared and there is a lengthy delay—possibly some years—in the discovering of his body, or indeed if his body is not found, where she has to rely instead on the presumption of death provisions. In such a case, Clause 12 will enable arrears of benefit to be paid all the way back to the date of widowhood—subject of course to the offset of any other benefit received during the period—instead of being limited to a maximum period of 12 months as at present.
This wholly beneficial provision, following as it does the improvements which we introduced in the 1989 Act for women widowed before April 1988, is further indication of our commitment to improving the benefit position of widows.
I turn now to the question raised by this amendment; namely, that of extending the provision to widowers also. On the general principle of whether provision should be made by way of a "widower's benefit", current EC law provides that survivor's benefit is exempt from equal treatment legislation. We have consistently argued that we see no merit in introducing a universal state insurance benefit for widowers on a par with those currently provided for widows. We repeated that view recently in the Government response (Command Paper 1038) to the report of the Select Committee of this House. To extend existing benefit provisions for widows to widowers would cost in the region of £300 million a year. The available evidence indicates that widowers are more likely to have higher earnings than widows and are less likely to have dependent children. As a consequence, we have made it clear to the Commission that the equalisation of survivor's benefit should be removed from the third draft directive entirely.
It follows in relation to this new provision, for the reasons I have already outlined, that there has never been any intention to extend it beyond the benefit payable to widows. We have sought to make a significant improvement in the benefit provision for a small number of women widowed in particularly unfortunate circumstances. We see no justification in extending the provision to widowers as well.
In response to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the right of widows to all other benefits, I am able to give him an absolute assurance that that is so. In the light of that explanation, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it seems to me that the Government's attitude is like the attitude towards the housemaid's baby: they do not mind dealing with the problem so long as it is a small one. I understand the point about the cost. We understand why that is the reason the Government will not extend the provision to widowers. I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 (Liability to maintain dependants]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 11, line 4, at beginning insert:
("( ) In section 22 of the 1986 Act, at the end of subsection (8A) there shall be inserted the words "and shall provide for £10 of any payments made to that person in any week by another person for the maintenance of that other person's child or children to be disregarded." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is offered in no unfriendly spirit. We have sympathy with the proposals that the Government offer in the clause. We put forward the amendment in the hope that it might perhaps make them work better.
The amendment is in effect about incentives. The Government frequently talk about incentives. They do not only apply above £30,000 a year; they are needed and useful at all economic levels. It is particularly important to get the new system up and running that there should be some incentive to both the caring parent and the absent parent to make use of the system.
Among caring parents, there will obviously be a certain amount of reluctance to go and get maintenance orders and set the system in operation. It may be a matter of pride; on occasion, it may be a matter of shame. In those cases where a relationship has broken up in acrimony, it may simply be a matter of a bad smell, and of the parent not wanting to go anywhere near the issues. There may be a weariness or an anxiety about the sheer amount of hassle involved in going through legal procedures which, in an emotive area such as this, are not always pleasant, and are certainly time consuming and burdensome. I regret to say that there are also cases in which single parents feel a genuine fear of using legal proceedings to recover maintenance. I regret that very much but since it is so we have to live with it and try to deal with it.
It is important, if the caring parent is to have an incentive to name the father and allow proceedings to be brought, that she or, as it might be, he (the caring parent may be male on occasion) should be somewhat better off as a result of doing it. The effect of this amendment would be to allow a £10 disregard for whatever is recovered as a maintenance order. So in effect if it is put through one is £10 better off. If one is no better off at all, why bother to do it? Why should one bother to name the father and go through it all?
There is also the question of making the system work so far as the absent parent is concerned. If he were co-operative, the absent parent would not have put us in this position in the first place. He would not in fact have started from here in the first place.
128
It is only when the absent parent is unco-operative that the machinery which the Government propose in the clause is in the least necessary. So we have to be able to convince the absent parent that his children will be better off if this machinery is used. Again, the amendment would make it possible to do that.
The absent parent may perhaps not be consumed with zeal for saving public money. If all that happens by his shelling out is that the Treasury is saved money, he may try to evade the system. There is a very considerable problem of enforcement of maintenance orders, as I am sure the noble Baroness knows very well. Too much recalcitrance can clog up the system of enforcement. So, again, it is important to assure the absent parent as well as the caring parent that the children will be better off if one goes through the complicated procedure of obtaining a maintenance order.
The procedure that we recommend in this amendment is used in Australia and the United States. In both those countries it is regarded as essential to the smooth working of the system. Because we hope that when it comes in the system will work, we want to have this put into effect. The issue of cost will come up but there is no saving to public funds in the clause if it does not work and people do not use it. With this amendment we suggest that a small expenditure may well result in a very much larger saving and that the objective of achieving a saving will not be accomplished at all unless a little bait is put into the task of catching it. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Earl has explained the background to the amendment so well that there is little to add. It is true that there needs to be an incentive: in this case that one is £10 better off having the maintenance order than not having it. We believe that a disregard will also be an incentive for the father to pay if he knows that his children will thereby be better off. There is also the longer term benefit of encouraging a lone parent to claim maintenance. There will come a time when the lone parent may be able to seek employment. Having a maintenance order with this disregard may make all the difference as to whether the lone parent can afford to take that job, or find that the family is poorer than if it stayed on benefit, having paid the child care costs.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this amendment was raised and debated at the Committee stage of the Bill. It proposes that £10 of any maintenance payments made in any week in respect of one or more children should be disregarded when calculating income for benefit purposes. This will be a change from current practice whereby the full amount of maintenance paid is taken into account when assessing the amount of benefit payable.
I listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I am pleased that they support our objective to increase the amount of maintenance recovered from liable parents.

129
The noble Earl put forward the view that a maintenance disregard would aid the Government in that objective. I welcome the intention behind the amendment. However, I am not persuaded that a £10 disregard would have only a marginal cost. A large number of absent parents would need to start paying maintenance to offset the significant extra benefit costs. In any event, the Government are of the firm belief that it is right that absent parents should meet their responsibilities for their families so far as they are able.
Mention is sometimes made of the Australian and American arrangements. The Government are aware that a maintenance disregard is part of those systems which we are examining as part of our wide-ranging view of the whole maintenance system. As yet no decisions have been made.
It is important to remember that absent parents have a clear duty to maintain their families. The fact that so many do not do so—three-quarters of lone parent: families are dependent on income support, the absent parent paying no maintenance—results in substantial benefit expenditure. Income support for lone parent families costs £1·9 billion a year. Absent parents should do more to meet their responsibilities. They should not leave it to the benefit system.
A maintenance disregard would clearly benefit some lone parent families receiving benefit. But it would mean, for instance, that one lone parent family on income support would be better off than another family whose circumstances were the same in every respect except that maintenance was being paid in one instance but not the other.
We must also look at the effect of the incentive on lone parents who wish to leave income support and support themselves and their families by working. Disregarding some of the maintenance while a lone parent family is on benefit would make it harder to be better off working and not receiving benefit. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I am grateful for the sympathy for the principle of what we are trying to do. I am glad that its helpful intent is recognised.
I am a little disappointed by what she said about costs. There is a possibility that the Government may be spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar. That would be a pity. However, I hope that they will continue to think about the matter, as I believe they are doing. I do not consider that they would think any harder if I divided the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 34 to 36:
Page 11, line 8, after ("is") insert ("or was").
Page 11, line 29, at beginning insert ("there is in force").
Page 11, line 30, leave out ("is").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with permission I shall move all three amendments as they are part and parcel of the same matter.
Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 are minor technical amendments which do not affect the policy intentions behind Clause 13. They merely aim to put beyond doubt that the new arrangements introduced by Section 24A will apply to orders already in existence as well as to orders made after the new provision has come into effect.
I am advised that the position with regard to Section 24B is already beyond doubt. It was always the intention that the benefits of the new provision should be able to extend to lone parent families where there are DSS and private orders already in existence. The amendments remove any possibility of confusion. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 12, line 17, at end insert:
("(5A) If, in a case where the Secretary of State gives notice under subsection (3) above, a payment under the order is or has been made to him wholly or partly in respect of the whole or any part of the period beginning with the day on which the transfer takes effect and ending with the day on which the notice under subsection (3) above is given to the liable parent, the Secretary of State shall—

(a) repay to or for the liable parent so much of the payment as is referable to any personal allowance element in respect of that period or, as the case may be, the part of it in question; and

(b) pay to or for the dependent parent so much of any remaining balance of the payment as is referable to that period or part;

and a payment under paragraph (b) above shall be taken to discharge, to that extent, the liability of the liable parent to the dependent parent under the order in respect of that period or part.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a technical, tidying-up amendment which does not affect the policy intention. I am sorry to introduce what appears to be a further complication to what is already a very complex provision. But I am sure that noble Lords will not argue with the principle that the Secretary of State should pass on to the appropriate persons maintenance received by the DSS for the period after the lone parent leaves income support.
As your Lordships know, Section 24A will enable certain rights under a DSS order to be transferred to a lone parent who is leaving benefit. That avoids the need for the lone parent to go to court to get her own order. The transfer is made by the Secretary of State issuing a notice to the court and to both parents. Transfer takes effect from the date the lone parent leaves income support, so the transfer notice will usually be issued slightly after the date the transfer takes effect.
The Secretary of State ceases to be entitled to receive payment or exercise rights in relation to the personal allowance element when the notice is issued.
It has been suggested that there may be some uncertainty about what happens if there is a payment of maintenance including a personal allowance element for the short period between the two dates.

131
The amendment merely makes clear that the money will either be paid to the lone parent or repaid to the absent parent as appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, a minor point has been made to us and in answer perhaps the noble Baroness will write to me. It has been pointed out that the effect of the amendment could produce some slightly odd results if the liable parent, having received a refund from the DSS, is then required to pay the money to the dependent parent as a result of a variation of the court order. No doubt the noble Baroness will wish to read Hansard and then write to me.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, that is an interesting, further complication. However, I shall of course write to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved amendment No. 38:
Page 12, line 32, leave out ("The giving of notice") and insert ("A transfer").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this a minor, technical, tidying-up amendment which is similar in intent to Amendment No. 37. Subsection (7) ensures that the person who should have received maintenance payments which were not made retains the right to pursue them despite the transfer of other rights. The amendment merely removes any possibility of confusion as to the effective date of transfer in this situation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 15, line 14, after ("section") insert ("in England and Wales").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is merely a small drafting amendment. The arrangements in Scotland for enforcing maintenance orders are different from those in England and Wales. That means that the provision that the Secretary of State should notify the Legal Aid Board if a court awards arrears of maintenance by a lump sum, and he is aware that a debt exists to the board, has no effect in Scotland. The amendment makes it clear that that provision applies only in England and Wales, rather than leaving that to be deduced from the clause as it currently stands. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 13, insert the following new Clause—
("Deduction for providing family care.
In section 22(8) of the 1986 Act, at the end there shall be added the words ", provided that, in calculating a person's earnings from any employment, including self-employment, there shall be deducted the amount of any expenses reasonably incurred by him without reimbursement, to enable him to carry out his duties in connection with that employment, in respect of the making of reasonable provision for the care of another member of the family".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment relates to a proposed child care disregard on income support for single parents resuming work. It is an amendment which deals with incentives. Indeed, it does more than that; it does what I have been
132
concerned with all day: it helps to make it possible for people to return to employment.
Clearly, single parents with a child to care for cannot return to work unless they have some facilities to care for the child. Nowadays not everyone has a friendly, handy grandmother in the near vicinity. The mobility of labour, if nothing else, tends to make that a great deal more difficult. Therefore, a high proportion of single parents returning to work must pay for child care. If what they pay is only slightly less than what they are receiving from part-time work they do not have the incentive to do it. Of course, part-time work is often what those with children to care for are seeking. Therefore, the work must be made financially possible. The cost of child care is rising and we may be looking at as much as £40 per week. That is a considerable sum to meet out of part-time earnings which are not the most luxurious rates of pay in the world.
One may quantify what is involved in the amendment. Thirty-six per cent. of married women, who tend to rely mainly on their husbands for child care, work. Forty-two per cent. of widows, who do not lose benefit for the amount that they spend on child care, work part-time. However, only 24 per cent. of single parents, who lose benefit as soon as they return to work, work part-time. Therefore, if one compares the 42 per cent. of widows with the 24 per cent. of single parent families, one has what approaches a controlled experiment.
We have here a poverty trap—something which is making people worse off if they go back to work than if they stay in it. I understand that to be contrary to government policy as it is contrary to common sense. Therefore, one would think that the Government might be interested in doing something about it. So far, they have not shown themselves to be very willing and I hope that they may be more forthcoming this evening.
The Government always tend to come back with the word "complexity". I have been quite exercised by what the Government mean by the word "complexity" in the context of social security because they often come back, as they did this evening on the amendment to remove the differential age-related rates for income support, and say "complexity" when as far as I can see we are simplifying the rules.
I rather suspect that when they say "complexity" they mean anything which increases the number of heads of entitlement. If what we are dealing with does not correspond with life as it is experienced and you have to try to squeeze the two together like a jigsaw for which you do not have the right pieces, then the complexity increases rather than diminishes.
It seems to me that a disregard for the cost of child care is a simple notion. I cannot see any complexity about it. I cannot see how married women, or indeed single parents, can be expected to go to work if they cannot afford the child care. To discourage people from working is contrary to government policy, to the public interest and, I should have thought, to good sense. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this amendment seeks to alter the way in which certain employment expenses are treated across the income related benefits. The proposal is to disregard the cost of caring for another member of the family if the costs are reasonably incurred in connection with employment.
The amendment as drafted is wide ranging. Not only would it apply to child care costs incurred by lone parents across all the income related benefits but it would apply also to all families on benefit where an adult or child needed care. That would be a major change to the benefit system which does not aim to cover specific work-related expenses at all. It would be very hard to draw the line at that expense when many people may incur work expenses such as travel to work costs. The cost of allowing all work-related expenses would be heavily significant.
As regards lone parents and child care costs, this amendment would create an imbalance between people in work and people out of work. People in work who are not receiving an income related benefit are not generally protected from employment expenses. To introduce such a provision could well mean people wanting to stay within the benefit system or even changing their arrangements to come within it. That would be a retrogressive step. As noble Lords know, the benefit system already provides special help for lone parents in recognition of their dual responsibilities as child rearer and breadwinner.
There is or should be another source of help for lone parents with child care costs. Regular payments of maintenance can make a significant difference when a lone parent must consider child care costs. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government are reviewing the maintenance system and we are taking action in the current Bill to improve the system in the meantime. Absent parents have a clear obligation towards their families and maintenance can be very helpful to lone parents wishing to work.
On child care, we do not see it as the taxpayers' role to be the provider of child care through the benefit system. Parents are best placed to make decisions as to the care of their children. The Government's role is to help them to have the greatest possible choice of child care provision and to ensure standards. The Government welcome the initiatives which employers and voluntary organisations are taking in this area. Employers are also recognising that help with child care can help them to recruit and retain staff. The Chancellor's Budget measure on workplace nurseries will also assist. It will help to increase the supply of workplace nurseries. That will make it easier for lone parents at all income levels, whether they are full- or part-time workers.
To sum up, the implications of the amendment are significant and would add substantially to benefit costs and to the complexity of the benefit system. It would distort the choices available to all families and make more people rather than fewer dependent on benefit.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made reference to some statistics but I am not clear how he arrived at those figures. For example, the general household
134
surveys in 1985 to 1987 show that 37 per cent. of married women work part-time, while the noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave the figure of 36 per cent. For widows the figure was 35 per cent., while the noble Earl quoted 42 per cent. The annual statistical inquiry shows that for lone parents on income support around 70,000, or 10 per cent., worked part-time, while the figure given by the noble Earl is 24 per cent.
It will be difficult to argue specifically on those figures, but there is nevertheless a discrepancy between the figures used by the noble Earl and those I quoted on behalf of the Government. However, in the light of that reply I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I become very puzzled by the Government's resistance to the amendment. It is a matter of plain common sense and I cannot understand what the point is which causes them to resist it.
The talk of people wanting to stay within the benefit system seems to me to be in danger of becoming obsessive. After all, we are debating the question of people attempting to return to part-time work, which I would not normally interpret as being evidence of their wanting to stay within the benefit system.
The noble Baroness says that it is not the taxpayer's role to provide child care. As a general rule perhaps it is not, but it is the taxpayer's role to provide education; when one enters the realm of nursery education the boundaries may become blurred. It is the taxpayer's role to use his money as usefully as possible, and in some contexts it should be regarded as an investment. Spending taxpayers' money to keep people on benefit while depriving them of the opportunity to get off it by doing work does not seem to be particularly constructive.
The noble Baroness speaks of employment. I know that employers are doing more than they were. I welcome what her right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did in the Budget, but it is still not very much. We are discussing part-time work. Of all categories, those are the people for whom employers are least likely to be doing anything significant. That is not the answer.
The Government seem to me, as they have seemed so many times today, to be forcing people back into benefit and depriving them of the way out. They talk of fear of a dependency culture. It seems to me that they are trying to create one. Perhaps some day I shall understand what they are driving at. I shall not find out by dividing the House, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 41:
Before Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Income Support: persons under 18
. In regulation 13A of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, for paragraphs (2)(b) and (3) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
"(b) for the period for which that paragraph applies or, if the date on which he attains the age of 18 falls within that period, for so much thereof as falls before that date".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, unfortunately was not present at Committee stage and cannot be here again tonight. She asked me to apologise to the House because she feels very strongly with regard to the amendment, and that is the reason her name heads the list of those supporting it.
The noble Baroness and I went to see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, last Wednesday regarding the amendment. At the end of our discussion on the amendment at Committee stage, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that Mr. Nicholas Scott would have an ever-open door and that we could go and knock on it. We did knock, and saw not Mr. Scott but Mrs. Shephard. However, she was extremely kind and responsive.
For those noble Lords who were not present at Committee stage, the amendment seeks to abolish the time limits on income support entitlements for 16 and 17 year-olds living away from home, and instead to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to claim income support until they find a suitable youth training place or employment. It will give them a little more time to become adjusted to their situation and we hope get them started on a better way of life.
We have had much discussion on income support for young people so I do not need to go into all the details of what has been going on and what they need, but having had a satisfactory interview with Mrs. Shephard, I hope I can now sit down and hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Baroness saw my honourable friend Mrs. Shephard. I can assure her that she would have received equally pleasant treatment from my right honourable friend Mr. Scott.
The amendment seeks to change the provisions for 16 and 17 year-olds by extending eligibility to income support until 18 years of age to those who are presently entitled only during the child benefit extension period.
I think I should say in passing that the noble Baroness suggested that we group this amendment with earlier amendments. At the time I said that it was perhaps not appropriate but I think I rather regret that suggestion and the noble Baroness might have been right. However, I respond briefly as in speaking to earlier amendments I have already outlined the reasoning behind the Government's policy on 16 and 17 year-olds, in particular the provisions available to the vulnerable groups.
We have continuously monitored the effect of the changes. We have done this through the collection of information from local DSS offices and from the severe hardship unit. We have also set up regular meetings with representatives from voluntary groups involved with young people as a way of gaining feedback. There have also been a number of reports published by, for example, NACAB and Shelter which we have carefully considered. As a result, we have introduced a number of changes primarily to improve the way claims from young people are dealt
136
with, but significantly to pay the 18 to 24 year-old rate of benefit to those who have to live independently.
For example, since November 1989 all 16 and 17 year-olds are interviewed to ensure a full investigation of all claims from young people. In addition, recognised contact points have been set up in DSS local offices for local voluntary groups with difficult cases. In May 1990 a special leaflet was launched to give young people up-to-date and clear information about the benefits to which they may be entitled.
Apart from extending entitlement to young people estranged from their families, we have not been persuaded of the desirability of any major change. We remain convinced that our policy on young people is the right one. The income support rules provide help for those youngsters who may be incapable of work or training while also offering temporary help to those who may not be able to take up training or job opportunities immediately.
As I said, we continue to monitor the operation of the policy. In particular, we shall be looking at the impact of the administrative changes introduced in November and March on those young people who left school this Easter and those who will leave this summer. This will be the first real opportunity to assess the effects of these changes.
I cannot support this amendment because it does not seem to me to be in the best interests of the disadvantaged young people involved. These are young people who need the most help and I cannot accept that giving them unfettered entitlement to income support until they reach 18 years of age is good for them. The existing benefit provision and the improvements to the YT operation which I have described ensure that help is available for those who are vulnerable and that no young person need be without an income.
I apologise for bringing the noble Baroness back from her dinner because I earlier suggested that the amendment should not be grouped with others, but I hope she will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am extremely disappointed with that answer, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will be too. Mrs. Shephard kindly gave me the letter which was written to the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, about the many things which have been done as a result of the Government's misguided plan to remove benefit as from September 1988. They have had to make a number of changes because the policy was so misguided. I am sorry to say that they do not realise that it is still misguided. The amendment does not ask for undiluted help until the age of 18; it asks for help until those people concerned obtain a youth training place or employment. It does not go as far as the Minister suggested.
However, without the benefit of the advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, I shall not divide the House. I know that the noble Baroness feels strongly about the matter. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but warn that it will be coming back at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Income support in respect of accommodation charges for certain persons in residential care and nursing homes]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 16, line 13, at end insert ("and shall ensure, as far as is practicable, that the amounts prescribed by him are sufficient to meet the cost of any such accommodation which would be met by a local authority in the case of persons other than qualifying persons").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 42 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 43. This matter was discussed at length in Committee, and therefore I shall deal with it briefly. To deal with the matter briefly does not devalue its importance. We make no apology for returning to a matter which is causing great concern to many elderly people, their relatives and those who care for them.
The amendment seeks to address the problem that is being faced by many elderly and disabled people in homes where the charges are in excess of the income support limits. It seeks to provide a structure for ensuring that the department has the power to make additional payments to individuals and to top up the current income support limit where it is reasonable to do so. It seeks to refine the mechanism proposed in Clause 14 to allow for individual assessment to be made, if requested, of the sufficiency of the benefit to pay a reasonable charge.
We feel that the Government have still not addressed the problem of the existing residents in care who will continue to have to meet residential charges from income support. There is evidence from many quarters that, despite the April uprating and that which is promised for August, many residents will face a substantial shortfall.
Clause 14 gives the Secretary of State the power to collect information regarding fees. To repeat the question that has been asked before but which has not yet been answered, we should like to know when the information will be available and when it will be acted upon. What help is available for residents who face a shortfall now?
The amendment seeks to refine the mechanism proposed in Clause 14 to allow individual assessment to be made, if requested, of the relationship between the benefits and the charges.
We told the Minister at Committee stage of the many harrowing cases that have been brought to the attention of those of us who support the amendments. We hope that the Minister will be able to give us a more helpful and understanding reply than he did on that occasion. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to add my support to the amendment The Secretary of State is aware of the problem. He has already taken some action, but it is not sufficient to close the gap between the cost of residential homes and the amount which is given under income support. We hope that the amendment will give more power to the Secretary of State's elbow.
It is not clear, where the gap exists, who ought to meet it. Most residential homes do not have
138
immense reserves of funds on which they can draw. They do not have great borrowing powers at the bank. At present levels of interest rates the expense of borrowing could be prohibitive. They are in the position of practically everybody else who is carrying out a public service on behalf of the Government. They are having to carry out the job at a loss. Whether they can go on doing so is doubtful.
I should like to quote some information that was supplied to me by Brent Age Concern. According to Department of Health guidelines there are supposed to be 25 local authority residential home places per 1,000 people. In 1987 Brent had 10 homes representing 431 places; that is 10·31 per 1,000, which is less than half the number stated in the guidelines. There is very little private or voluntary provision. Brent is not an area where one gets much of that kind of thing. We now have only six homes, some of which do not meet the new registration requirements. To bring them up to those standards will cost money. Here we have an absolutely typical illustration of the way in which local authority finance works. The council is to sell two of the homes in order to finance the refurbishment of the other four. That is asset stripping public finance. So we shall be left with 200 places only—under five per thousand. That is less than one-fifth of the guidelines. If we go too far down that road, it is an awfully long way back again. I hope that the Secretary of State will manage to do something before we have gone over the waterfall.
11 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, both speakers in support of the amendment stated in short and simple terms what they hope it will achieve; but in fact the matter is most complicated and has unusal implications. I only hope that at this late hour I can find sufficient lucidity to try to explain what will happen.
If we take the first of the two amendments, we find that it adds a few lines to the new subsection (2A) as set out in Clause 14, which is a subsection that deals with the way in which the Secretary of State is to take into account information provided by local authorities or other prescribed bodies or persons—they are not yet prescribed; that can be done under the Bill—for the purpose of deciding for income support the amounts to be provided in respect of accommodation, and can do so in respect of any area for people who qualify in cases where prescribed conditions are fulfilled.
Of course, the circumstances will vary enormously. Many homes properly charge different amounts for different individuals according to their needs and circumstances. There will be a problem in that the local authorities will be tailoring the amount of support that they give under the new scheme to the needs of individuals and to each home.
The Secretary of State will therefore not have an easy task under the first part of Clause 14 as it stands. If the words are added:
"and shall ensure, as far as is practicable, that the amounts prescribed by him are sufficient to meet the cost of any such accommodation which would be met by a local authority in the case of persons other than qualifying persons".

139
we shall be fettering the discretion that he would have to exercise in what, as I say, are complicated enough circumstances.
In those cases in which the qualifying person is not satisfied, or it seems that the proprietor or the manager of the residential care or nursing home is not satisfied, the matter can be referred by either of them to an adjudication officer for review. He will not carry out the review. He has to refer it to a tribunal unless—this is a strange and unusual situation—he decides (it is a quasi-judicial decision that he will have to take) that a tribunal has already made a case in relation to another qualifying person in the same home; in other words, unless he decides that there is already a precedent. That may not always be clear, bearing in mind that it is the circumstances not only of the home but of the individual that have to be borne in mind. We find the adjudicating officer, with his quasi-judicial function, having to decide whether or not it shall be referred to the tribunal for a judicial decision.
The complication does not end there, because he may also decide not to refer it to the tribunal. This appears at line 10 of page 10 of the Marshalled List. He may do this if he decides that the advice of the local authority—which has already been given to the Secretary of State, so we are going round in circles—
"or other prescribed body or person with knowledge of the home in question".
is such that he himself can determine the matter without reference to the tribunal. Frankly, I do not think we are doing justice or trying to achieve justice for the people whom we are trying to help if we impose such a complex system and procedure as that which these two amendments impose. I very much hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will say that we should not do this. It is far better to leave it to the Bill and the new arrangement as it is.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it may well be that the amendment could have this effect which is not totally acceptable, and no doubt the proposals are complicated. But the problem is not complicated at all. It is the gap between people's income in these institutions and the charges. If the Government do not like the amendments put forward—and no doubt they can put many arguments against them—the burden is on them to explain how, in a simpler way, they will bridge the gap. That gap is a matter of great urgency at present both to the persons concerned and the institutions. If the institutions close down, we shall be in a difficult position. If the Government do not like the amendments, what are they going to do?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness agrees that if the owner of the residential home will be the person making the application for the increased charges, the owner will have a vested interest in the result of the reference to the adjudication officer or the tribunal. We want to see these people fairly treated, but I do not believe it is right that there should be a procedure which is double-edged and could be used merely to jack up charges.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me the question before I sat down, so I take it that I am in order if I reply, although it is Report stage. It is simple. I have already said that I understand that the Government regard these proposed amendments as too complicated or inadequate in some way or another. However, the burden is on them to do something about the extremely urgent problem.
If they tell us that they do not accept the amendment but will come back at Third Reading with something that will bridge the gap and is more acceptable administratively in terms of their own theories about what ought to be done, then all well and good. But the problem will not go away just because we withdraw the amendment. It is on the Government's plate to find some way of dealing with a problem which is not academic and will wait a long time for resolution. It is there and urgent. There will be disastrous consequences unless something is done about it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness is right in saying that it is the Government's job, once a general point has been made, to find a specific answer that will fit in with the Bill. If the noble Baroness and her friends are satisfied that this unfairness exists, and if they cannot find words which will straighten out what they consider to be unfairness, why should it automatically be the job of the Government? It may well be that this point, in the view of the Government, is well covered in the Bill already. It may well be that what is already there could be properly and sensibly applied. I do not accept the noble Baroness's point that because an attractive proposition is made in general terms a government who introduce a Bill have an obligation to provide the wording when noble Lords opposite had every opportunity to do so both in Committee and on Report.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must reply to that. I did not of course say that it is because the amendment may not be acceptable that there is an obligation on the Government. I said there was an obligation on the Government because the problem is real and urgent and the amendment is trying to deal with it. If the matter is not dealt with properly, that urgent problem will not go away. It is, I suggest, a problem for the Government to deal with.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I wish to support as strongly as I can what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has just been saying. I believe that what I want to say applies not only to this group of amendments but also to Amendment No. 45. Ever since about 1948 it has been thought right, proper and appropriate that a certain very small minority of the total elderly population should be accommodated in residential or nursing homes and that these people should be largely but not entirely funded from public sources whether that funding comes from local authorities or from central government. Can the Government explain why that is no longer thought to be right and why it is that

141
we are deemed no longer to be able to afford this type of accommodation for this category of people? If, as a result of the Government's recent changes in accepted policy, low income and often frail elderly people are going to be squeezed out of their present accommodation, where are they going to go? Are they going to be taken in, at far greater expense, by hospitals? If that is not the case, what will happen to them?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has completely missed the point. Of course we shall continue to pay the costs of people in homes. I believe that expenditure in this field has gone up from some £10 million a year to something well over £1 billion in the past 10 years. What we are discussing here is the maximum amount which the Government will allow for income support for people in homes. Noble Lords opposite feel that the amount is inadequate and have pressed this point again and again. I hope I can assure them and the noble Baroness that we have done something. I shall try to respond to the various points that have been made.
As everyone knows, we debated these issues in some detail in Committee and we debated the same subject on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill when, if I remember rightly, the amendments were pressed to a Division and the Committee rejected them.
I hope again to persuade the movers of the amendments to withdraw them because I believe that the Government's strategy on this matter is right. I say this although I have listened with care to the arguments of noble Lords opposite. I repeat the fact that the Government recognise the importance of protecting the position of those who will not be covered by the new community care arrangements as from next April. However, I simply have not been convinced that the movers of the amendments have thought through the practical implications of their proposals.
The House will be familiar by now with the reasons why we are continuing the income support system for people who are already resident in homes by next April. Noble Lords will be familiar with the three separate themes in the Government's response to concerns expressed about the position of these people. We have addressed the level of the current income support limits in response to concerns expressed in another place via the additional uprating to take place this August. We are addressing the whole question of the level and structure of the limits as they will apply from April 1991 and are commissioning further research to that end. Moreover, we have this clause in the Bill which is designed to help us use the information that will become available as a result of practical decisions and negotiations by local authorities after 1991 to set new local limits for income support.
As I have explained previously, for real and sensible practical reasons we will not be able to use this new source of information from April 1991. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked when it will be available. It will come through after that date as local authorities gain practical experience of negotiating
142
their own fees. The noble Lord then asked when it will be acted upon. As the Bill suggests, we shall respond as soon as we have sufficient information to be able to set local limits. We are about to consult the local authorities about the important practical details of the precise data that we need and the timescales on which we need it.
The point that has been made most forcefully, by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, concerns the gap that exists at present. I have already said what the Government are doing about the present position. I have just mentioned that we have increased the limits through an extra, mid-year increase in those limits. We shall still consider increases for next summer in the usual way.
We have commissioned research. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that both health authorities and local authorities have always had a responsibility to help people needing health care or residential care.
I do not believe that it would serve any purpose for me to deal in detail with my objections to the amendments. I have spelt them out in detail on previous occasions and I believe that it would weary the House to go over all those points yet again. However, I should like to respond very briefly to one point made by my noble kinsman Lord Russell. He talked about provisions in Brent. That was irrelevant to the amendment because local authority homes are not funded through income support.
The noble Earl also talked of asset stripping. I should like to revert to an expression that I used on a previous occasion when I talked of my fears about these amendments when I referred to them as a blank cheque on the Exchequer. They are just that; they are attempts to allow residential homes to set any fee they like. That would not be in the best interests of the Exchequer. Nor would it be in the best interests of other residents in those homes who are not dependent on income support.
Having said that, and having explained what we are doing. I hope that at this hour the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. If he does not feel able to do so we shall most certainly resist the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate. We keep bringing this problem to the attention of the Government but still they refuse either to acknowledge it or to deal with it. The information that they want is available. Many of the voluntary bodies have the information now. If the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, were here she could certainly tell the Government about the shortfall experienced by residents of the Cheshire Homes.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to the complication of the amendment. It is complicated. I thought that the noble Lord was answered extremely well by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who said that the complications would not arise if the Government would only provide a satisfactory answer to the problems that exist now. The shortfall after the increases to which the Minister referred will still be of the order of £30 to £60 per week for some residents.

143
Local authorites are already negotiating contracts and fees with voluntary and private providers of residential care, so there is no need to wait until the middle of next year to implement Clause 14. The local authorities are already in a position to supply the information. The Government are reluctant to do this because the local authority information would reflect the extent of the discrepancy between income support limits and the cost of providing residential care. We know that many homes are now accepting fees from income support claimants that are well below their costs.
The Government have three options. They can increase the national limits or introduce the new regional limits proposed in Clause 14 to a level that is near to average costs and charges. We admit at once that such a move would cost a great deal of money and would undoubtedly act as a stimulus to significant increases in prices. I recognise the Government's problem; it is not the fees but the costs with which they are concerned.
The second option would be to keep the limits at more or less their current levels and thus avoid increasing prices, and in addition adopt a mechanism—and this amendment is but one—which allows individuals who are suffering hardship because the fees are well above the limit to apply to their local department of social security. Clearly, the closer the income support limits are to the true costs of care, the fewer individual claimants would need to resort to the mechanism of the amendment.
Thirdly—this is what is happening—the Government can continue to sit on their hands and say, "There is nothing we can do to solve that short-term problem. It will not be too bad"—that is almost what the Minister said in Committee—"because if people are evicted, they can always turn to the local authority or the health authority, which both have the residual powers to help those who are destitute or in need of care".
The Government are sitting on their hands and choosing to pick holes in every mechanism that is offered to deal with the problem. They can afford to do that because after April next year the local authorities will be forced to pick up the pieces and accept the financial responsibility for distressed and evicted residents.
I do not propose to divide the House at this time of night. If I withdraw the amendment, the problem will not go away. However, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Food Safety Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past eleven o'clock.