HL Deb 24 May 1990 vol 519 cc1029-50

11.39 a.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henley.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 176: Page 59, line 11, leave out subsection (7) and insert: ("(7) Subsection (8) below applies in any case where— (a) on the determination, whenever made, of a Commissioner or the court (the "relevant determination"), a decision made by an adjudicating authority is or was found to have been erroneous in point of law, and (b) in consequence of that determination, any other decision— (i) which was made before the date of that determination, and (ii) which is referable to a claim made or treated as made by any person for any benefit, falls (or would, apart from subsection (8) below, fall) to be revised on a review carried out under subsection (1A) above after the coming into force of this subsection. (8) Where this subsection applies, any question arising on the review referred to in subsection (7)(b) above, or on any subsequent review of a decision which is referable to the same claim, as to any person's entitlement to, or right to payment of, any benefit— (a) in respect of any period before the date of the relevant determination, or (b) in the case of widow's payment, in respect of a death occurring before that date, shall be determined as if the decision referred to in subsection (7)(a) above had been found by the Commissioner or court in question not to have been erroneous in point of law. (9) In determining whether a person is entitled to benefit in a case where his entitlement depends on his having been entitled to the same or some other benefit before attaining a particular age, subsection (8) above shall be disregarded for the purpose only of determining the question whether he was so entitled before attaining that age. (10) For the purposes of subsection (7) to (9) above— (a) "adjudicating authority" and "the court" have the same meaning as they have in section 165D below; (b) any reference to— (i) a person's entitlement to benefit, or (ii) a decision which is referable to a claim, shall be construed in accordance with subsection (4) of that section; and (c) the date of the relevant determination shall, in prescribed cases, be determined in accordance with any regulations made under subsection (5) of that section.").

The noble Lord said: We debated Amendments Nos. 176 to 189 when I moved Amendment No. 20, to which the Committee agreed on Monday. They provide that arrears of benefit payable on review of a claim, or of a new claim following a reinterpretation of the law by a higher appellate authority, are restricted back to the date of that reinterpretation. However, for new claims the maximum amount of arrears payable is limited to the current absolute time limit for the claiming of the benefit at issue or, where there is not one, 12 months.

The present arrangements provide a 12-month limitation on arrears where adjudication officers review decisions in consequence of a reinterpretation of the law by a higher appellate authority. Members of the Committee may recall from what I said on Monday that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration criticised that provision as inequitable in that where, on reinterpretation of the law, an affected case does not come to light immediately the claimant will effectively lose one week's arrears from every week's delay before a review decision is given.

Accordingly, we have decided to introduce the arrangements provided by Amendments Nos. 176 to 189 to give equity of treatment to all gainers from a reinterpretation of the law by providing a common start date for payment of arrears which the current back-dating arrangements lack. We believe these proposals to be fair, sensible and highly desirable. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.

Earl Russell

I shall not detain the Committee for long. As my noble kinsman said, we debated these amendments on Monday evening. They were moved on Tuesday evening and put to a Division, and the Question was declared not decided. The words to which I and my noble friends took exception appear in Amendments Nos. 176 and 180, in proposed subsection (2)(b), which states that cases, shall be determined as if the decision referred to in subsection (I)(a) above had been found by the Commissioner or court in question not to have been erroneous in point of law". In effect, in the context covered by Clause 5, these amendments allow the Government to treat a court judgment as if it applied solely to the individual claimant and to ignore the effect on the entitlement of anyone else covered by the principle of the judgment. We believe that is driving a coach and horses through the rule of law.

Before I sit down, I shall quote what my noble friend Lady Seear said about this matter when we debated it on Monday: The moral of this whole sad story is that the Government should get their legislation right in the first place. They should not cheat when they get it wrong, which is what they propose. Because they have lost on this, they must ensure that the legislation is properly drafted, bring it back to the House and alter the law. They should not say that they will not do what the court says. Anyone can say that they do not wish to do what the court says. What a precedent to set".—[Official Report, 21/5/90; col. 688.]

Lord Henley

We debated these amendments on Monday. As my noble kinsman said, we debated and agreed to Amendment No. 20 to which these amendments are attached. On Tuesday my noble kinsman pressed the matter to a Division.

11.43 a.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 176) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 59.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Abinger, L. Hylton-Foster, B.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Jenkin of Roding, L.
Annan, L. Lauderdale, E.
Arran, E. Lindsey and Abingdon, E,
Ashbourne, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Long, V. [Teller.]
Beloff, L. Lyell, L.
Belstead, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Birdwood, L. Morris, L.
Blatch, B. Mottistone, L.
Borthwick, L, Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L, Munster, E,
Brabazon of Tara, L, Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Brightman, L, Newall, L,
Brookes, L, Norfolk, D.
Brougham and Vaux, L, Nugent of Guildford, L.
Butterworth, L. Orr-Ewing, L,
Caithness, E, Porritt, L,
Carnegy of Lour, B. Reay, L,
Carnock, L. Renton, L,
Carr of Hadley, L, Renwick, L.
Chilston, V. Rodney, L,
Clanwilliam, E, St, Davids, V,
Cottesloe, L, Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Craigavon, V, Selkirk, E,
Cullen of Ashbourne, L, Sempill, Ly,
Davidson, V. [Teller.] Shannon, E,
Elliott of Morpeth, L. Somerset, D.
Ferrers, E. Strathcarron, L.
Fortescue, E. Strathclyde, L.
Eraser of Kilmorack, L. Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Gainford, L,
Gisborough, L, Swinfen, L.
Gray of Contin, L, Terrington, L.
Halsbury, E, Teviot, L,
Hayter, L, Tombs, L.
Henley, L. Ullswater, V,
Hesketh, L, Vaux of Harrowden, L,
Hooper, B. Westbury, L,
NOT-CONTENTS
Airedale, L, Hughes, L,
Ardwick, L. Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Blackstone, B. John-Mackie, L,
Boston of Faversham, L, Kirkhill, L,
Bottomley, L, Leatherland, L.
Bruce of Donington, L, Listowel, E,
Callaghan of Cardiff, L. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L,
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Macaulay of Bragar, L.
Mcintosh of Haringey, L.
Carter, L, Mackie of Benshie, L,
Clinton-Davis, L. Molloy, L.
David, B, Mulley, L,
Dean of Beswick, L. Nicol, B.
Dormand of Easington, L. Oram, L,
Falkland, V, [Teller.] Perry of Walton, L.
Feversham, L, Peston, L.
Fitt, L, Prys-Davies, L,
Gallacher, L, Russell, E, [Teller.]
Galpern, L. Sainsbury, L,
Gladwyn, L. Serota, B.
Glenamara, L, Shepherd, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L,
Gregson, L. Strabolgi, L.
Grey, E. Taylor of Blackburn, L,
Hampton, L, Underhill, L.
Hanworth, V. Whaddon, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L, Williams of Elvel, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L, Willis, L.
Hooson, L. Wilson of Rievaulx, L,
Houghton of Sowerby, L, Winterbottom, L,

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

11.50 a.m.

Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 177 to 189: Page 59, line 19, after ("determination") insert (", whenever made,"). Page 59, line 21, after ("is") insert ("or was"). Page 59, line 23, leave out paragraph (b) and insert: ("(b) after both the coming into force of this section and the date of the relevant determination, a claim which falls, or which would apart from this section fall, to be decided in accordance with the relevant determination is made or treated as made by any person or any benefit."). Page 59, line 32, leave out subsection (2) and insert: ("(2) Where this section applies, any question which arises on, or on the review of a decision which is referable to, the claim mentioned in subsection (l)(b) above and which relates to the entitlement of the claimant or any other person to any benefit— (a) in respect of a period before the relevant date, or (b) in the case of a widow's payment, in respect of a death occurring before that date, shall be determined as if the decision referred to in subsection (l)(a) above had been found by the Commissioner or court in question not to have been erroneous in point of law. (2A) In determining whether a person is entitled to benefit in a case where— (a) his entitlement depends on his having been entitled to the same or some other benefit before attaining a particular age, and (b) he attained that age— (i) before both the date of the relevant determination and the date of the claim referred to in subsection (l)(b) above, but (ii) not before the earliest day in respect of which benefit could, apart from this section, have been awarded on that claim, subsection (2) above shall be disregarded for the purpose only of determining the question whether he was entitled as mentioned in paragraph (a) above."). Page 59, line 41, after ("means") insert ("(a)"). Page 59, line 41, after ("officer") insert ("the Attendance Allowance Board"). Page 59, line 43, at end insert: ("(b) any of the following former bodies or officers, that is to say, the National Assistance Board, the Supplementary Benefits Commission, a benefit officer, an insurance officer or a supplementary officer; or (c) any of the officers who, or tribunals or other bodies which, in Northern Ireland correspond to those mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above;"). Page 59, line 45, after ("Session") insert ("the High Court or Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland"). Page 59, line 47, leave out ("later") and insert ("latest"). Page 59, line 49, leave out ("and (b) the day falling") and insert: ("(b) the date which falls"). Page 59 line 51, after ("claim") insert ("referred to in subsection (l)(b) above"). Page 59, line 51, at end insert ("and (c) the earliest date in respect of which the claimant would, apart from this section, be entitled on that claim to the benefit in question. (4) For the purposes of this section— (a) any reference in this section to entitlement to benefit includes a reference to entitlement— (i) to any increase in the rate of a benefit, or (ii) to a benefit, or increase of benefit, at a particular rate; and (b) any reference to a decision which is "referable to" a claim is a reference to— (i) a decision on the claim, (ii) a decision on a review of the decision on the claim, or (iii) a decision on a subsequent review of the decision on the review, and so on. (5) The date of the relevant determination shall, in prescribed cases, be determined for the purposes of this section in accordance with any regulations made for that purpose."). Page 59, line 51, at end insert: ("(3) In paragraph 48 of Schedule 10 to the 1986 Act (which applies sections 87 and 165A(1) of the principal Act to income-related benefits) at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the words "and (c) section 165D (restrictions on entitlement in certain cases of error".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 190: Page 63, line 15, at end insert: ("Maternity allowance: contribution conditions for women paid otherwise than weekly 9A.—(1) In Schedule 3 to the principal Act, at the beginning of paragraph 3 (contribution conditions for maternity allowance) there shall be inserted the words— (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below,". (2) At the end of that paragraph there shall be added— (2) In the case of a claimant who is or has been paid otherwise than weekly, any week— (a) in respect of which she did not pay contributions of a relevant Class, but (b) for which earnings were such that, had she been paid weekly, she would have been required to pay primary Class 1 contributions in respect of that week, and (c) for which no such election as is mentioned in section 3(2)(a) of the Pensions Act (contributions at a reduced rate) was in force in her case. shall be treated for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above as a week in respect of which she actually paid such contributions otherwise than at a reduced rate. (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above, the amount of the claimant's earnings for any week shall be determined in accordance with regulations.".").

The noble Lord said: The qualifying contribution condition for maternity allowance is that the claimant must have paid contributions of a relevant class in respect of 26 weeks in the 52 weeks immediately preceding the 14th week before the expected week of confinement. Difficulties in satisfying this test can arise when a claimant is paid other than weekly and the period of employment is exactly or very close to 26 weeks. For example, where employment begins and/or ends in the middle of a month, a monthly-paid claimant might not pay contributions in the first and last months because her earnings were below the monthly lower earnings limit. However, she might have earned sufficient in the weeks that she did work in those months to have paid contributions had she been paid on a weekly basis.

This wholly beneficial amendment provides that such weeks may be treated in accordance with regulations as weeks in which contributions were actually paid. I beg to move.

Lord Carter

As the Minister said, this is a wholly welcome amendment. Can he say whether any ex gratia payments of maternity allowance have been made to women who were unfairly excluded by this condition? If he does not have the answer, perhaps he will write to me about it.

Lord Henley

I do not have the answer to that question, but I shall certainly let the noble Lord know.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 191: Page 64, line 28, at end insert: ("Statutory sick pay for NHS staff with divided contracts 14A. In section 26 of the 1982 Act (interpretation) after subsection (5) (which confers power to treat two or more contracts of employment as one) there shall be inserted— (5A) Where, in consequence of the establishment of one or more National Health Service trusts under Part I of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, a person's contract of employment is treated by a scheme under that Part or Act as divided so as to constitute two or more contracts, regulations may make provision enabling him to elect for all of those contracts to be treated as one contract for the purposes of this Part of this Act or of such provisions of this Part of this Act as may be prescribed; and any such regulations may prescribe— (a) the conditions that must be satisfied if a person is to be entitled to make such an election; (b) the manner in which, and the time within which, such an election is to be made; (c) the persons to whom, and the manner in which, notice of such an election is to be given; (d) the information which a person who makes such an election is to provide, and the persons to whom, and the time within which, he is to provide it; (e) the time for which such an election is to have effect; (0 which one of the person's employers under the two or more contracts is to be regarded for the purposes of statutory sick pay as his employer under the one contract; and the powers conferred by this subsection are without prejudice to any other power to make regulations under this Part of this Act."").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 191 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 198. These amendments relate to statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay and fulfil a commitment given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health during the passage in another place of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

Under that Bill some NHS employees will have separate contracts of employment with a local health authority and an NHS trust when previously they had a single contract with the local health authority. In certain circumstances such employees could suffer a loss of statutory sick pay or statutory maternity pay where their earnings fall below the lower earnings limit for such payments in both employments. To prevent this and to honour the guarantee given by the Secretary of State for Health, we consider it essential that the legislation be amended.

These wholly beneficial amendments safeguard their position. They enable regulations to be made which will provide transitional protection for employees with separate contracts of employment with both a health authority and an NHS trust to have those contracts treated as one where this would be to their advantage in determining their entitlement to statutory sick pay or statutory maternity pay. I beg to move.

Lord Carter

I am advised that the amendments are not wholly beneficial. At present the pay and conditions of many staff in the health service, including nurses, are determined within the Whitley Council framework by an independent pay review body. The National Health Service and Community Care Bill currently allows the NHS trusts to set aside the recommendations of that body. It seems that it would be perfectly possible for one of the NHS trusts to terminate all contracts and replace them with new ones and negotiate either individually or collectively with their staff. With new contracts, trusts would be entirely free to set aside previous arrangements, such as clinical grading for nursing staff Is that correct?

A whole range of employment conditions is involved—clinical grading, pay rates, sick pay and maternity pay, premature retirement benefits, and so on. I am sure the Committee would be interested to know whether the amendment, which the noble Lord described as wholly beneficial, allows the trusts to behave in that way.

Lord Henley

I think that the noble Lord is talking about occupational maternity pay rather than statutory maternity pay. It would be a mistake to become bogged down in a discussion on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill as further stages of that Bill remain. My understanding is that people would transfer to the new NHS trusts on existing terms. Thereafter it would be a matter for employees and the NHS trusts to arrange employment conditions as they wished. All this Bill lays down is that the two sets of pay will be aggregated so as to avoid a condition whereby there might be two sets of pay, both of which were below the limit. The noble Lord may wish to come back to the point at the next stage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, but on this Bill I do not think it is a valid point.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]

Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 193: Page 64, line 42, at end insert; ("15A. In Regulation 71 (1) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 the words "90% of" wherever they occur, shall cease to have effect.").

The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 193 deals with the entitlement of refugees to income support. At present they receive income support at the reduced rate of 90 per cent., which is already low enough. We do not yet have a clear explanation of why that is so. We would like to understand. We get a different explanation every time the matter arises. I shall not deal with government explanations until 1 find out what they say today.

Life for a refugee costs no less than it does for anybody else. One cannot go into a supermarket and apply for a 10 per cent, refugee discount. We ought also to bear in mind that refugees are not allowed to work for their first six months in this country. There is no question here of their being addicted to a dependency culture. If a dependency culture is being created, it is by the existing law because they are simply not allowed to work. A great many of them would be extremely willing to do so if they could. Access to the social fund for the first six months on income support is also restricted. So they are facing hardship from a good many directions.

Over the years this country has owed a great deal to its refugees. If we were to succeed in diminishing the flow, it would be to our own loss in a great many ways, including economically. We ought also to bear in mind that income support is a passport to the social fund. There is evidence to suggest that the lower rate of 90 per cent, is acting as a hint to social fund officers when their budget is tight to treat refugees like young single people—with rather less favour than other applicants.

I know of a Somali couple with two children and the woman is six months pregnant. They were refused a community care grant for which they had asked because they had no clothes. I know of a Ugandan family just out of hospital who were refused a community care grant because they were more than six weeks out of hospital. They were refused a budgeting loan because they had been less than six months on income support. That is a Catch 22 situation and it illustrates how the effects of this 90 per cent, restriction stretch beyond the mere simple loss of income support. I cannot see why that is done. Before doing any more with it, I should like to find out. I beg to move.

Lord Carter

From these Benches we are pleased to support this important amendment. As the noble Earl said, the reason for the rule is not clear. In fact, the reasons continually change. We have been advised by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux which lists a number of harrowing cases of refugee families who have been left without support It would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could explain the rationale behind the rule.

12 noon.

Lord Henley

Rather than explain the rational—

Lord Carter

There is not one!

Lord Henley

Of course there is a rationale. But, as I said, rather than explain it, I should like to say to my noble kinsman and to the noble Lord that we have considerable sympathy for the spirit of the amendment and would like to consider it further. However, obviously I must point out that it goes wider than asylum seekers, although I appreciate that asylum seekers were the subject of my noble kinsman's remarks.

Any change in the system would cost money, and that is a factor we must always take into account. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Government could come to any decision on the matter during the passage of the Bill. But I can assure the noble Earl that primary legislation is unnecessary in order for a change to be made. Such a change could be made by means of regulation at a convenient time. I hope, therefore, that my noble kinsman will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I can give him an assurance that we shall give the matter very careful and sympathetic consideration.

Earl Russell

I am most grateful for that reply. It is the most encouraging reply I have received during the passage of the Bill. My noble kinsman has encouraged me to hope, and I am delighted by that fact. However, I hope that he will forgive me for reminding him that hope deferred maketh the heart go sick. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 194 not moved.]

Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 195: Page 64, line 42, at end insert: ("Prisoners. In column (2) of Schedule 7 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, for paragraph 8 there shall be substituted the following paragraph— 8.—(a) Only the amount of any non-dependent deduction made in respect of him under paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 or under regulation 61 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987; (b) Only that amount and such amount, if any, as may be applicable under regulation 17(l)(e)." ").

The noble Lord said: The amendment would mean that if a member of a claimant's household who was a non-dependant was a prisoner, no non-dependent deduction would be made from the claimant's income support or housing benefit while that member of the household remained in prison. Non-dependent deductions are made from income support and housing benefit where claimants have other people living in the household who are not financially dependent upon them and who are expected to contribute towards the housing costs, such as rent and mortgage interest.

Difficulties can arise where the non-dependant is in prison. It is fair to say that the prisoner will usually have no income, or an income that is drastically reduced, and will be exempt from paying the poll tax. However, it is not entirely clear why this rule exists and why an exception is made for prisoners. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the Committee why what is proposed in the amendment cannot be accepted. It would put right what seems an obvious injustice. I beg to move.

Ear! Russell

I rise simply to say that we on these Benches warmly support the amendment.

Baroness Blatch

This amendment will provide a prisoner with the wherewithal from income support to pay the person with whom he formerly resided an amount equivalent to any non-dependent deduction made from that person's housing benefit. The amendment is flawed in two respects. First, and most obviously, there is no guarantee that such an amount would be paid over to the person remaining in the prisoner's former dwelling. Secondly, there would be administrative complexities involved in identifying where a deduction continues to be made. I shall return to that point in a moment.

I should first outline to the Committee what is meant by non-dependent deductions. These are amounts, prescribed in regulations, which are deducted from housing benefit if the claimant has someone living in the household who can reasonably be expected to make a contribution towards housing costs. The same policy is applied in income support where housing costs—such as mortgage interest—are met by that benefit. It is clearly right, in both benefits, that the cost of the accommodation should be shared by those whose home it is. Deductions are at a flat rate, with a lower level for non-dependants who are low paid or unable to work. The deductions only apply in respect of rent. Non-dependants are personally liable to pay their own community charge and can get community charge benefit if they qualify. Prisoners are of course exempted from liability to pay the community charge.

These deductions are made only in respect of people who normally reside with the claimant in circumstances other than by a commercial board and lodging arrangement for which different rules apply. Such people are often grown up sons or daughters, or other relatives and friends. It is a matter for judgment by the local authority, or, in the case of income support, the local DSS adjudication officer, to determine whether the condition of normally residing with a claimant is fulfilled in any particular case. Temporary absences from home can, of course, arise for a variety of reasons. Examples are, holidays and short stays in hospital as well as short prison sentences or remand pending trial. Each type of absence and its expected duration is considered on its merits. Most short absences will not prevent someone from being treated as normally resident in his or her customary home. But a local authority or Department of Social Security adjudication officer may decide at the outset of a particular absence that the deductions should cease immediately. It is precisely because the present system allows for such wide flexibility that I am opposed to making it more prescriptive. Under current arrangements dissatisfied claimants can appeal in the case of income support, or request a review in the case of housing benefit.

I cannot accept the proposal in the amendment that any deduction should be compensated for by awarding an equivalent amount of benefit to the prisoner. Prisoners have no normal day-to-day living expenses. Their needs are met by, and in, the prison. This is and has always been reflected in income support and its predecessors. The only exception at present is for housing costs—particularly mortgage interest—for people remanded in custody who are awaiting trial or sentence. They can obtain help with such costs for up to 52 weeks to enable them to keep their home intact against possible release. I think that these existing arrangements are sufficient to protect the interests of those likely to be returned in the short term to society who are responsible for meeting their own housing costs.

However, non-dependants by definition do not have such responsibilities. The amendment before the Committee extends the modest help available to prisoners who are not liable for paying their housing costs; it is not the best way to help claimants remaining at home. Paying income support to such prisoners is not, to my mind, a prudent use of public funds.

There would, in any event, be very real difficulties in administering the measure proposed by the amendment. It would require close liaison between local authorities and DSS local offices to establish whether a non-dependent deduction was in fact being made. It would be necessary to establish new arrangements for claiming and paying income support in prisons. There would, finally, be no way of ensuring that any income support paid to prisoners was actually being handed over to the person responsible for meeting the housing costs. It is also possible that the availability of income support to prisoners would encourage local authorities to make non-dependent deductions in situations where they might previously have refrained from doing so. For all these reasons I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Carter

I shall have to read with care what the noble Baroness said. However, in passing, I should like to say that as regards some of the difficulty to which she referred in deciding whether someone was normally resident in a household and the period of their temporary absence, I should have thought that people in prison would be the one group in respect of which those questions could be easily answered. As I said, I shall read with care what was said. I reserve the right to return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 196: Page 64, line 42, at end insert: ("Income support. In section 20(3) of the 1986 Act, at the end of paragraph (a) there shall be added the words 'or, by reason of pregnancy, she is incapable of work or unable to secure or retain a place on a training scheme approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section"").

The noble Earl said: I am afraid that I cannot promise to be as expeditious on this amendment as I have been on some others. The issue here is a major problem in the current social security system. In my view, significant damage is being done and probably a good deal of money wasted.

On Second Reading I said that I thought it was a basic principle of civilisation that fathers should support their children where possible. I do not believe there is any conflict between that principle and the provision contained in the amendment. It is also a basic principle that a civilisation ought to maintain its pregnant women by one means or another. It is fails to do so, it has lost some of its will to survive.

The amendment was moved last year. But it had the misfortune to fall due for consideration past midnight both in Committee and on Report. Consequently, many of the issues behind it were not adequately ventilated. The Government's present theory—which is perfectly all right as a theory—is that 16 year-old or 17 year-old pregnant women should be on YTS until the 28th week of their pregnancy. At that time, they receive income support at the lower rate.

The amendment does not address the question of the lower rate. That is a matter to which we shall have to return on another occasion. The effect of the amendment is to entitle those women to income support if they are either unable to work—as happens to pregnant women from time to time, because of toxaemia or for other reasons—or, having registered for YTS, they are unable to obtain a place.

The act of registering is enough to indicate the good faith of those young women and to discharge their responsibility, because once they have registered they have no control over whether they are given a place. As was discussed on Tuesday, YTS is to a large extent an employer-run service. Employers cannot be forced to accept someone on YTS. Many of them are dubious about taking on pregnant teenagers who they know are unlikely to be able to complete a training course.

A case was brought to my attention from Staffordshire where the prospective YTS employer said that it was not worth taking on the young woman. Another case was brought to my attention where the teenager involved said that she did not intend to apply to the YTS because she could not complete the course. I should like to know, and I should be grateful to receive a reply from the Minister on this point, whether the Government believe that her attitude was responsible when she said that she would not register because she could not complete the course. If the answer is no, that has alarming implications. It amounts to cocking a snook at the YTS. It is saying that the principle of training is not of that great importance; that being able to complete the training is not a necessary condition of being able to do the job properly.

It is not wise to encourage in young people the idea that they should not do a job properly. I should have thought that inability to complete a course was a respectable reason for not registering for it.

The Government are here making a familiar mistake. It is the type of mistake that governments have been making for centuries: assuming that because they do not want some people for a few weeks, an employer will take them on for those few weeks and then let them go. That is treating employers as a social service to a greater extent than is reasonable. I am reminded of a case in 1640 when the Government made that mistake. They pressed soldiers and then postponed the campaign. The Government did not want them for six weeks, and expected employers to take them on. Of course employers did not, and the result was mayhem. The result will not be mayhem in this case, but it represents severe hardship.

The YTS bridging allowance of £15 a week—not much on which to maintain a pregnant woman and nourish a child—lasts for eight weeks only. After that, there is nothing. Being a pregnant 16 or 17 year-old is a considerable enough shock in the first place. It does not make it any easier to have beyond the bridging allowance literally nothing upon which to live.

We shall of course have to consider the costs of this proposal, but it is a little difficult to cost it. In the first place, one cannot predict the rate of future pregnancies. The cheapest way of keeping down the cost of teenage pregnancy is family planning, something which might receive some attention. We also cannot predict the costs accurately until we know more about the future health of YTS. Over the past couple of days there have been reports in the press of cuts in that area causing hardship to the system. That would of course tend to push up the cost of the amendment. I hope that those matters can be rectified.

The Government should take into account, in this as in other places, the costs of not accepting the amendment. If we leave people with nothing upon which to live, and if they have the prospect of a child to maintain, they have to make a living somehow. I shall not go in to how they might do it. I beg to move.

12.15 p.m.

Baroness David

I support the amendment which was so ably and fully moved by the noble Earl. It seems extremely unfair that pregnant 16 and 17 year-olds should be treated differently from 18 year-olds. Their problems are just as great if not greater. The noble Earl mentioned the cost of the amendment and said that it could not be costed. One hopes that there will be few cases. As he said, family planning could help with that. The allowance would be paid only if 16 or 17 year-olds were removed from YTS or were unable to obtain a YTS place or a job.

Entitlement to income support would ensure that all young pregnant women had an adequate diet and could pay for essential items such as gas, electricity, water and adequate clothing. Clothing is of course a problem; but those problems can occur well before they are six months pregnant. I hope the idea that the confirmation of the pregnancy should be the date from which support would be given could be looked on sympathetically by the Government.

Baroness Blatch

The amendment seeks to change the provisions for 16 and 17 year-olds by providing unlimited entitlement to income support for young women at any stage of pregnancy unable to secure a YTS place.

There are a number of reasons why I am unable to support this amendment. First, while most 16 and 17 year-olds are not entitled to income support, we have ensured that the most vulnerable groups are, and it is the most vulnerable groups that have been discussed. One of these groups is those who are pregnant and within 11 weeks of the expected date of confinement or who at a time before that date are incapable of work because of illness. Those are not rules which were made up specially for pregnant 16 and 17 year-olds. The same rules apply to all pregnant women who claim income support. They too are normally required to be available for and to be actively seeking work up to the 11th week before the expected date of confinement.

Secondly, we have guaranteed the offer of a YTS place to all young people who want one. The guarantee is being honoured. It includes pregnant young women. Those who are on YTS courses receive more each week (£29-50, or £35 in the second year) than they would receive on income support (£21-90, or £28-80 if away from home with good reason). Nevertheless, the Government have acknowledged that 16 and 17 year-olds in the early stages of pregnancy may in some cases experience practical difficulties in obtaining a YTS place. That is why the Secretary of State for Employment announced in March 1990 measures to ease access to training which is relevant to their needs; for example, through care-related courses which can develop into more dedicated occupational training as time goes on.

I believe that those important new measures will help to ensure that no pregnant 16 or 17 year-old need be without a training place. That must be good for the young women concerned, who will receive a training allowance which exceeds income support levels while undertaking training which is relevant to their needs; and it must also be good for the nation in the decade of demographic change to invest in the training of young women so that they are equipped to make an early return to employment if they wish to do so. That is far better all round than encouraging a reliance on the benefits system when the people concerned are still physically capable of undertaking training.

The noble Earl referred to pregnant girls who have to remain on YTS until the 29th week of their pregnancy. The rules are no different for women over 18 who are expected to be available or actively seeking work until 11 weeks before their confinement. If a young woman cannot go on a YTS course because of an incapacity, she can receive income support. Where a YTS place is unsuitable for a pregnant woman, she can ask her supervisor for a change to a more appropriate course. He also referred to an employer who would not accept a young pregnant woman on YTS. The Department of Employment's training agency has no firm evidence of cases where pregnant women have suffered the loss of a YTS place. If he has examples of such cases, we should like to hear them.

Pregnant young women must not be removed from the training programme without reference to the training agency's area office. The training agency is willing to investigate any cases of individual difficulty which are brought to its attention. Nevertheless, we recognise the practical difficulties that some women may face in holding down a mainstream place on YTS. It is for that reason that the changes were introduced in March this year.

I must keep repeating that there is a guarantee for all young people of a place on YTS. I repeat my invitation to the noble Earl to bring forward specific examples of cases if he has them. The noble Earl asked about the cost of the amendment. It is difficult to cost it because we do not know the number of young people pregnant or who may become pregnant in that age group, but the cost is certainly likely to exceed £1 million.

The noble Earl raised a point about bridging allowance paid for eight weeks only, and then nothing. Bridging allowance of £15 a week is paid to young people who lose a job or a YTS place after the extended child benefit period while looking for a new job or a new YTS placing. There is no need for bridging allowance to be extended beyond the current limits as there are more than enough YTS places available.

In a previous debate I stated that the present vacancy rate for YTS places was 160,000 at the end of March 1990. It is also worth repeating, as I have mentioned on a previous amendment, that severe hardship allowance can be claimed as well as bridging allowance, and when bridging allowance ceases. There is therefore no justification for giving automatic entitlement to income support to all pregnant girls before the point at which they are no longer required to be available for work. A claim for income support may be considered earlier in the pregnancy under the severe hardship provisions. The majority of pregnant young women who are considered under the severe hardship conditions are awarded income support. I ask the noble Earl whether he feels able to withdraw the amendment.

Earl Russell

Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she will answer the very specific question I asked her. Was the teenager who refused a YTS place because she could not complete the course behaving responsibly or not?

Baroness Blatch

It is not possible to reply specifically because I do not know the reasons why the young lady refused the place. The training agency would be very concerned to see that the guarantee was made. At the end of the day it is incumbent upon the girl herself to take the place or to refuse it. But if she refuses it she clearly accepts the consequences.

Lord Carter

The noble Baroness, Lady David, has expressed the view of these Benches extremely well. However, during discussion of the Bill there have been examples of the Government's hard-heartedness. On this amendment they are displaying that to a degree. On a practical point, I understand that morning sickness occurs in the first three months of pregnancy, with all the problems associated with it. From the Government's replies on these matters, they seem at times to be detached from reality. The Minister asked for evidence. We have much evidence from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux of individual and harrowing cases of problems which this amendment seeks to solve. Has the Minister read of the cases that have been reported by the NACAB?

Baroness Blatch

We are certainly aware of the briefing note and the evidence that has been presented by the citizens advice bureaux. First, there is the guarantee of a training place. If the young person refuses, the reasons are considered and appropriate placements are found if possible. There is also the scheme that allows a stepping stone on to YTS where there is considerable counselling of young people and modification of the YTS training, to prepare them for training, to take advantage of a YTS placement. There is the severe hardship allowance and the health of the young person is also taken into account. All those efforts are made for young people.

However, I repeat my assurance again. If there are individual cases that are slipping through the net and not receiving all the attention that we believe they should receive, we shall be pleased to consider those cases.

Earl Russell

I am beginning to think that Richmond House is something of an ivory tower. That reply does not come from the real world. I can see no point of connection between that and the experiences of ordinary people. The noble Baroness said that she must not keep repeating that the guarantee of YTS places is being honoured. I agree with her. She said that the rules are the same as those for availability for work. I accept that. But the cases are not parallel. When one is already established in work one can continue to work for a few weeks if one's health permits. If one is undertaking a course of training one cannot responsibly take that on unless one can complete the course. By producing that argument the noble Baroness creates a great deal of doubt in my mind about whether the YTS is genuinely a training scheme.

I have heard that doubt expressed from the Opposition Benches. This is the first time that I have heard it expressed from the Government Front Bench. I used the phrase "cocking a snook" at the YTS. I feel no need to withdraw it.

Baroness Blatch

Will the noble Earl be more explicit and state what I said that gave him the impression that I was in any way denigrating the YT scheme?

Earl Russell

The noble Baroness produced as a justification that for those over 18 the rules for the YTS were exactly the same as the rules for availability for work. The noble Baroness said that. I think that I am right. That seems to show complete indifference to the distinction between work and training. One can work for a limited period of time and then leave at the end of that period. One can work for a week and if one does one's job properly one has not wasted the time. But if one is on a six-month training course for only three months one has wasted one's time. I believe that the Government are cocking a snook at the YTS. I commend the amendment.

12.26 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 196) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 87.

DIVISION NO. 2
CONTENTS
Addington, L. Ardwick, L.
Aircdale, L. Aylestone, L.
Annan, L. Birk, B.
Blease, L. Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Bonham-Carter, L. Kilmarnock, L.
Bottomley, L. Kirkhill, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Listowel, E.
Callaghan of Cardiff. L. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Macaulay of Bragar, L.
Mclntosh of Haringey, L.
Carter, L. Mackie of Benshie, L.
David, B. Molloy, L.
Dean of Beswick, L. Mulley, L.
Dormand of Easington, L, Nicol, B.
Ewart-Biggs, B. Northfield, L.
Feversham, L. Russell, E. [Teller.]
Gallacher, L. Sainsbury, L.
Glenamara, L. Serota, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.] Shepherd. L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Gregson, L. Strabolgi, L.
Hampton, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hanworth. V. Thurso, V.
Hatch of Lusby, L. Underhill, L,
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Abinger, L. Hooper, B.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Hylton-Foster, B.
Arran, E. Lauderdale, E.
Auckland, L. Lindsey and Abingdon, E.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L.
Belstead, L. Long, V. [Teller.]
Bessborough, E. Lyell, L.
Bethell, L. Mancroft, L.
Birdwood, L. Merrivale, L.
Blatch, B. Mersey, V.
Blyth, L. Middleton, L.
Borthwick, L. Morris, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Mottistone, L,
Brabazon of Tara, L. Mountevans, L.
Brightman, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Brookes, L. Munster, E.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Butterworth, L. Newall, L.
Caithness, E. Norrie, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Carnock, L. Orr-Ewing, L.
Clanwilliam, E. Porritt, L.
Cork and Orrery, E. Reay, L.
Cottesloe, L. Renton, L.
Craigavon, V. Renwick, L.
Crathorne, L. St. Davids, V.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. St. John of Bletso, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.] Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Dunrossil, V. Sempill, Ly.
Ellenborough, L. Shaughnessy, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Somers, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L. Strathcarron, L.
Ferrers, E. Strathclyde, L.
Fortescue, E. Strathmore and Kinghorne,
Eraser of Carmyllie, L. E.
Eraser of Kilmorack, L. Swansea, L.
Gainford, L. Swinfen, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Teviot, L.
Gisborough, L. Thurlow, L.
Glenarthur, L. Tombs, L.
Grantchester, L. Ullswater, V.
Hayter, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Henley, L. Wade of Chorlton, L.
Hesketh, L. Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

12.34 p.m.

[Amendment No. 197 not moved.]

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 198: Page 65, line 15, at end insert: ("Statutory maternity pay for NHS staff with divided contracts 17B. In section 50 of the 1986 Act (interpretation) after subsection (2) (which confers power to treat two or more contracts of employment as one) there shall be inserted— (2A) Where, in consequence of the establishment of one or more National Health Service trusts under Part 1 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, a woman's contract of employment is treated by a scheme under that Part or Act as divided so as to constitute two or more contracts, regulations may make provision enabling her to elect for all of those contracts to be treated as one contract for the purposes of this Part of this Act or of such provisions of this Part of this Act as may be prescribed; and any such regulations may prescribe—

  1. (a) the conditions that must be satisfied if a woman is to be entitled to make such an election;
  2. (b) the manner in which, and the time within which, such an election is to be made;
  3. (c) the persons to whom, and the manner in which, notice of such an election is to be given;
  4. (d) the information which a woman who makes such an election is to provide, and the persons to whom, and the time within which, she is to provide it;
  5. (e) the time for which such an election is to have effect;
which one of the woman's employers under the two or more contracts is to be regarded for the purposes of statutory maternity pay as her employer under the one contract; and the powers conferred by this subsection are without prejudice to any other power to make regulations under this Part of this Act." ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 199: Page 65, line 20, at end insert: ("Income support: implementation of increases due to attainment of particular ages 18A. After section 64A of the 1986 Act (effect of alteration in component rates of income support) there shall be inserted the following section— Implement-ation of increases in income support due to attainment of particular ages. 64B.—(1) This section applies where—

  1. (a) an award of income support is in force in favour of a person ("the recipient"); and
  2. (b) there is a component which becomes applicable, or applicable at a particular rate, in his case if he or some other person attains a particular age.
(2) If, in a case where this section applies, the recipient or other person attains the particular age referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above and, in consequence,—
  1. (a) the component in question becomes applicable, or applicable at a particular rate, in the recipient's case (whether or not some other component ceases, for the same reason, to be applicable, or applicable at a particular rate, in his case), and
  2. (b) after taking account of any such cessation, the recipient becomes entitled to an increased amount of income support,
then, except as provided by subsection (3) below, as from the day on which he becomes so entitled, the amount of income support payable to or for him under the award shall be that increased amount, without any further decision of an adjudication of officer, and the award shall have effect accordingly. (3) Subsection (2) above does not apply in any case where, in consequence of the recipient or other person attaining the age in question, some question arises in relation to the recipient's entitlement to any benefit under the benefit Acts, other than—
  1. (a) the question whether the component concerned, or any other component, becomes or ceases to be applicable, or applicable at a particular rate, in his case; and
  2. (b) the question whether, in consequnce, the amount of his income support falls to be varied.
(4) In this section "component", in relation to a person and his income support, means any of the sums specified in regulations under section 22(1) above." ").

The noble Lord said: The intention of this amendment is to allow that, where there is an award of income support in force and either the claimant or a member of the assessment unit reaches a certain age and is entitled to an increase in income support, there is no requirement for the adjudication officer to issue a further decision. Dates of birth are adjudicated upon at the outset of a claim for income support and there is no real need to adjudicate again.

This amendment also ensures that where, as a result of the claimant or a member of the assessment unit reaching a certain age, some other question arises in relation to entitlement to benefit, that question will be for an adjudication officer to decide. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 200: Page 67, line 49, at end insert: ("Incapacity for work: councillor's allowances and expenses 23A.—(1) In Schedule 8 to that Act, paragraph 2 (which makes provision with respect to local authority councillors and incapacity for work) shall be amended in accordance with sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) below. (2) In sub-paragraph (2) (certain benefits to be reduced by the excess of the councillor's allowance over the earnings limit specified in regulation 3(3) of the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Regulations 1983, which was £35 at the passing of this Act) for the words "the amount of councillor's allowance" there shall be substituted the words "the net amount of councillor's allowance". (3) In the definition of "councillor's allowance" in sub-paragraph (6), the following shall be omitted— (a) in the paragraph (a) substituted by paragraph 113 of Schedule 11 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the words "or in section 18(2) of that Act of 1989"; and (b) in the paragraph (b) so substituted, the words "other than such an allowance as is mentioned in section 18(2) of that Act of 1989". (4) In that sub-paragraph, after the definition of "incapacity benefit" there shall be inserted— "net amount", in relation to any councillor's allowance to which a person is entitled, means the aggregate amount of the councillor's allowance or allowances to which he is entitled for the week in question, reduced by the amount of any expenses incurred by him in that week in connection with his membership of the council or councils in question:". (5) In section 36(7) of the principal Act (regulations relating to severe disablement allowance), in paragraph (cc) (which was inserted by paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 8 to the 1989 Act and authorises the reduction of benefit by the excess of the amount of councillor's allowance over a prescribed sum) for the words "the amount of councillor's allowance" there shall be substituted the words "the net amount of councillor's allowance".").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 200 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 208. These amendments are wholly beneficial to local authority councillors. In Schedule 8, paragraph 2, of the 1989 Social Security Act the Government introduced an easement to the rules for local authority councillors in relation to entitlement to sickness and invalidity benefits and severe disablement allowance. Until then a councillor who was entitled to local government attendance allowance in excess of the therapeutic earnings limit (currently £35 a week) could lose entitlement to the whole of his sickness or invalidity benefits or severe disablement allowance.

The Government acknowledged the detrimental effect that this could have on the working of democracy and introduced the measure to ensure that benefit was only reduced by the amount by which local government attendance allowances exceeded the therapeutic earnings limit. It was intended that the amount of local government allowances to be taken into account should be net of any reasonable expenses incurred in council duties, but Schedule 8(2) of the 1989 Act provided for the total councillor's attendance allowance to be taken into account.

This amendment redefines a councillor's allowances to achieve the Government's original intention that only net allowances in excess of the therapeutic earnings limit affect entitlement to these benefits. In the light of this proposed redefinition the existing definition in paragraph 2(6) would need to be repealed and this would be achieved by the amendment to Schedule 7 at page 70, line 37, column 3. I commend both of these amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 200A not moved.]

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 201: Page 27, line 2, leave out ("(8)") and insert ("(9)").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 201 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 203, 204, 205, 206 and 207. They are all minor and consequential amendments to the clause governing commencement following other changes to the Bill that the Government have been making. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 201 A: Page 27, line 13, leave out ("7").

The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne)

Amendment No. 201A pre-empts Amendment No. 202. Therefore I cannot call Amendment No. 202.

[Amendment No. 202 not moved.]

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 203: Page 27 line 13, leave out ("15(1), (2), (4), (5), (8) and (9)") and insert ("15, other than subsection (11),").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 203A: Page 21, leave out line 15.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 204 to 207: Page 27, line 16, leave out ("5"). Page 27, line 18, leave out ("11, 12, 14, 16") and insert ("1 I to 16"). Page 27, line 18, leave out ("and 21") and insert ("21 and 23A"). Page 27, line 34, leave out ("(8)") and insert ("(9)").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 204 to 207 en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 207A: Page 27, leave out line 36.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 207B: Page 27, leave out line 40.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 7 [Repeals]:

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 208: Page 70. line 37, column 3, after ("8") insert—

("in paragraph 2(6), in the definition of "councillor's allowance", in the paragraph (a) substituted by paragraph 113 of Schedule 11 to the Local Government and Housing act 1989 the words "or in section 18(2) of that Act of 1989" and, in the paragraph (b) so substituted, the words "other than such an allowance as is mentioned in section 18(2) of that Act of 1989".").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to the amendment earlier. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.