Lords Sitting of 15 April 1991

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Algeciras-Gibraltar: Shipping Services
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Spanish Government in discharge of their duties as a member of the European Community have now authorised the resumption of the shipping services between Algeciras and Gibraltar.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, no.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, what excuse have the Spanish Government given for this plain breach of their obligations as a member of the Community? What action will the Government take to enforce those obligations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend will know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has written to the European Commissioner on the matter. The reason given by the Spanish Government for refusing to agree to the renewal of the ferry service is that in their mind they have linked it to the question of the airport.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, this is a long standing dispute and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has asked a number of questions about it without receiving a satisfactory reply. Does the noble Earl agree that the time has come for a meeting between his right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister? Are there any plans for a meeting with the European Community Foreign Ministers in order to make a strenuous attempt to resolve the problem?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition thinks that my answers have been inadequate. They have been entirely factual and as full as I can make them. We are in regular contact with the Spanish. There are regular meetings at all levels, including that between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and his counterpart in Spain. As I have previously indicated, this matter was on a recent agenda. We shall continue to press for a solution of it.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not open to the Government to take enforcement proceedings in the Luxembourg court to enforce the performance of their duties by the Spanish Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we believe that in the interests of everyone in the Community this matter should be settled as soon as possible. We believe that the Spanish refusal is counter to the thrust of the international market and common transport policy. That is why we have taken the action that we have taken.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, I was in Spain earlier in the year. There were then high hopes that these shipping services would be resumed. h the problem due to the failure of the Spanish Government to live up to their obligations or the failure of the British Government to exert sufficient pressure?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is the Spanish Government who have refused to allow the Spanish company to operate the ferry service.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, what arguments have the Government put forward to refute the interpretation of the Director-General for Transport on the directive establishing freedom of maritime services? Am I not right in believing that Her Majesty's Government sought legal opinion on this interpretation? What was the outcome of that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have sought all kinds of opinions, legal and otherwise. We believe that the best way to solve the matter is the method that we have undertaken.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether his answer to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham was yes or no, because I was not quite clear about it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my answer was that the best way of proceeding is the way that we have undertaken.

Pornographic Advertisements
2.40 p.m.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the increase of advertisements of an explicit pornographic nature which are appearing in many provincial and one or two national newspapers, they will take steps to ban all questionable advertisements requiring readers to telephone phone numbers with the code 0898 or similar ones should these subsequently appear.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the advertisements for all premium rate telephone services are already subject to controls. They must comply with the rules contained in the British Code of Advertising Practice which requires that all advertisements should be legal, decent, honest and truthful and should not contain any matter that is likely to cause grave or widespread offence.
This code is incorporated into the codes of practice for premium rate telephone services which are administered by the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Telephone Information Services

1251
(ICSTIS). ICSTIS announced in March that it intends revising the codes of practice to implement stricter controls on the advertising of such telephone services.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer. However, I am not really surprised that he could not quite keep a straight face while giving it. I wonder whether the Minister or any other noble Lord had heard before of the organisation which is commonly known as ICSTIS. If they had not, how would they expect the general public to have heard of it and to contact it? Is the Minister aware that if someone phones one of these 0898 telephone numbers he is first told at great length about keeping within the law and is quoted the requirements that the Minister just mentioned? This makes the time taken on the telephone even longer—in other words, these services are making a mockery of the law. What do the Government intend to do about it?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, noble Lords will discover under the consumer advice section at the back of their telephone book the address and telephone number of Oftel and ICSTIS. It is pointed out that a free complaints line operating 24 hours a day will take down the details of any complaint and transmit it to the ICSTIS secretariat. In 1990 approximately 350 services were either terminated or amended as a result of ICSTIS investigation of complaints.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, in addition to the pornographic element mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which has given rise to some concern, there is also growing concern at the ever-increasing political Right-wing bias which appears in many of our national and local newspapers, some of which material would do credit to the late unlamented Dr. Goebbels?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I believe that if the noble Lord were to ring some of the telephone numbers which have been mentioned he would find that no political views would be expressed in the services.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend equate political bias with pornography?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I leave it to my noble friend to make a judgment on that matter.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether British Telecom intends to backdate to January the increase in VAT on pornographic calls as apparently it intends to do—although it may now have given up the idea—in regard to everyone else's calls?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is another Question.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that this kind of activity has very much increased since privatisation? Therefore, would it not
1252
be better if those in charge of the telephone services were to attempt to improve them rather than straying into these byways?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I should point out that ICSTIS has recently announced that it intends to revise the provisions of its code of practice so as to implement stricter controls on the advertising of premium-rate adult entertainment telephone services. That follows a review of the guidelines issued last summer to the industry which were intended to prevent the more offensive advertisements for recorded message services from appearing in publications which are widely available to all age groups. We expect the new guidelines to be published within a matter of weeks.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if all advertisements were really legal, decent, honest and truthful, can the noble Viscount say what effect that would have on the advertising revenue of the newspapers?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, once again, I must point out that that is another Question.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, are the Government in a position to do anything about pornographic advertisements, bearing in mind that Mr. Rupert Murdoch and the Sun newspaper are the greatest supporters of the Conservative Party?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, advertising is a matter for the Advertising Standards Authority. The control of advertising, which is administered by the authority, is based upon the code of practice, which is well known.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I appreciate that we have thus far spent nearly 10 minutes on Questions, but perhaps I may ask the Minister one further question. Is he aware of the publication which appears every Sunday entitled the Sunday Sport? I have with me one full page of its advertising, but the content of the advertisements is so crude that, unfortunately, I am unable to repeat it to your Lordships.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I have said, ICSTIS will shortly be announcing new guidelines. I think it may be helpful if I point out that some of the proposed guidelines will certainly cover some of the points made by the noble Earl.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that some of us find this Astor-Attlee pornographic exchange most fascinating? Is he further aware that, had his grandmother asked such a question of the noble Earl's father—which she might well have done—she would probably have received an even more succinct Answer than that which the noble Viscount has been able to give today?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for his comments.

Kurdish Refugees
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to alleviate the plight of the Kurdish population in Iraq.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are deeply concerned about the situation of the Kurdish and other refugees in Iraq. There have been two elements to our response: first, we have acted to meet the refugees' humanitarian needs; and, secondly, we are acting to stop Iraq's repression of its own population and to protect the refugees through the initiative of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, in the light of the sheer magnitude of the suffering experienced by the Kurdish refugees on the two frontiers, can the noble Earl tell us how much British aid is reaching those refugees? Further, can he say whether the British Government have conferred with representatives from the Turkish and Iranian Governments, and whether they have any views on how the refugee operation should be conducted?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has pledged about £20 million as our response to the UN Secretary General's appeal. That is in addition to our continuing aid programme which has been operating. Since 8th April three RAF Hercules aircraft have flown 16 missions, and dropped 121 tonnes of supplies to the refugees on the Turkish-Iraqi border.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us on this side of the House think that the contribution made by the Prime Minister is outstanding? His proposals are indeed outstanding; and it is a great shame that they are not backed up by many more people instead of them just talking about it. Further, can the noble Earl tell the House why Saddam Hussein, who is a villain and a murderer, should be allowed to continue in this way and thereby destroy other people's lives? We do not seem to be doing anything about it. Can he tell us how such a situation is possible?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on the first point, I am grateful for what the noble Lord said. Secondly, I disagree with the suggestion that there has hardly been a murmur. There has been a positive hurricane of response.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the Prime Minister has made a proposal for a safe haven, with which I am sure we all sympathise. Can the noble Earl tell the House where the proposal stands at the moment? Is it possible that it may go before the Security Council and receive the support of the international community so that something practical may emerge? Secondly, will the noble Earl confirm that economic and other sanctions will continue in
1254
force until the Kurdish and Shi'ite problem has been resolved? That is, we hope, until Saddam Hussein has been removed.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the initiative of my right honourable friend had four elements. The provision of humanitarian relief to those in need; the establishment of safe havens—I stress that in the plural—under United Nations protection for refugees in Northern Iraq; the economic sanctions to remain in place until the present policies and practices of the Iraqi Government have changed; and the monitoring of arms sales and the establishment of a United Nations register.
Thus your Lordships will see that the United Nations is heavily involved in the matter. The present state of our discussions with the Americans, the French, the Germans and the other members of the United Nations Security Council is well advanced. The United Nations Secretary General has sent a special representative, the Belgian Mr. Suy. His Royal Highness Prince Sadruddin is also in Iraq coordinating the relief agencies.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the establishment of these safe havens presuppose armed protection under the sanction of the United Nations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that will depend very much on how Iraq reacts to the situation. We hope that the Iraqis will agree that humanitarian aid is needed rapidly in the area. The idea must be to get off the mountains those suffering horribly in extreme weather and get them down to areas where relief supplies can be distributed more quickly and effectively. If the Iraqis decide to react in any way against those humanitarian efforts, the response that they will receive has been made perfectly clear.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will we not have a Statement on the Kurdish question within an hour? Would it not therefore be more appropriate to leave further exchanges until then?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is up to the will of the House. I have been asked questions, and it is only right that the Government should respond.

Property Repossessions
2.53 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the current level of repossessions of houses by the lending agencies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, figures released by the Council of Mortgage Lenders in February show that 43,890 dwellings were taken into possession during 1990, a figure representing 0.47 per cent. of all borrowers.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Does she agree that the figure she has just given means that thousands of ordinary families are in despair? Is she aware that what irritates many people is that the cost to local

1255
authorities for rehousing those who have been more or less evicted after repossession of their homes is greater than if they were paid the interest on their mortgages? Perhaps saddest of all are those cases where people have been hit twice: first, where they have not been able to meet mortgage payments because the breadwinner is unemployed, and, secondly, for a minority, the grave danger that those people are being reduced to the ignoble and degrading status of being almost refugees in their own land.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not wish to say anything to detract from the distress of people unable to meet mortgage repayments, particularly when breadwinners lose their jobs. That is most distressing. However, I cannot sufficiently emphasise the importance of seeking advice early, through the many mechanisms in place, both local authorities and the lending agencies, to make sure that people are helped over this difficult period.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House whether the figure of 0.4 per cent. of all borrowers is the percentage of money involved or the percentage of mortgaged houses being repossessed?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there are 9.2 million borrowers altogether, of which 0.47 per cent. are in difficulties. If one takes all people in difficulties—that is, those in arrears up to six or 12 months, or whose property has been repossessed—the total is still only 1.5 per cent. of the 9.2 million borrowers.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the need for people who get into this unfortunate situation to seek the best possible advice. Is she aware that a campaign has recently been launched in the private sector to devote more funds to the provision of such advice? Presuming that the Government support that initiative, will they be prepared to put in additional resources?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are aware of the work going on in the private sector. My honourable friend in another place, Sir George Young, is involved in discussions on the issue with the Council of Mortgage Lenders.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Baroness add to the figures that she gave for the past 12 months? What were the comparable figures on repossessions for the previous 12 months? Further, what were the figures for the year 1979–80?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in 1989 mortgages totalled 9.125 million. In June 1990 the total was 9.278 million and in December 1990—the latest figure we have—9.415 million. Properties taken into care in 1989 totalled 0.17 per cent. and in June 1990, 0.18 per cent. As I said, the latest figure is 0.47 per cent.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is not immediate assistance necessary in order to reduce the distressing figures given by the Minister? He must be aware that Members on this side of the House welcome the Government's recent cut in the bank rate in order to
1256
reduce interest charges on mortgages. However, are the Government satisfied that their intention of reducing interest rates in the mortgage sector is being passed on to owner-occupiers by the building societies as quickly as it ought to be? It appears that some building societies are reluctant to reduce mortgages when the Government cut bank lending rates but when the bank rate rises mortgage rates are increased almost overnight.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord's criticism stands up. A few days ago, when the bank rate was reduced by a half per cent., within hours of the announcement many leading building societies had reduced mortgages by 1 per cent.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, some of the largest building societies did not do so, and they gave no indication to people with mortgages when that reduction would be carried out. If some of the larger building societies appear to be dragging their feet will the Government deal with that under the appropriate legislation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, lending money to buy homes is a competitive business. It is up to people to change their mortgage from one company to another. That competition will have a downward pressure on interest rates.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, we note the concern of the noble Baroness for these unfortunate people. However, is she aware that in addition to all the economics involved the people whose houses are repossessed have to move out? That is one of the greatest humiliations of their lives. They were trying to achieve one of the most fundamental of desires—to own their own home—and to be thrown out of it is a massive humiliation which affects the entire family.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot disagree with anything that the noble Lord said about how distressing it is. However, I keep returning to the importance of seeking early advice. People can negotiate with the lender in order to extend the period of the loan. Local authorities can check whether any help from the DSS is available and whether it is appropriate for people to receive such assistance. Local authorities can consider the possibility of purchasing a share in the equity of homes, which would be a cheaper option than rehousing such people. A great deal can be done and we hope that if people seek early advice it will be done.

Business
3 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Caithness will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the situation in Iraq.

Deer Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill consolidates the Deer Act 1963 and the Deer Act 1980. The 1963 Act has been extensively amended since its passage by a succession of other Acts. Furthermore, both it, and the 1980 Act, contain a number of drafting defects which can usefully be corrected on the recommendation of the Law Commission where the work of this consolidation has been carried out. Accordingly, this Bill is a consolidation with amendments to give effect to the Law Commission recommendations which are contained in the commission's report on this Bill. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the commission and the draftsman for their work in producing this consolidation. If your Lordships are content to give this Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill
3.2 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Introduction of disability living allowance]:
[Amendment No. 1 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to paragraph (7) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I wish, with the leave of the House, to speak also to Amendment No. 3. This is a subject that we debated both in Committee and on Report but in a rather different context. Therefore we have retabled the amendment on Third Reading.
The amendment is related to remarks made by the Minister in response to a point that I made on Report on 25th March when I said:
"Currently claimants are denied both mobility and attendance allowance, even where they satisfy the terminal illness test, on account of the presence rule. It seems very harsh that that rule will be continued and will be applied to people claiming and othenvise entitled to benefits under the D.L.A. terminal illness rule".—[Official Report, 25/3/91; col. 863]
I pressed the Minister on that point later in the debate and he replied (at col. 865 of Hansard):
"My Lords, this is Report stage, but if the noble Lord will bear with me, I should like to come back on that point. If he wants to come back to this at a later stage, that may be appropriate but I prefer to write to the noble Lord".
I have not received a reply from the Minister. I am not criticising him for that; but I now have a chance to clear up the matter. Under the terminal illness rules the six-month waiting period that applies to all other
1258
parts of the DLA is waived so that a person who has been certified as terminally ill is able to receive benefit immediately. However, as the Bill presently stands, in order to receive the benefit, the person must have been in this country for at least six months out of the past year. Therefore the cruel and absurd situation could arise that a person who expects to die within six months is told that he or she has to wait six months before any benefit can be paid. That completely defeats the purpose of the terminal illness rules which are specially designed to ensure that people receive such help with the least possible hassle and delay.
The Association of Hospice Social Workers, which agrees with the thrust of the amendment, has written to me stating:
"The fact that Attendance Allowance can be paid within ten to fourteen days to someone terminally ill is a good breakthrough … We are however saddened by the fact that some of our patients still need to meet the presence criteria to be able to qualify for the allowance. We feel that the expenditure incurred in waiving the presence criteria in the UK would be minimal and may even result in some savings but would greatly enhance the spirit of the act".
The association refers to an example which I shall repeat to the House as it brings the situation home extremely well. The association referred to the case of Mr. "J" who is 38 years old. After being diagnosed as terminally ill, he returned to England in order to die within the loving care of his family. He returned to this country on 1st October 1990 and an application was submitted under the attendance allowance special rules. He was informed that the adjudicating officers' decision was that he did not meet the presence criteria until 1st April 1991.
For several months from October 1990 Mr. "J" was cared for by his family. If he had received attendance allowance and hence gained access to other benefits, his family members would have gained some respite. The situation on 10th April was that Mr. "J" was a hospital in-patient. He is dying. He does not qualify for the attendance allowance under the special rules. Had Mr. "J" or his family been able to enlist additional help through the receipt of the attendance allowance, access to other benefits would have been opened up, and his family may well have been able to provide care at home during his last few weeks.
The cost of the measure is minimal. The argument for adopting it is overwhelming and heart-rending. It is accepted in principle by the Government. I cannot believe that the Government will refuse to accept the amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain the reasons why the Government feel that the presence requirement should remain for the terminally ill, as they stated in Committee and on Report. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I hope I can deal with the points that the noble Lord has made. As the noble Lord pointed out, I promised to write to him on the matter. However, as the noble Lord tabled this amendment, I felt this would be a suitable opportunity to explain the Government's position.
In Committee I explained that DLA will adopt the attendance allowance presence requirement of 26

1259
weeks out of the preceding 12 months rather than the less generous requirement of 52 weeks out of 18 months which applies currently for mobility allowance. As I have explained before, the DLA regulations will also provide quite generous exemptions from the presence requirements by means of deeming people in certain situations to be present in Great Britain even though they are absent abroad. This will apply in particular where a person has gone abroad temporarily for medical treatment or the absence is for some other temporary purpose and has not lasted more than six months.
That demonstrates that we are always prepared to look closely and sympathetically at how to improve our arrangements. That applies to an issue like this one. I was not aware, until the noble Lord briefly raised the issue on Report, that there was, or might be, any problem in this area. Having taken the opportunity of the Recess to look further into the matter, I can say that the department is aware of only a handful of cases where the residence and presence rules have worked to the detriment of someone claiming under the special rules that we operate for people who are terminally ill.
The terminal illness rules are very new and it is perhaps dangerous to draw conclusions from just a few months' experience. What I should like to do, if the noble Lord will withdraw his amendments, is to look further at the issue and the situations in which benefit is not being awarded. As I said on Report, we believe it is right in principle that DLA claimants should have to establish a real connection with this country before obtaining benefit. Nevertheless, if it appears that the residence and presence rules are operating unfairly in terminal illness cases, we shall certainly consider modifying them. I take note of the case that the noble Lord referred to concerning Mr. "J". If the noble Lord cares to supply me with the details of that case, or will allow me to read them in Hansard, I shall take a further look at the matter.
In asking the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments, I make one further point which I hope will persuade him that he can do so safely. If we reach the conclusion that a different residence and presence test is needed for terminally-ill people, it is something we can apply by means of regulations. The powers to prescribe different tests for different groups—if we wish to—are in the Bill already. I hope in view of that assurance, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. The Minister has answered the question that I was going to ask—that is, how do the Government propose to carry out this measure? If they are able to do so by regulations, I am sure that they will be able to draft such regulations accordingly. We are talking about only a handful of cases, as the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 41, after ("person") insert:
1260
(", except a child under the age of 16 who at the request of a paediatrician is accompanied or frequently visited by a parent or guardian who provides prolonged or repeated supervision or attention with his bodily functions while in hospital for medical treatment,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to amend the Bill to reflect an indication which was given on Report on 25th March by the Minister when he said:
"It is an issue at which I am prepared to have another look".—[Official Report; 25/3/91; col. 870.]
This is an opportunity for him to do so.
There is no need to repeat at any length the debate that we had at Report stage. However, in order to help your Lordships I shall remind the House that the amendment is modest in scope. It applies only to those parents who are already in receipt of attendance allowance and who continue to provide significant levels of care while their children are in hospital. The amendment suggests that it would be possible for that group of children to be defined by medical professionals, who could confirm that that was the case. No doubt the Secretary of State could prescribe regulations to ensure that that group of needy parents was properly defined.
The problem arises because parents in that situation fall foul of the regulation which restricts payments of attendance allowance where respite care is provided for a period over and above 28 days. The amendment does not seek to alter that condition but to separate hospital care from the regulations as the same considerations do not apply.
The parents to whom we refer are those who continue to provide care and attention to their children throughout the day, and indeed the night, while they are in hospital and who take over a number of the essential nursing tasks for their children. Thus this is a completely different situation from respite care, where the parents are relieved of the caring for a short period.
In an interview on the BBC's "News At One", Dr. Judith Kingston, a senior paediatrician, said:
"It does seem unfair that parents should lose attendance allowance when their children arc in hospital for a long time. We rely on parents looking after their children when they are in hospital, the mums contribute significantly to the nursing care of the child and there's a lot of expense—extra expense —involved when the child is in hospital".
Parents and children in such a situation face enough trauma without the burden of having their essential benefits reduced or taken away after the child has been in hospital for 28 days, especially when they continue to have the costs of travel to the hospital in addition to the other costs associated with having a disabled child.
I emphasise that the amendment does not propose any relaxation of the principle involved. It is targeted at those parents who continue to care for their children while they are in hospital. It is hedged around with qualifications to ensure that the general principle is not challenged. It applies to a small group of disabled children who are in hospital for medical care and whose parents continue to provide the bulk of that care.
At Report stage I gained the impression that the Government recognised the problem and were sympathetic. We have tried to meet the various points

1261
that were raised at Committee stage. As I said, the group is carefully targeted; it is small and the cost to the Government is minimal. I hope that the Minister will be able either to accept the amendment or to indicate that the Government at least understand the problem and are prepared to define this particular group, perhaps in regulations. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am very pleased to support the amendment. The main points have already been made and I should like merely to emphasise that this is a totally different situation from respite care. Very real expense is involved in going backwards and forwards to hospital to look after a child there. It has been made quite clear by the medical authorities that it is highly desirable that the parents should be there. That being so, the case for the amendment is extremely strong.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I too should like to support my noble friend and the noble Baroness who has just spoken. The amount of money involved will not be great because the numbers will not be great. A government who can find £30,000 a year for ex-Prime Ministers must surely see that when they go to the country for votes it will be far better to have given money to a worthy cause such as this. We have to get our priorities right. The sick, the needy and the poor, particularly children, have to be first in our thoughts if there is to be good government. This is an opportunity for the Government to look beneficent, kind and generous and I am sure that they will not turn the amendment down.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I also should like to support the principles behind the amendment. Very often disabled children are far more dependent on their parents than able-bodied children are, particularly if they have communication difficulties. In such cases it may be the parents alone who understand the children. As a result, in order to ensure that the child can make its needs known and answer questions from the specialists attending it in hospital, and to act as interpreters, such parents have to be present in hospital more than the parents of able-bodied children.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I too urge your Lordships to accept the amendment. We are not talking about the Government giving additional grants or allowances. We are merely seeking that the Government should not withdraw allowances which parents caring for disabled children or children with challenging behaviour currently receive. The point has been made and can bear repetition that these are children who are not only sick, requiring medical care in hospital from paediatricians, but whose behaviour, disability or disturbance is such that they require almost continuous day and night care in hospital from a parent or other member of their family. That is why, were the allowance to be removed and parents found themselves unable to attend to their children a heavy burden would be placed on nursing staff.
It is in recognition of the continuing care which parents of such children offer to their children while in hospital, which is not similar to that required by
1262
able-bodied children, that we hope that the Government will not withdraw the disability benefits which parents would otherwise continue to receive.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have no intention of hiding behind the expense of the amendment. However, I must confess to being slightly surprised, after the assurances that I gave at Report stage and at Committee stage in response to similar amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that we should be debating the amendment today. Perhaps I was too discouraging then, but as I said, I did not want to raise false hopes by giving a cast-iron guarantee that we would act. That would have been wrong of me, and I should be wrong to accede to the noble Lord's request to bind the Government today to do something, especially when we cannot be sure exactly what that something should be.
I accept the need to examine the issue and to see whether we can meet the concern that has been raised. I understand that concern and have much sympathy with it, as I said on earlier occasions. As I said at Report stage, I acknowledge the effort that has been put into ring-fencing the small numbers of children with whom the noble Lord and others are concerned in this amendment. I am equally sure that the noble Lord recognises our concern, which I raised at Report stage, that our general policy should stand. I shall not reiterate those arguments.
As I have said, a fair case has been made out for the change. However, we must examine the issue in some depth. There is a great difference between being able to cite individual cases in which the existing law may seem to be too tough and finding a legislative solution which ensures that all the right people are helped without opening the door to others for whom we would not accept that that was the cane. I doubt that that will prove beyond us, but we must look closely at the issue before deciding what to do.
Perhaps it would reassure the noble Lord if I confirmed the indication that I gave at Report that that is something that we could achieve by regulation if the case for action is made. No amendment to the Bill is needed. I hope that, on the basis of that assurance—an assurance which I gave at Report stage —and my undertaking that we shall look closely at the issue in the department in consultation with the organisations which have raised the issue, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I stress, as I have on other occasions, that my door will remain open if the noble Lord wishes to come to see me on this matter.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord is surprised that I should raise the matter. Perhaps I may remind him of what he said at Report stage. He said:
"I do not advocate the adoption of this amendment but it is an issue at which I am prepared to have another look. I should be happy to explore it further … I do not want to minimise the difficulties or raise any false hopes, but my understanding is that this is not an area in which we need primary legislation. Should it prove to be so there is anyway some time before this Bill has its Third Reading".—[Official Report, 25/3/91; col. 870.]

1263
Here we are at Third Reading and the intention of putting down the amendment was precisely to learn whether the matter can be dealt with by regulation. I am grateful that the Minister has confirmed that. I note that the Government are sympathetic to the problem. I was anxious to have it on the record that they are now prepared to have a look at the problem to see whether they can deal with it by regulation. I am grateful to the Minister for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 9, leave out from ("period") to ("throughout") in line 10.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 6.
Your Lordships will be aware that at previous stages of the Bill we have tried to reduce the minimum age for receiving the mobility component from five years to two years. The Government's response consisted of unconvincing arguments about the ability to walk and the fact that handicapped children under five have no greater problems than able-bodied children under five. When that did not work, the Minister fell back on the cost of reducing the minimum age from five years to two years.
There is no need to repeat the arguments at length. We are convinced that significant differences in the ability to walk and mobility can be discerned between non-disabled children and disabled children who have serious problems with mobility far earlier than the age of five. Those problems can result in the need to spend far more on mobility than would otherwise be the case. A little more money to help with the extra costs of mobility for children with disabilities between the ages of two and five would make an enormous and practical difference to those families and would help to relieve their worry and stress. I do not propose to take the time of the House by repeating the examples that have been given at earlier stages, but they make a strong argument.
The Government estimate that the amendment to reduce the age from five years to two years at one go would cost about £30 million. The purpose of the amendment is to give the Government the flexibility to consider implementation in stages at the Government's own speed; for example, down to the age of four, then perhaps to three and eventually to two, as the funds became available. It is important that something should be done and we are seeking to give the Government the necessary flexibility.
As I said, we well appreciate that the department might have some problems with the Treasury if the minimum age is reduced from five to two in one move. The amendment merely gives the Government the power to prescribe the minimum age by regulation without recourse to primary legislation so that the change can be made as the funds allow, perhaps in stages. It is a sensible approach. It leaves the timing and implementation entirely in the hands of the
1264
Government. Their response to this conciliatory approach will indicate how seriously they understand the problem. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the question of the lower age limit for entitlement to the mobility component has been debated at length on several occasions and at Report the House rejected an attempt by the noble Lord to reduce it from five years to two. The noble Lord has now come forward with a further amendment the effect of which would be to reopen the whole issue and leave it to be settled in regulations at some future point.
I do not see what the noble Lord hopes to achieve by this latest amendment, other than further debates. To avoid any misunderstanding, let me make it clear to the House that if the amendment is accepted the Government would have no intention of specifying anything other than five years as the minimum age in regulations. Let me also make it clear, if any of your Lordships are still in doubt after our previous debates, that it is not simply a matter of cost; though obviously cost must be an important matter. The Government are convinced that five years is the most sensible age at which to set a minimum age limit for the mobility component given that, as I believe everyone accepts, a line must be drawn somewhere. The noble Lord said that the arguments were unconvincing. I do not accept that and nor did the previous Labour government which the noble Lord no doubt supported.
I do not wish to delay the House by going over all the old ground unnecessarily, but I should again briefly state why the Government consider five to be the right age at which to start helping children with mobility needs. The key consideration is at what point the costs associated with disability begin to add significantly to the costs associated with age. No one denies that it may be apparent before the age of five that a child is unlikely ever to be able to walk. Nor does anyone deny that there may be individual cases where a child's disability causes particular problems from an early age.
However, as I said both on Report and in Committee, all children below the age of five have mobility needs. They are not independently mobile and their mobility needs inevitably place additional demands on their parents. Having recently increased the size of my own family, I hesitate to imply that young children are in any way an unwelcome burden. It is simply a fact of life that the transport of children under five creates both problems and expense. There are no doubt some exceptional cases, but I do not believe that it has been demonstrated by the noble Lord or anyone else that disability causes significant additional costs in the generality of cases involving under-fives.
I accept that the position becomes less clear cut the closer the child gets to the age of five. Any dividing line is to some extent artificial and there is always a temptation to bring in cases which are just the wrong side of it. The noble Lord suggests that we could make the change gradually if we feared that cost was the consideration, but I do not believe that that would be the way round the matter. For example, I do not see that there would be any particular logic in choosing,

1265
say, the age of four in preference to five. There is a perfectly logical basis for an age limit of five because that is the age at which most children start school and start to become independently mobile.
I suspect that the reason why the noble Lord put forward the amendment is that he is unable or unwilling to accept that the Government believe that an age limit of five is right for the mobility component. I hope that what I have said today will finally convince him that this is a point of principle upon which we are not prepared to give way. From his point of view, therefore, deferring the question of the age limit until the regulations are made would bring no advantage. Nor, frankly, do I believe that it would be right to remove an issue as fundamental as this from the Bill. Your Lordships have already expressed the view that it would be wrong to reduce the age limit from five. If the noble Lord wishes to press his amendment I hope that the House will continue to affirm that view and reject his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at least we are now entirely clear that the argument was not rejected in the past on the question of cost. It was rejected entirely because the Government believe—this is an attitude which I believe is completely detached from the reality of living with disabled children —that there is no extra cost for a handicapped child between the ages of two and five when compared with a normal toddler.
Perhaps I may quote one mother, though I could quote many. She says:
"It's disgusting! A normal child is walking at one, though maybe not independently until two. I had a handicapped child first, so I had no one to compare him with. But now, with the little girl. She's been an independent little miss for 18 months of her life, feeding herself and walking. Not in a pram. To put the mobility at five is ridiculous, because you need the help more in the early days".
In another example, a lady who had a child with cerebral palsy says:
"Just getting buses was awful. I could never do it. I was getting eviction letters for not paying the mortgage because all my money was going on taxis every week, because I had no time. If you had the Mobility from an early age, you could live as normal a life as anyone else. But without mobility … If you've got to buy a car or a van … We took out a £2,000 bank loan and we're paying out money on it all the time. But, we've done a lot of things because of the car that we couldn't have done. We're still paying the bank loan now".
It seems to me that the Government have completely ignored the arguments of the organisations and parents concerned. I do not apologise for returning to the point. We have given the Government the chance to act with flexibility over time as funds allow. Obviously, they reject the whole principle of the argument and therefore the only thing that I can do is to test the opinion of the House.
3.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 102.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Airedale, L.

Attlee, E.

Annan, L.

Aylestone, L.

1266

Banks, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Blease, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kagan, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Carter, L.

Leatherland, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Longford, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Molloy, L.

Ennals, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Nathan, L.

Ezra, L.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Phillips, B.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Galpern, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Sefton of Gaston, L.

Halsbury, E.

Scrota, B.

Hampton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L

Swinfen, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Underhill, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wharton, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Arran, E.

Gridley, L.

Astor, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Auckland, L.

Bancroft, L.

Hayter, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Henley, L.

Beloff, L.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Holderness, L.

Blatch, B.

Hooper, B.

Blyth, L.

Ironside, L.

Boardman, L.

Killearn, L.

Borthwick, L.

Knollys, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brightman, L.

Long, V.

Brigstocke, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Butterfield, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Butterworth, L.

Margadale, L.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Milverton, L.

Carnock, L.

Morris, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mowbray anc Stourton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Munster, E.

Cockfield, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Nelson, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Park of Monrnouth, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Porritt, L.

Donegall, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Dudley, B.

Reay, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Renton, L.

Effingham, E.

Richardson, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rodney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Elton, L.

Savile, L.

Faithfull, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strange, B.

Flather, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Foley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gainford, L.

Strathspey, L.

1267

Sudeley, L.

Waddington, L

Swansea, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L

Terrington, L.

Waldegrave, E

Teviot, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wise, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Wynford, L

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Iraq: Kurdish Refugees
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the situation in Iraq which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the relief of suffering in Iraq. We are faced with suffering and fear on a huge scale —inside Iraq, on both sides of the border with Turkey, on both sides of the border with Iran, and in the demilitarised zone bordering Kuwait. Each of these areas has its difficult problems: in all of them the needs are formidable.
"Our response has two elements: first, to keep the refugees alive; and, secondly, to create conditions in which they can return home in safety.
"We have given prompt humanitarian help. We airlifted relief supplies to the Turkish and the Iranian Red Crescent Societies. With the United States and France, RAF aircraft have been airdropping supplies into northern Iraq. With the US and Germans we are now engaged in a helicopter airbridge. My right honourable friend has arranged for six more Chinook to deploy to Turkey from the middle of this week, bringing to nine the UK helicopters participating in this effort. We are contributing over £20 million to appeals by the United Nations and other international agencies. This includes the International Committee of the Red Cross which is at present providing the most effective help inside Iraq. Part of this money will go to our own NGOs whom I met this morning.
"We helped bring about Security Council Resolution 688 which requires Iraq to co-operate with the United Nations and other international humanitarian organisations and to stop repression. The Iraqis are receiving UN missions led by the Secretary General's representative, Mr. Suy and by the UN Co-ordinator, Prince Sadruddin.
"At the Special European Council at Luxembourg on 8th April, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister put forward a four-point plan to build on the Resolutions of the Security Council: first, the establishment of temporary safe havens in Iraq, in which UN officials can provide for the basic needs of refugees and monitor their security; secondly, a generous contribution by the EC to the UN and other appeals for funds for humanitarian relief. The Community immediately contributed 150 million ecu; thirdly, apart from food and humanitarian supplies, economic and
1268
financial sanctions against Iraq should remain in force until Saddam Hussein's offer of an amnesty is made permanent and the international community is satisfied that persecution of minorities in Iraq has ceased; fourthly, a strict arms embargo against Iraq to remain in force as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.
"We are vigorously pursuing this proposal for safe havens. Our aim is to create places and conditions in which the refugees can feel secure. We are not talking of a territorial enclave, a separate Kurdistan or a permanent UN presence. We support the territorial integrity of Iraq.
"But we have to get these refugees off the mountains. That is the unanimous view of those who have visited the area on behalf of the ODA and the British NGOs with whom I talked this morning. Some refugees are being admitted to places in Turkey and Iran where they can be better cared for. That is welcome, but is not the right answer except temporarily. We should not aim to add a new permanent refugee problem to the others which disfigure the world. The Kurds should be enabled and encouraged to return to their homes, where effective help can be given. They will not do this unless they feel secure. Undertakings such as those made yesterday by the Iraqi Government will not suffice. The UN presence in Iraq has to build up fast and solidly to monitor and help ensure the safety of those whom the Security Council has resolved to help. We share the view of President Bush when he said yesterday: 'We will not tolerate any interference in this massive international relief effort'.
"To help carry the British relief effort forward my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development will visit Turkey and Iran later this week, including the frontier areas."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. The situation in Iraq is, I know, a matter of acute concern to the Government and indeed to us all. The terrible suffering of the Kurdish people must be one of the great tragedies of history. I am sure that looking during the Recess at the pictures on television of their appalling suffering we have felt a sense of helplessness as well as shame. It is not too much to say that the coalition won the war but is losing the peace.
One thing is clear; namely, that there has been a lack of foresight and a grave failure to take concerted action to protect the Kurdish people and the Shi'ite population in the south. What makes the position worse is that the Iraqi people, which include the Kurds, were urged to rise against Saddam Hussein at the end of the war and their plight today is the result of that uprising. The ruthless treatment of the Kurds is nothing less than genocide, as my honourable friend Ann Clwyd reported today.
The charge has been made that the relief effort has been too little and too late. We appreciate the Government's efforts as described in the Statement,

1269
but can the noble Earl say whether the momentum of that relief is being increased sufficiently by us and other countries in the coalition, as failure would clearly result in the deaths of thousands more?
Further, is it not essential that the Kurds in Iraq whom one sees suffering along the borders should be properly protected by a United Nations force? No one believes that they will be safe under Saddam Hussein's police and security forces. Again, is any attempt being made to persuade Turkey and Iran to establish secure camps which are adequately serviced for the Kurds who are there or on their borders? The Statement refers merely to "places" in Turkey and Iran. Can the noble Earl be a little more specific as to the meaning of "places"? I assume that they will be well serviced camps. Perhaps he will enlarge on that passage.
We noted that yesterday the Prime Minister said that he did not rule out the use of troops. Can the Minister clarify those words and say whether there is any move to co-ordinate some positive action to defend the Kurds?
The Statement does not say very much about the Shi'ites in the south of Iraq. They also are suffering and their losses have been enormous. Can we be told what action has been taken to help them? I assume that the safe haven provision would not apply to them because of the different situation on the border with Kuwait.
Finally, the Statement refers to the safe havens. Is the noble Earl satisfied that those are supported specifically by the Security Council resolutions and can he say when they will be defined and manned by United Nations officials?
3.46 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I would like to associate myself with thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in the House of Commons. I also associate myself with much of what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said in connection with that Statement.
There is very little question but that our recognition of the terrible and tragic plight of the Kurds came extremely late. We must now make sure that the aid that we give to them is not too little and that the logistical effort which made the remarkable operation in the Gulf so extraordinarily effective in winning a war is repeated for saving the lives of people.
I must also repeat that we have there a direct responsibility. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. suggested —we cannot deny it—we encouraged the peoples of Iraq, of whom the Kurds are one, to replace Saddam Hussein. It seems more than ever tragic that it must appear to them that, having encouraged them, they are now being abandoned.
I should like to raise two relatively small matters before I come to wider issues. The Statement refers to activities of the Red Cross within Iraq. I hope that the Red Cross is not acting simply through the Iraqi Government, in which case the supplies will go straight to the Iraqi army and not to the people of Iraq who need them. That is an important issue which has to be cleared up.
1270
Secondly, I wholly accept and endorse the suggestion in the Statement that Sad dam Hussein's amnesty cannot have any credibility in our eyes unless it is supervised by the United Nations. But the crucial question which arises, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggested, concerns the meaning of a "safe haven". We all agree that it must be temporary. Surely it must be temporarily within Iraq. Where else can it be? It can only be a place—to use the words of the Statement—where the Kurds can feel secure, if there is a UN or some other presence which ensures their security. Can the noble Earl tell us that that is being arranged and that the safe haven will be secured by a UN or, if not the UN, some other military presence?
Can the Minister also give us an undertaking that meanwhile the coalition's air supremacy will be used to protect the refugees? That will probably be necessary until Saddam Hussein is replaced. Finally, will he confirm that the policy of safe havens and the security of the safe havens until the final security of the Kurds is assured has the full support of the European Community?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the welcome they gave to the Statement and what we are doing to achieve its implementation. I agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that this is one of the great tragedies of history, It is a desperate shame that we are faced with this situation at the moment. There is nothing but disgust and outrage at the reprehensible treatment by Saddam Hussein of his population. He has proved it before and has proved it yet again.
The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asked why we did not act sooner. We were already supporting relief operations before the latest crisis began. In 1990 we provided £11 million bilaterally and through the Community to help UN agencies and the ICRC handling the Iraqi refugees. This year we provided a further £8 million including 1 million dollars to the UN disaster relief organisation which co-ordinated contingency arrangements in Jordan, Syria, Iran and Turkey for expected further outflows of refugees from Iraq. As soon as the news of the Kurdish exodus broke, on 4th April we announced a further £1 million in immediate help, £500,000 for the ICRC and £500,000 for the supply of tents and blankets to the Turkish Red Crescent.
Our next steps will involve continuing the airlift from the UK through the RAF drops. I believe that all your Lordships would like to join me in paying tribute to the remarkable work of the RAF in very difficult flying conditions. It has done a superb job.
We are also providing £1 million to the Turkish Government for the internal purchase of relief supplies. We are looking at the medical and other requirements with British NGOs and; stand prepared to help with their projects. Both my right honourable friend and my honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development discussed that with the NGOs this morning. I gather that it was a very good meeting.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked for a further definition of "places". That will depend on where we can move the Kurds to from the mountains. It is

1271
absolutely clear that we must get them off the mountains, because only by doing so shall we achieve the full benefit of our large humanitarian aid programme. Ideally, as the Statement says, we should like to get them to a base where they can feel secure, and the best place for that is their home. However —and one can merely speculate at this stage because of the discussions that are taking place—camps might well be involved as a temporary measure. There will of course be UN supervision of the Kurds. That is an integral part of the operation because, as the Statement says, unless they feel secure through UN people being available, I am sure that they will be reluctant to go back in case Saddam Hussein imposes further persecution on them.
The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asked about the use of troops, the point made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. As my right honourable friend says, we might have to use troops if circumstances so require. We hope that the Iraqi Government will agree with the measures that we have proposed and that they can be undertaken by civilian rather than military means.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to the aid going to the Red Cross ending up in the hands of the Iraqi army. My Lords, no. That is one of the points about which we are taking great care. We must make sure that the aid is given to the right recipients and is delivered to the appropriate international organisations and NGOs. I can confirm that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's initiative received unanimous support in the Community.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, perhaps I may make a very important point. Is the noble Earl saying that Her Majesty's Government would in fact send troops inside Iraq itself, presumably with coalition partners, to secure those safe havens for the Kurds?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we should like to see safe havens set up. As I said at Question Time today, should the Iraqi Government make that impossible, or retaliate in any way against the Kurds once the havens have been set up, that will be met with an appropriate response.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will forgive me for intervening once more. However, it is surely the case that the Iraqi Government are continuing to attack the Kurds. It is for that reason that I asked whether we are prepared to use air supremacy—I did not refer to troops—to prevent such an attack? We can undertake that here and now. Will the noble Earl be so good as to tell the House the view on that question?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the United States has made it clear to Iraq that any attack made on the refugees north of the 36th Parallel will be met by force.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not plain, without in any way criticising the temporary measures that have to be undertaken to meet the emergency that has arisen, that there is no hope of the Kurdish people or the Shi'ites in the South
1272
coming back into their homes—which is the only permanent settlement for them—so long as active units of the Iraqi army, the Arabic-speaking troops, are in operation in those areas? Ought it not to be the objective of the international community to make Saddam Hussein withdraw his Arabic-speaking troops from the Shi'ite areas in the South and from the Kurdish areas in the North?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble and learned friend raises a very important point and puts his finger on it well. That is exactly why we wish to have the agreement of the Iraqi Government to take the measure forward.
3.57 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may raise the point that I had wished to make at Question Time. I watched the dropping of supplies from the helicopters and planes. When the supplies land there is no control over their distribution. There is a huge rush of people and no obvious proper distribution. Are there any plans to try to drop supplies at settled points so that they can be handled by people in authority and distributed fairly?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes indeed. There are lots of plans to try to improve the dropping of supplies. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will be the first to agree that the important factor was to get the supplies there. Given the terrain, terrible weather conditions and the logistical difficulties, it was inevitable that the first supplies in particular had to go in by Hercules aircraft. The accuracy of the drops is now much improved by the Chinook helicopters. As I said in the Statement, the number of Chinook helicopters operating in the area will increase. But the noble Lord is absolutely right to say that better co-ordination is also needed at ground level. However, given the immense number of people about whom we are talking, there are difficulties. The RAF pilots are doing a marvellous job in the appalling weather conditions.
The third point is to move the Kurds off the mountains down into the valleys where the weather conditions are less extreme, flying conditions are improved and better supervision can take place.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions. First, I was a little puzzled by his reply at Question Time today about the mission of the Secretary-General. He connected it with the idea of safe havens, whereas it is my understanding that the Secretary-General has positively said that it is not part of his mission's work to explore such a possibility. It is important to know whether we are engaged in national diplomacy or whether there is still some hope from the United Nations Organisation itself.
The second question relates to a matter which is at least numerically manageable. I refer to the fate of some 20,000 Shi'ites in American-occupied territory in Southern Iraq from which the Americans are withdrawing in favour, it is said, of a United Nations peace-keeping force on the border but which withdrawal will permit the admission of Iraqi police

1273
and other security forces. If the safety of those 20,000 people cannot be guaranteed, what hope is there of persuading the Kurds to look for international assurances?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to my noble friend's first question, I am sorry if I sowed confusion in his mind. What we are not talking about in the form of safe havens is what I repeated in the Statement: that is, a territorial enclave, a separate Kurdistan or a permanent UN presence. That perhaps led to the confusion about exactly what was initially meant by safe havens.
The UN presence in Iraq is partly a fulfilment of Security Council Resolution 688 which requested the UN Secretary-General to report on the plight of the civilian population in Iraq. His representative Mr. Suy is now in Baghdad. The Sadruddin Khan was also appointed, but he was appointed as executive delegate for the UN Inter-Agency Humanitarian Programme for Iraq, Kuwait and the border areas. He will co-ordinate the relief effort. Over the next few days we expect Mr. Suy rapidly to build up his team to between 50 and 100 people who will monitor the situation and report. There is no difference between the ambitions and hopes of the British Government, the United Nations and the American and French Governments.
My noble friend mentioned the Iraqis in the demilitarised zone. They will benefit from our programme because our concern is for the humanitarian needs for all Iraqis. We understand that the UNHCR is willing to accept responsibility for the Iraqi refugees sheltering in areas at present occupied by the coalition forces. Again, Mr. Suy, the UN Secretary General's representative, will follow up in Baghdad the implementation of the Security Council resolution. We have also urged the Kuwaiti and Saudi Governments to give shelter to the displaced Iraqis and I am sure that they will do so.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, what pressure will the Government bring to bear on other Arab governments, of which there are many, to help their fellow moslems in their present situation? Secondly, what happened to the butter and beef mountains in Europe? Could they not have been rapidly transmitted to these starving people?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I repeat that we have urged the Kuwaiti and Saudi Governments to give shelter to displaced Iraqis. This is a United Nations effort and therefore we hope that every country will join in. I do not know the answer to the second question of the noble Baroness, but it is important to get the right aid to the right people at the right time.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister clarify his answer to the question asked by my noble friend about helicopter gun ships? I understand from newspaper reports that the temporary cease-fire agreement prohibited the use of military fixed-wing aircraft but that the use of helicopters was allowed for transport. Can the Minister say why the Government did not long ago use the cease-fire agreement to stop the gunning down of civilians which
1274
can be carried out in mountainous areas only by helicopter gun ships? That is an important issue which should be cleared up.
Secondly, what guarantees have been given to Iraq, and to Turkey in particular, that they will not be landed with an enormous burden of cash expenditure and a large permanent influx of refugees? The allies should guarantee totally at least the cost of the operation.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the question of the use of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters was decided in the cease-fire terms in United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 687. Since then the situation has progressed. The American Government have said that there is to be no attacking of refugees north of the thirty-sixth parallel, whether by fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters or other means. As regards the noble Lord's second question, the whole point of the United Nations Secretary General's two appeals is to mitigate the burden placed on countries adjacent to Iraq which might now be taking a great deal of the strain.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, will the Minister reply to the question asked by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition about action taken under the United Nations Genocide Convention 1948, to which Iraq was a signatory? Is he aware that in that convention genocide is extremely widely defined? It includes killing or harming people, irrespective of the number involved, simply because they are members of a particular race. Certainly under that convention Saddam Hussein is guilty a thousand times.
As regards the amnesty that has been promised to the Kurdish people if they return to their homes, does the Minister agree that in the light of their terrible experiences during the past 20 years the vast majority will, with total justifiability continue to dismiss any such proposal? That would remain the case if United Nations representatives were scattered throughout parts of the Kurds' homeland to ensure that the amnesty is respected. Will the Minister further accept that the only possibility of persuading the Kurds to return to their villages and homes is to rid the country forever of Saddam Hussein and all that he stands for?
Thirdly, the Minister referred to the necessity of maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq. I agree with him but is he aware that opposition to the Kurdish cause often arises through the fear of the dismemberment of Iraq if the Kurds achieve independence? I know personally the two main leaders of the revolution and have spoken to them many times. I am certain that their aim is not the establishment of an independent state of Iraqi Kurdistan, let alone an independent united Kurdistan. Will the Minister accept that their aim is to achieve a certain degree of autonomy comparable to that of an American state within the framework of a federal state after the departure of Saddam Hussein?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is true that genocide is a crime under international law. The noble Lord referred to the Genocide Convention 1948 under which the contracting parties have agreed to prevent

1275
and to punish the offence. Persons charged with genocide can be tried before national courts. The situation in Iraq is confused and therefore the first priority must be to obtain hard information. That is why the UN Secretary General's representative, Mr. Suy, is preparing a report on the situation inside Iraq. We shall consider carefully how to take his conclusions further. We all wish to see the Kurds returning to their homes in peace and security. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister put forward his initiative.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in the light of the reply that the Minister gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and arising out of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, can the Minister say what is being done for the people in southern Iraq? The Minister says that pressure has been put on the Kuwaitis but how successful has that been? I believe that the Kuwaitis owe us a little attention in such matters because in recent months we have gone to some trouble on their behalf. Perhaps they can be leant on fairly heavily to assist the poor people whose American protection is being withdrawn.
The Minister repeated that the Kurds need to be brought down from the mountains. I do not disagree but it is not clear whether the Government, the Community and others involved wish to bring them down from the mountains on the Turkish or the Iraqi side of the border. The Statement points out that we should not aim to add a new permanent refugee problem to others which disfigure the world. On behalf of the British Refugee Council, which strongly holds that view, I must point out that there is a danger of setting up yet another permanent refugee population in that part of the world. That can be avoided only if the Kurds come down on the Iraqi side of the border and are properly protected for some time to come.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on the first point, I assure the noble Lord that a considerable amount of discussion is taking place with the Kuwaiti and Saudi Governments to give shelter to those in the demilitarised zone in the south of Iraq.
The noble Lord quoted from the Statement which I repeated. Had he read the next sentence, he would have found the answer to his question about on which side of the mountain the Kurds would come down. I said that the Kurds should be enabled and encouraged to return to their homes.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, following the question by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, which I do not believe has been answered, perhaps I may ask this. Surely it is the case that at the end of the war the United Nations was in a position to make peace on its own terms. I understand that there has been a preliminary cease-fire settlement and now there is a permanent cease-fire settlement. How is it that in neither of those settlements was there an insistence that there should be no attacks by Saddam Hussein's military forces on either the Kurds or the Shi'ites? If that is the case, and particularly in view of the use of
1276
helicopter gunships, which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, why were those gunships not prohibited from use by Saddam Hussein? Is it not now possible for the British Government, as a permanent member of the Security Council, to go to that Security Council and do what they did not do previously; namely, to insist that in the permanent peace settlement there should be provision that Saddam Hussein and his government or any successor government should be prohibited from using force against those sections of the community which we and the Americans have encouraged to revolt against them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not have the full terms of Security Council Resolution No. 687 with me. That is the cease-fire agreement which has now been signed by the Iraqis and agreed by the United Nations. Therefore, I cannot comment in detail on the points made by the noble Lord. Suffice it to say that we wish to see secure and safe havens for the Kurds in their homes which must be for their own long-term benefit. The initiative of my right honourable friend sets out to achieve that.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is not the noble Earl astonished, as I am, that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, should take this line? After all, during the period of the war he was insistent that the United Nations forces —that is, the American army and its allies—should withdraw immediately from the frontiers on the liberation of Kuwait. Because the Americans followed the policy of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and did exactly that, there is no countervailing force available to compel Saddam Hussein to treat both the Kurds and the Shi'ites in the way in which one would expect a civilised nation to treat its nationals.
Is it not the duty of the Government to urge the following upon the President of the United States? While we understand his reluctance to commit ground forces to enter Iraq at this stage—and we understand why he has withdrawn them—nevertheless it is essential to keep a strong air presence on the airfields in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Therefore, if necessary, Baghdad can be bombed and then Saddam Hussein will have a refugee problem on his own hands.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me whether I was astonished by the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. I am not. By now I am used to the noble Lord and he now ceases to astonish me. Perhaps on this occasion the Americans were right to follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch; but I am sure on other occasions the Americans will think very seriously about such matters. The noble Lord concluded by commenting on the issue of air power. At present we are keeping fighter planes in the area and the Americans have said that the Iraqis must not trespass north of the 36th Parallel.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords,—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, perhaps I may point out that 20 minutes have elapsed since the Front Bench spokesmen asked their questions.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, on a point of order, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he considers that when a personal attack is made on a Member of this House, that Member has a right to state that that attack was totally incorrect.

Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill
4.18 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed on Clause 1.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 6A:
Page 8, line 12, at beginning insert ("For the purposes of sections 37ZB(5) and 37ZC(12) above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment which clarifies the text of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Introduction of disability working allowance]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 13, line 24 at end insert:
("(10) Regulations shall provide that where a person who claims the disability working allowance lives as a member of a couple and his partner is in receipt of—

(i) an invalidity pension under section 15 of the Social Security Act 1975;

(ii) an invalidity pension under section 15 or 16 of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975;

(iii) a severe disablement allowance under section 36 of the Social Security Act 1978; or

(iv) the disability working allowance

he shall be treated as if he were not a member of a couple for the purposes of calculating his resources and the amount of disability working allowance payable.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 9. This amendment tries to meet objections raised by the Minister on Report on this subject. We hope to convince him that he should accept this amendment.
The amendment is aimed at ensuring that where two people with disabilities are living together as a couple, neither one is denied the opportunity to try out working, which is the object of the DWA.
Perhaps I may take the example of a couple who are living together both of whom are currently in receipt of long-term incapacity benefits but would like to start working part-time. They both find a job earning £85 per week. Under the Bill as drafted, if they both took the job their joint income would exceed the applicable amount so that they would not be entitled to disability working allowance. They would then face the choice of either both remaining on incapacity benefit or one of them claiming DWA while the other remains on incapacity benefits. Under the amendment, they could each claim DWA as individuals and both would qualify.
We are all agreed that where both members of a couple have a disability, their needs are likely to be greater. This amendment would carry two further advantages in addition to providing some extra help to people with disabilities living together as couples: it
1278
would avoid the need for one person to be subject to a disability test for a benefit received by his or her partner; and it would give greater individual freedom of choice to people with disabilities.
The effect of the amendment would be to enable people with disabilities to try out working without risking the loss of their incapacity benefits should the attempt prove unsuccessful. As the Bill currently stands, they would be less likely to take the risk thereby prolonging—in some cases indefinitely—the benefit dependency of people with disabilities. This amendment will be particularly helpful where the capital of one partner will preclude the other from claiming DWA. I emphasise that this amendment does not go nearly so far as previous attempts to establish individual assessments. Any disabled person with a non-disabled partner will not benefit. Only those whose partner is in receipt of a incapacity benefit or the DWA will be eligible.
We have tried to meet the arguments raised by the Minister at the previous stages of the Bill. I hope that he will be able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I regret that I cannot accept this amendment which is more modest than the amendments moved in Committee and on Report. The arguments raised then are very much the same as those raised today.
On Report I argued that two issues must be considered: first, whether as a matter of principle an income-related benefit should be paid to a person whose partner has sufficient earnings or capital to take the family above the general income-related benefit level; secondly, the extent to which DWA should be expected to offer an incentive to disabled people to work.
The answer as regards the first point is very clear. It makes no difference whether the claimant's partner is disabled. I remain convinced that the rules governing income-related benefits should reflect the pooling of resources which takes place in the majority of families.
Income-related benefits are paid for by taxpayers, some of whom have quite low earnings, and we must bear that in mind when deciding who should receive these benefits. The principle which applies and has always applied in income-related benefits is that the financial resources of both partners should be taken into account in calculating the benefit paid for the family. It would be inequitable to do anything else.
The second issue is to what extent DWA should offer an incentive to disabled people to work. Again, I think the answer is very clear and remains the same whether one partner or both are disabled. The indications are that, by and large, disabled people want to work and to be fully integrated into the community. They say that the benefit system obstructs them in their attempts to work. By introducing DWA and bringing in the new long IVB and SDA linking rule for DWA recipients we will go a long way towards removing the obstacles.
We have said on many occasions that DWA provides an opportunity for disabled people. DWA will ensure that disabled people on incapacity benefits

1279
can take work, even at a very low wage, confident that their earnings can be supplemented to ensure they are not taken below income support level as a result. If the claimant has a partner with sufficient income or capital to take the family above income support level it is questionable whether an income related benefit should be paid solely as an incentive for the claimant to go to work; our view is that that would not be an appropriate use of the resources available to the Government.
Disregarding the income and capital of a partner if they are sick or disabled sounds a very worthy action. However, in this case I do not believe it would be a good use of public money. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is a disappointing answer. The amendment was carefully tabled to ensure that we were not encompassing a large group of people. There will be people whose partners are in receipt of benefits. We heard the arguments earlier regarding family income and thought that by approaching the matter through this route we could convince the Government of our view. In practice, the Government's refusal to accept this approach will mean that fewer disabled people will be encouraged to work. We are already concerned that too few will wish to take advantage of DWA. However, I do not propose to press the amendment to a Division, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 13, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (7) of section 22 of the 1986 Act (calculation)—
"(7A) For the purposes of subsection (7) above, if the person is claiming a Disability Working Allowance the prescribed lower amount shall not be less than that which would allow a single disabled person over 25, earning not more than the Applicable Amount for income support to claim the minimum Disability Working Allowance calculable, when their capital is the same as the upper limit.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment raises a complicated point. It arises directly from the Government's concession at Report stage regarding capital limits. The Minister smiles and I believe he is aware of the complications of the argument I am about to advance.
The arithmetic is complicated and I do not propose to go into it in detail, particularly at Third Reading. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the £16,000 capital ceiling, which was introduced as a concession by the Government at Report stage, is properly effective for all disabled people with capital at or below that amount. This extremely sophisticated amendment allows the Government to decide whether to do that by primary legislation, by regulation, or both, by increasing the capital baseline, increasing the amounts of DWA payable, decreasing the £1 capital tariff deductions or a combination of all three.
We welcome the decision to extend the capital ceiling from £8,000 to £16,000. However, we are advised that if the Bill is left in its present form the
1280
regulations could inadvertently contradict the £16,000 rule by excluding a number of disabled people from the effective use of it. The amendment is intended to act as a safeguard against that and to ensure that the £16,000 capital ceiling is operable for all disabled people when their capital is at that ceiling. We assume that that was the Government's intention.
We attempted to use the benchmark of single disabled people on earnings so low that they are below the applicable amount for income support, to set either the capital baseline, the maximum amount of DWA payable or the capital tariff rate—presently set at £1 reduction in benefit for every £250 over the capital baseline—or a combination of all three. The effect will be that the £16,000 ceiling will be relevant to all claimants and not simply to those with the relatively high applicable amounts.
The Minister is aware of the problem and the complicated arithmetic involved. If necessary I can go into it. If the predetermined rate is too low then a negative benefit figure will be produced. That will render entirely obsolete the notional fixed capital ceiling of £16,000 for all claimants. I ask whether the Government accept that there could be a problem resulting from that situation.
The amendment gives the Government more flexibility in solving the problem and avoiding the situation where the £16,000 concession on capital will make DWA unavailable to many disabled people. I hope that the Minister will not think I am being overly suspicious when I ask for an assurance that the Government did not have that cost reducing loophole in mind when they made the concession on capital limits. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, the House will remember that at Report stage the one really agreeable feature was the concession granted by the Minister that the £8,000 capital limit for claimants should be increased to £16,000. We were all under the impression that that was an absolute rise from £8,000 to £16,000, and that that limit should apply come what may. However, we are told that that may not be so. The Government may inadvertently have fallen into a trap which could diminish the value of the capital limit.
I shall not repeat what was said so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. If the Government have inadvertently fallen into that trap, we are giving them a helping hand by means of the amendment to get out of it. For that reason I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. If by chance the amendment does not entirely accord with the Government's view of what should be done, it should still be inserted into the Bill and if necessary amended in another place. Therefore, there is every reason for the Government to look sympathetically at the amendment, which I support.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord supports the amendment. I hope that he understands it as well as some others in the House,

1281
especially those who appended their names to it. I had to read the amendment several times before I understood its effect. It is obvious that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, had similar problems.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made clear, the amendment is a device to require the Secretary of State either to raise the lower capital limit, reduce the tariff income rate or make the rates of benefit more generous. The amendment is not entirely clear but I assume the noble Lord intends that we should be required to ensure that a single DWA claimant earning less than the income support applicable amount—£52.10 including the disability premium plus any mortgage interest payable—should be entitled to some DWA even if he has capital of £16,000. The issues are more straightforward than the complicated mechanism that the noble Lord devised to restrict the Government's room for manoeuvre in making decisions about this aspect of public expenditure.
We debated the lower capital limit both in Committee and on Report. Resources are limited and the first requirement is to help those who are least well off. That is why we proposed then, and still propose, to set the lower capital limit at £3,000 along with all the other income related benefits. Above that level tariff income will be assumed at the same rate as in the other income related benefits; that is, £1 per week assumed income for each £250 of capital.
It has been argued on several occasions that DWA recipients, being disabled, have particular need to be able to accumulate savings. As I said before, I accept that. However, one must bear in mind the forms of capital which are wholly disregarded. I shall not again give the House the various examples of capital that will be so disregarded.
I also accept that probably the majority of single people with capital close to the upper limit will not qualify for DWA because of the assumed "tariff" income. As regards our decision to increase the capital limit, I am glad that this was welcomed by the noble Lords, Lord Henderson and Lord Carter, but I am sorry that both noble Lords were rather suspicious of our motives. I reassure the noble Lords that there is no need for suspicion. It is exactly the same upper limit of capital as exists in two other income-related benefits: that is, housing benefit and community charge benefit.
We considered the points that your Lordships made during earlier stages of the Bill. The effect will be that more single people, as well as couples, will qualify for DWA. If I might give an example using the illustrative rates, a single person whose earnings were equal to the DWA applicable amount will still be entitled to a modest amount—I appreciate that it is modest—of DWA if they have savings of £16,000 plus any disregarded capital. A balance must be struck between encouraging people to save and ensuring the proper use of public money. We believe that in setting the limits as we have we have found the right balance. As I have said, we will continue to review the capital limits and will continue to ensure that both the upper and lower limits are pitched at the right level for DWA and, for that matter, for all other benefits.
1282
An alternative way to achieve the object of the amendment would be to raise the level of benefit, as I mentioned earlier. This, as I believe the noble Lord accepts, would cost a great deal of money although I have to admit that it is difficult to give a precise figure. We provided illustrative rates for DWA in the note we published last November. We propose to set the DWA rates by regulation in the autumn. The rates will be set after considering all the views expressed during the Bill's passage through Parliament and in the light of the resources available. We cannot consider those until the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. I am grateful however to the noble Lord for tabling the amendment and for giving the House the opportunity to express its views and allowing me to set out the Government's position. The issues are very important. I hope the noble Lord accepts that the Government must decide the level at which DWA is set, taking into account the resources available at the time.
The aims of the noble Lord's amendment are entirely laudable, but there is a wider issue. The Government should be given reasonable latitude to set benefit rates after taking into account all factors, including the relative priority of the many calls on the resources available. As I said, we will keep in mind all the points which the noble Lord made and those made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, when we come to set the DWA rates later this year. I hope that the noble Lord will now feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that neither the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I am sure, nor I had any intention of impugning the bona fides of the noble Lord, Lord Henley: nothing of the sort. The whole purpose of the amendment is to try to make good what could be a gap in the Government's calculations as to the effect of the income limit. That is all: no more. If the noble Lord is taking that into account when setting the limits which will come into force in October, then of course we shall be very grateful.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am sorry that I misunderstood the noble Lord. I thought he was suspicious of the Government's motives, but I feel that perhaps the noble Lord is imagining problems which are not there. The limit of £16,000, as I said, is exactly the same as in the case of two other income-related benefits and will work in exactly the same way. Unfortunately, there will be some people who are not entitled to benefit because they have excessive savings. That is the point of the capital limit.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister is certainly right about the complications which struck him when he first saw the amendment. When I first saw it I thought it might have been much easier in Sanskrit. But it seems that the Government are not inadvertently falling into the trap about which we were informed. The Minister is entirely right about the modest amounts that some people get. We are advised by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux that the rates for DWA mean that some

1283
disabled people who have a capital of £15,990 may find that they are ineligible for DWA or that they will only receive a small amount; for example, 80p. That would be an inadvertent outcome, although I am not certain how inadvertent it actually is. Without in the least wishing to impugn the motives of the Minister or anybody else, I wonder whether the Government might have had this cost-reducing loophole in mind when they made the concession on capital limits.
I accept what the Minister says: we have made the Government fully aware of the problem. The noble Lord can be sure that we shall be watching like hawks to see whether they are able to pick it up when they set the DWA rates. I think that the best thing at the moment is to withdraw the amendment and to see later how the Government perform against their obligations and their promises. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Disability working allowance—supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Entitlement to remission of health charges
In the calculation of resources for entitlement to remission of charges under the National Health Service Act 1977 and National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 the Secretary of State shall by order prescribe that payments of disability working allowance shall be disregarded.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to return to the question of the passporting to exemption from National Health Service charges of those who become entitled to DWA. We have put down another amendment which would allow the Government to go some way towards meeting our wishes. I should like to say at the outset that I am grateful for a letter sent by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in reply to a question which I raised, I think, on Report as to how many disability working allowance recipients will be helped by the National Health Service lower income scheme. If the noble Lord had been able to give some kind of estimate I should have been helped, but he has been unable to give any precise estimate. So, although I am grateful to the noble Lord for writing, his reply really has not taken us any further, and the need for this amendment becomes all the stronger.
The purpose of DWA, as we all know, is to encourage people who are partially capable of work to take up work or to return to work by propping up their earnings. If there is to be a real incentive to these very poor people to take up work, surely it is quite wrong that the benefit should be reduced by any amount which they will have to pay for increased National Health Service charges if exemption is not passported by DWA.
We are assured that DWA is modelled on family credit. Family credit provides automatic exemption from National Health Service charges. I for one and, I am sure, the rest of us who have been listening to the dialogue between ourselves and the Minister cannot really see why DWA should differ from family credit
1284
in this respect. I have to say again that the people we are talking about are very poor. They might fall into a poverty trap in gathering the advantages that accrue to them through DWA but at the same time losing the passporting to exemption from National Health Service charges which exists under the family credit scheme.
That is really what this is about. We are talking about people who face immense difficulties in their lives and who are not able to get out to work without DWA. With DWA they may get out to work for 16 hours or more. However, they find themselves in difficulties by having to pay National Health Service charges, which are now very considerable. The cost is £3.40 per prescription, and each item is separately charged. It is possible, with enough capital and foresight, to pay for the scheme in advance, but that is expensive. It costs £17.60 for four months and £48.50 for the year. It was made clear at previous stages of the Bill that these costs would undoubtedly increase the problems facing people who are not already subject to health charges. These people are absolutely at the bottom of the heap as regards income. They may be physically disabled and perhaps mentally disabled too. They should not have to bother with National Health Service charges when they have so much else to cope with and bother about.
It is no good the Minister saying, as he does on these occasions, that the Government think that such people will have enough money to pay these charges or that they should be able to use the annual or quarterly subscription. This is a matter of opinion. We do not happen to agree that the people in question should have no problem with this sum. To the Minister it may be a trivial sum but to the disabled person it is a crippling sum. A disabled person may not have the intellect to cope with these sums. It should be remembered that disabled people have not had to cope with claiming this allowance before. it is putting far too heavy a burden on very poor people. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter. I hope that he will find it in his heart to agree to the amendment at this stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I support the amendment. We have to look at the main objective of the legislation. We want to encourage disabled people who are capable of doing so but who may not be convinced that they are capable of doing so to get into employment, with all the benefits that that will bring to them and to society. They may have great doubts as to whether it is worth their while. They can be very easily discouraged. There is a tendency in many areas for people to think there is a catch in this new scheme. If they are told by their neighbours, "I wouldn't do that if I were you. The next time you go to the chemist you will find that the bill is more than you get in disability working allowance", their belief that it is not worth trying will be reinforced. We have positively to encourage people to feel that it is worth while.
It must also be simple. They have to be told that they will be so much better off—they must be told the exact amount—and when they get the money that must prove to be true. If they find that they get more money with one hand but they have to pull out some

1285
money from another pocket for something for which they did not previously have to pay, I suspect, though we cannot know, that a good many will think it is a trick and that it is not worth bothering with. I hope the Government will reconsider their views on the matter.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to the amendment. I do not think there is any need to add very much to what has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. He set out the arguments extremely well. I was not satisfied with the Government's answer at Report stage. I suggested on that occasion that, as attendance allowance and mobility allowance are disregarded, DWA in this context should also be disregarded. We know from the Minister's answer that the cost is low. These are the people who are most in need of help. We cannot understand why the Government refuse to accept the amendment. It would provide some help for some of the most seriously disadvantaged people in society, people to whom prescription charges and other charges are a very heavy burden.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the present amendment is identical to Amendment No. 51 which was debated at Report stage. The latter was very similar in effect to an amendment which the Committee considered and rejected on a Division. Your Lordships decided in Committee that DWA recipients should not automatically be exempt from NHS charges. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, feels it is necessary to come back yet again on an issue that the House decided so clearly at an earlier stage. Unless some good reason is advanced for giving DWA recipients preferential treatment, it follows that they should be treated in the same way as others with low incomes.
I re-read the Official Report of our debates both in Committee and at Report stage. Your Lordships were clearly not convinced by the arguments advanced then. I do not believe that any fresh arguments have since been found for treating DWA recipients any differently from others with similar incomes when they claim help with NHS charges under the low income scheme. The amendment seeks a disregard of all the DWA paid to recipients so as to give DWA recipients more help than others with similar incomes. The only argument advanced in support of the amendment is, in effect, that some of your Lordships do not accept the Committee's decision on the original version of this amendment.
The great majority of DWA recipients will be better off in work than on an incapacity benefit. They must expect the help given by the state to the least well-off to be withdrawn as their income rises above income support level. Some DWA recipients will be exempt from NHS charges, but those who can afford to contribute to the cost of their treatment should do so. The NHS low income scheme is designed to protect people with limited resources who are not otherwise exempt from NHS charges. The threshold for exemption is set at about the same level as that used in assessing entitlement to income support, although
1286
the NHS scheme also allows for net housing costs to be taken into account. Many DWA recipients will be eligible for help under this scheme but I can see no justification for a special disregard of DWA which would put them in a rather better position than all others on low income.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, also asked why DWA recipients will not get exemption from charges that family credit recipients get. He asked how we can justify that. I said at Report stage that recipients of family credit and its predecessor, family income supplement, have been exempt from NHS charges since family income supplement was introduced in 1971. The Government have not subsequently thought it right to reduce the entitlement of this group. However, it is a central principle of government policy that help should be targeted towards those whose need is greatest. Recipients of DWA will be better off than those on income support and DWA will be more generous than family credit. Therefore it is not unreasonable that recipients of DWA should lose entitlement to automatic help with NHS charges, except for prescription charges where season tickets are available. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, implied that season tickets were overly expensive but the cost works out at less than £1 per week. Except where season tickets minimise the additional costs which can be incurred, DWA recipients will be able to apply for help with the charges through the NHS low income scheme. They can expect to receive at least partial help with the charges unless their income is substantially above income support level. We feel that that makes the best use of the resources available.
I have listened to what noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, have had to say but I remain unconvinced by the arguments put to me. No good case has been made for treating DWA recipients any differently from the way in which others with similar incomes are treated under the NHS low income scheme. I hope therefore that on this occasion, especially as it has been decided at an earlier stage, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I found rather sinister one aspect of that reply in relation to those who are in receipt of family credit. I think the Minister said—I did not take down his words accurately—that the Government had not thought it right to alter the entitlement of those on family credit in respect of passporting to exemption from the National Health Service charges, although it has been in operation all these years. I hope I am not correct and that I am unnecessarily alarmist in drawing the inference that the Government have the intention of altering that passporting in respect of family credit. I wonder whether the Minister can reassure me on the matter. I do not think that I am being in any way suspicious in my assumption because that was indeed the implication of what he said. I since rely hope that he will be able to deny it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and because again the noble Lord appears to have suspicions as to my motives, I should point out to him that there are no plans to do so.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, in that case, I am much relieved. I thank the Minister for the assurance. However, I do not believe that I have a nasty suspicious mind, as he seems to suspect I have.
The Minister did not mention the very small amount of money involved, although he did so on previous occasions. I believe that the amount is in the region of £3 million. That really is a very small sum when one puts into the balance, against the saving of such an amount, the distress which the rejection of this amendment would cause to people who lead very stressful lives.
I believe that if disabled people, such as those about whom we are talking, receive a small benefit which is slightly in excess of that received by others on very low incomes, they certainly deserve it. I do not believe that the de minims argument has any value in this respect.
Before taking the opinion of the House, I should point out that the amendment now before us is not identical to those which were previously tabled. The proof of that statement is that it would not have been accepted by us if it had been.
4.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 97.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L. [Teller.]

Addington, L.

Airedale, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ardwick, L.

Hughes, L.

Attlee, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Aylestone, L.

Jeger, B.

Banks, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Birk, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kennet, L.

Blease, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lawrence, L.

Butterfield, L.

Leatherland, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Listowel, E.

Carter, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Chorley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Longford, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Craigavon, V.

McNair, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

David, B.

Milverton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Molloy, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Ezra, L.

Falkland, V.

Mulley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Nicol, B.

Fitt, L.

Phillips, B.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Rea, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Halsbury, E.

Serota, B.

Hampton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hanworth, V.

Shepherd, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stedman, B.

1288

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Walston, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wharton, B

Tordoff, L.

White, B.

Underhill, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Knollys, V.

Ampthill, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Arran, E.

Layton, L.

Astor, V.

Long, V.

Auckland, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Beloff, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Blatch, B.

Margadale, L.

Blyth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Boardman, L.

Mountevans, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Munster, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Butterworth, L.

Nelson, E.

Caithness, E.

Newall, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Norrie, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Carnock, L.

Orkney, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Coleraine, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Pender, L.

Cox, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Savile, L.

Derwent, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Donegal,M

Skelmersdale, L.

Eccles, V.

Slim, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Elibank, L.

Stockton, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strange, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Flather, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Foley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gridley, L.

Teviot, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L

Waddington, L.

Holderness, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hooper, B.

Wise, L.

Joseph, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Killearn, L.

Wynford, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5 p.m.
Clause 15 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 18, line 22, after ("6,") insert ("6A,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 11, I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 18. These two drafting amendments align provisions for DATs with those already in existence for SSATs and MATs. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Management of disability living allowance and attendance allowance]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 19, line 10, at end insert:
(". In section 98 of the 1975 Act, after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—

1289
"(4) Where a claim for disability living allowance or attendance allowance is submitted, by or on behalf of a person, and the adjudication officer is unable to ascertain entitlement, he shall direct that the claimant be interviewed by an advisory visiting officer.
(4A) The role of such visiting officers shall be to advise claimants on the criteria for entitlement, elicit the relevant information and assist claimants in presenting relevant particulars in furtherance of their claim.
(4B) Such an adviser shall be specially trained in the circumstances and needs of people with disabilities; in the conditions of entitlement for these benefits; and in interviewing skills.
(4C) The Secretary of State shall ensure the adequate resourcing, and monitoring of the work of such advisers and shall report annually to Parliament on their activities, performance and standards."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was put down by my noble friend Lady Turner. When he replies, the Minister will tell me that it is identical to one which we tabled on Report. Our reason for putting it down again is that this is our last opportunity to obtain the response of the Government to what I can only describe as the debacle on the massive arrears due to previous supplementary benefit and national assistance claimants. It is arguable that these cases would not have arisen or would have been much smaller if the adjudicators and other DSS staff at the time had been properly trained and able to interview claimants and calculate their correct entitlement.
The Minister will know that large sums of arrears have been found to be owed possibly to millions of people who have, since 1948, claimed national assistance or supplementary benefits, additional payments and so on. Although people were legally entitled to the benefits, they were not paid, and that fact was spotted by welfare rights agencies rather than DSS staff. Most of the reviews which result because of the under-payment of benefits are achieved using Regulation 72 of the adjudication regulations. This allows the DSS to conduct a review and to pay full arrears without a specific time limit where the under-payment or other mistake was due to the DSS official's error.
However, because of the increased awareness of the possible arrears due, which could be substantial, the estimated number of erroneous assessments and decisions and underpayments, the DSS proposes to remove Regulation 72 on supplementary benefit and national assistance claims. That means that the erroneous under-payment of means-tested benefits to these claimants will never be corrected. In effect, the DSS is rewriting the law and removing entitlement retrospectively. That is obviously both legally and morally questionable.
Our reason for putting down this amendment on the Marshalled List again today is that these under-payments may never have arisen and the DSS would not now be in the legal and financial morass that it is if the claimants had received a proper assessment and service in the past. If, when they made their claims, the adjudication officers and the then common visiting officers had asked the right questions and applied the correct law to the circumstances presented, these claimants would have received their correct entitlement. The chief adjudication officer has
1290
repeatedly commented on the need for improved training of adjudication officers, especially in the offices which have to deal with means-tested benefits.
The House should know from the Minister what yardsticks and standards are to be used in the future. How will the new benefits agency and the office of the chief adjudication officer work together to ensure the training of their adjudication officers? Will the current situation continue whereby the OCAO recommends improvements year in year out which are then ignored?
At the Report Stage the Minister mentioned the use of the telephone help line with telephone advisers. We feel that the provisions of face-to-face interviews with advisers would greatly supplement the service which claimants will receive.
We understand that the department agency will still have no legal obligation to provide information on the state benefits or provide advice and ensure that people receive their full entitlement. To provide a better service might at least help to prevent millions of claimants being wrongly refused or underpaid benefit, as has happened in the past. The reason for putting down the amendment is to give the Minister the chance to deal with this concern. We have used the mechanism of the amendment on the advisory officer in order to do it. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, for the sake of the noble Lord, and to keep him happy, I shall say that the amendment is identical to the one which we debated on Report. However, I appreciate that he moved it as, in some sense, a probing amendment—which is rather odd at this stage of the Bill—in order to ask about the alleged underpayments in supplementary benefit over the years. It may be better if I wrote to the noble Lord on some of the matters of detail.
Given that we are approaching the final stages of the Bill, this may be the moment for me to reiterate what I and my ministerial colleagues have said before about the new assessment and adjudication arrangements. They are being introduced because we know that they are right for disabled people and not, as alleged by some, because they save staff or aid computerisation. We recognise that not everything will be perfect from the outset and we are committed to continuing to improve the arrangements after their introduction. That is a rather long-winded way of saying that, as we said in the past, we shall monitor them. One of my colleagues even said that "monitoring" would be engraved on his heart. We shall closely monitor the new system. A major part of the monitoring will be to see how effective we are in collecting evidence and providing information and advice.
The noble Lord also suggests that if supplementary benefit claimants had been visited by departmental officials and advised on their entitlement, they would not have been underpaid. In response to that, I wish to make two points. First, the complexity of the old supplementary benefit was such that I suspect no amount of visiting officers could have ensured that everyone received their full entitlement. That is why

1291
we changed the system, introducing income support. Secondly, I am not convinced that visits are the best way of advising claimants.
Moving on to training, I too am concerned that everyone who has contact with disabled people, whether by telephone, visit or over the counter, for that matter, should receive proper training. That training must go further than the rules of benefits to which people may be entitled, important though they are. It must also include awareness and education in the difficulties disabled people have and the sensitivities which may exist. The noble Lord may be reassured to hear that I hope that we shall be able to involve the disability organisations in this element of the training programme.
At earlier stages I talked about the major new facilities such as self-assessment, the benefits inquiry line and the need to give them an opportunity to work before we jump to conclusions. As I have already said, I shall give the commitment that we will continue to monitor that closely and see that it works effectively. If it is not working effectively I hope in time that we shall be able to resolve the problems. With those assurances and appreciating that we have gone somewhat wide of the amendment, I understand the noble Lord's concerns and I hope that he will feel able to withdraw what I imagine is a probing amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I know that it is unusual to put down what the Minister described as a probing amendment at Third Reading. The object was to point out that the system of advisory officers as suggested in the amendment would perhaps help to avoid the substantial problems that have arisen in the past.
I was struck by the Minister's remark that the complexity of the old system meant that people did not receive the benefits to which they were entitled. The system was not so complex that the welfare agencies were unable to find out the errors and point them out to the department. The problem arose because the department did not have the obligation to advise people of all the benefits to which they were entitled. I draw the attention of the House to subsection (4A) of Amendment No. 12 which states:
"The role of such visiting officers shall be to advise claimants on the criteria for entitlement, elicit the relevant information and assist claimants in presenting relevant particulars in furtherance of their claim".
If such a responsibility had been placed on the visiting officers in the past, these problems would not have arisen. I understand and welcome the noble Lord's comments about the proposals for training and the consultation with disability organisations. We now have enough on record both on Report and on Third Reading to keep the Government up to the mark on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 27, line 38, leave out ("so far as practicable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this amendment will, like many others which I have been able to introduce during the passage of this Bill, receive support from all parts of your Lordships' House. The House will recall that during Report I
1292
resisted an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), which sought to ensure that every disability appeal tribunal consisted of at least one member who had an understanding of the needs of disabled people. I resisted solely on the grounds that I thought the Government could provide a more effective amendment.
I hope that the noble Baroness, and other noble Lords who spoke in support of her amendment on Report, will regard my amendments as an improvement on hers. I share the worry that DATs must have the right blend of knowledge and understanding to enable them to reach an informed and fair decision on each case. That blend must include people whose understanding of disability is derived not only from medical practice but also from other fields. The effect of my amendment is therefore to guarantee that every DAT will include a member, other than a doctor, who is experienced in dealing with the needs of disabled people, such as a physiotherapist, an occupational therapist, a nurse, an informal carer, or someone who is himself disabled.
This amendment is yet further evidence of the Government's willingness to respond to sensible suggestions for improving the arrangements for administering the new benefits for disabled people. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I wish to welcome the amendment warmly. It is indeed a more effective amendment than the one I withdrew on Report. It was perfectly possible under the Bill as it stood for all three members of the tribunal to have an understanding of disability. However, as the Minister has said, this amendment ensures that even in the least ideal circumstances at least one member of the tribunal will have experience in one way or another of the needs of disabled people. This amendment, and the amendment the Minister introduced on Report (which will generally avoid physical examinations and snap decisions being made at tribunals), will make real improvements in the working of disability appeal tribunals. I thank the Minister once again for having been willing to listen, to consider and to respond so positively in improving the Bill. I also thank him for the way he and his officials have kept the lines of communication open at all times.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the Minister for his response and to take the opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), on her persistence in this matter. She has achieved the outcome that she wanted. I noted the Minister's remark about sensible amendments. The Minister should realise that all amendments tabled in this House are sensible; but the amendments tabled by Members on this side of the House are much more sensible than other amendments.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I, too, wish to congratulate the noble Baroness on her persistence and the Minister on his acceptance of the important principle underlying her various shots at getting the matter right. It is an encouragement to the

1293
rest of us that persistence sometimes melts the hearts of Ministers. The fact that the noble Baroness has been successful in this case will no doubt encourage us to be persistent in amendments which are always sensible, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has said. However, their sense is not always recognised by the Government.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I also wish to thank my noble friend for his amendment and to congratulate the noble Baroness on keeping going, like the spider that Bruce watched. This measure shows that the Government are, as they claim, a listening government.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I hope I may add a few words to what has already been said. I join my congratulations to those of others offered to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), on her success with the amendment. I am sure that is a delight to us all. We are grateful to her for her efforts in this respect.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that I have received for the amendment. I join in congratulating the noble Baroness on her persistence in pushing me on this matter. I hope she feels that when I said in the past that my door is open, I meant what I said. I look forward to seeing the noble Baroness and others coming forward on subsequent occasions with the caveat that I hope they do not do so with the persistence suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, as I am not sure my supply of chocolate biscuits will last.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 28, line 11, at end insert:
(" . In paragraph 7A of Schedule 13 (procedure regulations) after the words "social security appeal tribunal" there shall be inserted the words ", a disability appeal tribunal".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment which ensures that provisions for disability appeal tribunals are consistent with those for other tribunals. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 28, line 19, at end insert:
("19. In Schedule 20, in the definition of President for the words "and medical appeal tribunals" there shall be substituted the words ", medical appeal tribunals and disability appeal tribunals".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Disability living allowance and attendance allowance: amendments]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 29, line 16, at end insert:
("(4) At the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (6) there shall be added the words "or section 7 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment incorporates in attendance allowance legislation a
1294
reference to a Scottish provision that the Bill already has for DLA. The object is simply to ensure that AA and DLA rules are the same. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 29, line 16, at end insert:
("( ) In section 37(1) of that Act (invalid care allowance) after the words "severely disabled person" shall be added the words "or persons" and after the words "that person" shall be added the words "or persons.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Henley, says it, I should point out that I am fully aware that this amendment very closely resembles—if it is not identical to—amendments which I have tabled and the House has discussed on previous occasions. However, I have not pressed those amendments, as the Minister will agree. I thought I had gone some way towards persuading the Minister that there was a lot of sense in this amendment, and that it is just as time consuming to spend 35 hours or more looking after one person as it is to do so for two people. The noble Lord accepted that irrefutable statement. I had hoped he was prepared to make some proposal from his side. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), I have not been sufficiently active in consuming the noble Lord's chocolate biscuits. If I had been more active in that regard, this amendment might have a better future than it appears to have.
I believe from what was said on the previous occasion that the Minister understands this case. He may think there are ways in which it may be possible to claim this allowance for looking after two persons without it being strictly necessary for both those persons to receive the kind of attention that is envisaged in the Bill. Surely it would be perfectly easy for some device to be introduced to make sure that both the people concerned really needed attention, and to ensure that it would not be possible to get away with saying, "Dad is deaf and mother is a bit doddery and they both need attention". Clearly that kind of situation must not be permitted to occur. I cannot believe that one cannot devise a way of ensuring that both persons concerned genuinely need attention— that is, they do not need the kind of attention that brings them up individually to the higher grades which automatically qualify, but they both need attention which is time consuming.
I shall not repeat all the arguments I made in Committee and on Report; but because caring is time consuming, it is impossible for the carer who is looking after the people concerned to earn money— that is what we are really talking about—and therefore the carer needs financial support because of the earnings which are forgone. He needs that financial support just as much when he is looking after two people as when he is looking after one person. In order not to delay the House any longer, I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to the amendment and to have the opportunity to repeat the arguments that we have already had on

1295
the matter. The Minister will not need to be reminded that at Report he said (at col. 903 of Hansard for 25th March):
"The first question is why invalid care allowance is payable where one person requires 35 or more hours of care but is not payable where two people need care and that amounts in aggregate to more than 35 hours. … I have explained that we recognise that there is a need to look further at the first question. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Miss Widdicombe, said in another place that we would look at it again. I repeated that commitment in Committee and I do so again this evening".
A little later, at col. 904, he said:
"However, I and my honourable friend have given an assurance that it is something we shall look into".
The Government have looked at it again in the other place, they have looked at it in Committee here and at Report stage here. We hope that they will now be able to tell us that as a result they will accept the situation. It is a simple one. If a carer is caring for one disabled person who requires 35 hours or more of care a week he or she will receive ICA. If he or she is caring for two disabled people, one receiving 18 hours of care and the other only 17 hours of care, making 35 hours of care in all, the carer does not receive the ICA. The position of the Government on the issue defies all logic and sensitivity; 35 hours of care is 35 hours of care. The Government should recognise that and accept the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to support the amendment very strongly, but briefly. Once again the noble Baroness has made a very strong case. I congratulate her on her persistence. If retrospective consumption of chocolate biscuits is necessary, I am sure that we shall all do that.
ICA is paid direct to the carer and therefore surely the important factor—as both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have said—is the amount of time that the carer has to give. It is the chunk which is taken out of the carer's life which is important and not whether that time is being spent on two people or on one.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, the Minister and his honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State have said that it is a matter that they need to look into. I hope that now we shall indeed hear that the Minister has had the opportunity to look at the matter again and finds that this is an extremely sensible amendment, and that he will be able to give a positive reply.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I shall not repeat what I said at Report stage on a similar amendment save to say that I very much support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I would add that the more people who eat the noble Lord's chocolate biscuits, the less chance he has of having heart disease.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the amendment, and I congratulate the noble Baroness on her persistence. To use the word used by the Minister, this is one of the most sensible of all the amendments which have been put down. According to his lights, therefore, it should be accepted.
Having regard to the remarks of the noble Lord at previous stages of the Bill and of Miss Widdicombe in
1296
another place, I was fully expecting this amendment to be tabled not by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, but by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. We are all waiting to hear why he did not table the amendment. The onus is on him.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for telling us that the amendment is almost identical to that which we debated on earlier occasions because it saves me the trouble of doing so. On both previous occasions I endeavoured to make it clear that the Government accept that the requirement to care for one severely disabled person for 35 hours or more may create problems in cases where a person looks after two or more people for fewer than 35 hours each but more than 35 hours in total. I repeat the commitment first given in another place by my honourable friend Miss Widdicombe and repeated by me on other occasions that the matter will be given careful consideration. However, as I shall explain later, it is not a matter for this Bill.
I also explained that I could not give any firm undertakings at this stage because the issue is by no means as straightforward as it may appear. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, suggested that it would be easy to insert some device to ensure that both of the people being cared for need some attention. I fear that it is not as simple as that. The invention of rules and devices to exclude people who are not entitled to benefit can very often deter people who are so entitled.
In the course of the Bill we have had some success in resolving some problems which have previously seemed intractable, such as the identification of the severely mentally handicapped with severe behavioural problems. However, I urge the House not to underestimate the significance of the shift from looking at the care provided for one person to looking at and aggregating separate amounts of care provided for two or more people.
Officials have already started considering what would be involved in providing for carers of more than one person. It is clear that it would be a very fundamental change to ICA, adding very considerably to the complexity of administering what is currently a very simple benefit. It would also raise some very difficult issues of principle: for example, about what to do in a situation where caring stops for one of the people but not the other. What would happen if someone is caring for a disabled partner and a disabled parent in the same household with care needs of 20 hours each but the caring needs are simultaneous and do not involve the carer spending 35 hours in total? That would create a very much more tortuous adjudication system than exists at present.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that if the care does not amount to 35 hours for the two of them, it does not apply anyway. I cannot see that that is a problem.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness has failed to grasp what I was trying to say. If there were two requirements for 20 hours of care but those 20

1297
hours of care could be provided at the same time, one would have to devise an adjudication system to ensure that the total amount of care did not add up to more than 35 hours.
I am trying to say to the noble Baroness, as I am sure she will grasp, that the proposal creates a very tortuous adjudication system. Although we should like to look at the matter, we do not want to introduce complexities into what is otherwise a relatively simple system. This is Report stage, but I shall give way to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, if he so wishes.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful. I think that I am allowed to raise a point of information. Is the Minister saying that someone can look after two severely disabled people at the same time? That defies belief. In view of all that one has to do for disabled people, how on earth can one do it at the same time for two people and reduce the requirement for 40 hours of care to 20 hours?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord a very simple answer. Some of the care for two people might relate to their laundry needs. I do not know what knowledge the noble Lord has of washing machines; but he will appreciate that one can put two sets of washing into the machine at the same time, instead of two separate amounts of time being required.
The noble Lord has made the point of the complexity of such a scheme for me. That is the point that I am trying to get across. That is what my officials are looking at. It is not easy. I see that the noble Baroness laughs, and the noble Lord laughs; but they will appreciate that there are complexities.
I am sorry that I did not make it clear at an earlier stage of the Bill that I do not believe that this is an issue which can be resolved through this Bill at this stage. As I have been trying to say—and the noble Lord and the noble Baroness find this highly comic —we would want to look further at the problem and at any implications for the adjudication system before reaching any decision. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness does not feel able to withdraw her amendment. If ever there was a crystal clear case for an amendment, it is this, and I intend to test the opinion of the House.
5.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 106.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Addington, L

Broadbridge, L.

Ardwick, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Aylestone, L.

Carter, L.

Banks, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Birk, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

Craigavon, V.

Blease, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Bonham-Carter, L

David, B.

1298

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Molloy, L.

Fitt, L.

Monkswell, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Moran, L.

Gallacher, L.

Mulley, L.

Galpern, L.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Phillips, B.

Grey, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rea, L.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B. [Teller]

Hanworth, V.

Sefton of Gars ton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Shepherd, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hughes, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jeger, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Underhill, L.

Listowel, E.

Walston, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wharton, B.

Longford, E.

White, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hives, L.

Ampthill, L.

Holderness, L.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Astor, V.

Joseph, L.

Auckland, L.

Killearn, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Beloff, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Belstead, L.

Knollys, V.

Blatch, B.

Lane of Horseli, L.

Blyth, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boardman, L.

Layton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Long, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Bridgeman, V.

McColl of Duhvich, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Butterworth, L.

Malmesbury, E

Caithness, E.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Milverton, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Munster, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Nelson, E.

Cox, B.

Norfolk, D.

Craigmyle, L.

Norrie, L.

Craigton, L.

Orkney, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Derwent, L.

Pender, L.

Donegall, M.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Eccles, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elibank, L.

Renwick, L.

Elles, B.

Rodney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Faithfull, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Flather, B.

Stockton, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strange, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Greenway, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Swansea, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

1299

Waddington, L.

Wise, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Westbury, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 29, line 34, at end insert:
("House of Commons Disqualification Act /975 (c. 24)
6A. In the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, in Part III of Schedule 1 (other disqualifying offices) in—

(a) the entry beginning "A member of a panel appointed under section 7 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971";

(b) the entry beginning "A regional or other full-time Chairman"; and

(c) the entry for the President of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals,

for the words "and Medical Appeal Tribunals" there shall be substituted the words ", Medical Appeal Tribunals and Disability Appeal Tribunals".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 11.I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass. Both today and at Committee and Report stages we have had a number of helpful and constructive exchanges on a wide range of issues in the area of benefit provision for people with disabilities. The spirit in which our debates have been conducted has indicated a broad measure of agreement on some points, but not all, on all sides of the House about the importance which all of us attach to making sure that the benefit system enables disabled people to keep on taking the enormous steps forward that they have taken in recent years.
This is obviously not the occasion to rehearse yet again the principles which underpin the Bill or the detailed measures which it contains. We understand why we have been pressed both inside and outside the House to go further and faster. During our discussions both here and in another place we have been persuaded of the need to make further changes. In this House alone we have ensured that severely mentally handicapped people will receive the top rate of the mobility component. We have revised the qualifying conditions for the lower rate of the mobility component to make it clear that the blind or mentally impaired people who can manage a few familiar routines will nevertheless qualify for DLA. We have doubled the upper capital limit—DWA—and we have ensured that every disability appeal tribunal will have to have a person on it, other than a doctor, who has personal experience of the needs of disabled people. Finally, we have stipulated that those tribunals shall not conduct the sorts of walking tests that have caused some concern in the current schemes.
There are other issues, some of them discussed today, which we have agreed to take away for further consideration. As I said earlier, I do not object to being pressed to go further, as has happened on various matters as the Bill has proceeded, but I believe that in time the Bill will be recognised as marking a
1300
sizeable move forward. Indeed, I am encouraged by the extent to which people are already recognising that fact.
I turn now to thank all those who have assisted in the passage of the Bill. I mention first—not necessarily foremost—those noble Lords on the opposition Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, brought his wealth of experience to these matters, and his noble friend Lady Turner of Camden contributed to our debates on DWA her great experience, particularly on employment matters. I only wish she had been here to assist us again this afternoon. I obviously welcome the interventions of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, on social security matters in relation to this Bill. Despite our little disagreement on the last amendment on which we divided, I am thankful for the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Along with all those who spoke at Second Reading, I would like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Banks, back to our debates on social security matters. I said at the time that for me it was a welcome change from my noble kinsman, Lord Russell. In fairness to my noble kinsman, I have to say in passing that I rather regret his absence today, but I understand it is his birthday. I am sure that everyone in the House would like to wish him many happy returns.
I also welcome the interventions from the Cross-Benches. In particular, I welcome the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Allen. He continued to press us—though not today because he achieved what he wished to press us on—and my fellow Cumbrian, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, on his particular anxieties. I am sorry that we have not been able to satisfy him as we have some others. I also welcome the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who I think asked in what part of the House the noble Lady, Lady Darcy, and her noble friend Lady Masham sat. I was always told it was known as the Mobile Bench. As always, I welcome the involvement of the Mobile Bench, and I look forward to the noble Baroness pressing me on further points.
I welcome the contributions from my noble friends. In particular, I was glad I was able to meet one of the particular concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale who knows better than I what it is like to be at the Dispatch Box on social security Bills.
I imagine I am speaking for the whole House in welcoming the offerings of many outside organisations which have both pressed the Government and lobbied Members on all sides of the House on their individual concerns. I am sure we all agree that they have made a valuable contribution to the passage of the Bill through both Houses. Lastly but by no means least, I should like to thank the officials in my department who, as always, have managed to keep me on the straight and narrow.
A lot still remains to be done, particularly on the assessment and customer service front, before the two benefits come into force. But the Bill is an ambitious attempt to make several major simultaneous changes to disability benefits which we hope will prove of great help to disabled people. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Henley.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, I think that we can all agree that the Bill now leaving the House is a better Bill than when it came to us. Many of us believe that there is still a great deal to be done—indeed, the Minister hinted as much—if disabled people are to receive the proper income and cost allowances that they should. The House has amended the Bill in a number of ways which will certainly assist disabled people. There is no need to mention all the changes made to the Bill, but future protection of the grants given by the independent living fund has given enormous encouragement and a sense of relief to disabled people and their carers who now benefit from that fund.
I point out most strongly to the Minister that the Government's response in another place to our amendment regarding the community care component that this House has introduced into the Bill will be a sure test of their attitude towards people with severe disabilities. With the proposals for the reform of local government and the postponement of plans for the implementation of community care, it is extremely important that the amendment we have made to the Bill in that respect should remain.
The final acceptance by the Government of the arguments going back many years to secure the higher rate mobility component for the severely mentally impaired was welcome news indeed for the 8,000 to 9,000 people and their carers who stand to benefit. There was disappointment as well as encouragement in a number of respects, particularly our failure to impress upon the Government the need to take fully intro account the extra costs of disability. These costs are considerable and well documented. It is a problem to which we shall return again and again until there is a comprehensive disability cost allowance.
I made it clear at Second Reading that we welcomed a number of features of the Bill. I will not repeat those points now. The Minister has been unfailingly courteous both in the House and outside it, and the smooth passage of the Bill in a reasonable amount of time is due largely to his willingness to co-operate with our requests for information. I have been greatly assisted by my noble friends Lady Hollis and Lady Turner, who handled all the clauses of the Bill which dealt with the disability working allowance both in Committee and at Report. As always, on this side of the House we were greatly helped by the advice and briefing received from all the disability organisations.
To conclude, the Bill is a better Bill than when it first arrived here, but it does not provide a decent income and a comprehensive allowance for costs for people with disabilities. All of us will have to keep on pressing the Government to introduce such a Bill. I am sure that a Bill of that nature will eventually be passed into law either by this Government or—and here I am confident—by the next Labour Government.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should also like to congratulate the Minister on the presentation of his case. I have much appreciated it even when I have not been able to agree entirely with what he said. In the
1302
main, it was marked by its clarity. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for their contributions to our debate on behalf of the official Opposition. I should also like to mention my noble friend Lady Seear for the part she has played on these Benches in dealing with the Bill. I should like to link with those people all the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have taken part in our discussion.
On Second Reading I said that the Bill was reasonably acceptable as far as it went but it did not go far enough. It follows from that that I am content to see the Bill pass through the House, but I very much regret that only one of the amendments incorporating major improvements was carried against the Government. I refer to the amendment dealing with the independent living fund, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has already referred. That amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I am very glad that that amendment was carried, but I regret that it was the only one.
I particularly regret that the proposal to lower the age for the commencement of the mobility allowance from age five to age two was not approved either in its original form at Committee or Report, or in its much more modified form which we debated this afternoon. However, we can take some satisfactior from the fact that the Bill, lacking as it is in many things, is nevertheless now about to pass through the House.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, perhaps I may also briefly thank the Minister for his unfailing courtesy. He has certainly learnt one of the maxims of oratory, which I have frequently heard recommended from the lips of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. He has learnt the trick that the soft answer turneth away wrath. I commend him on his use of that device.
The Minister said that he had not been able to satisfy me on any of my amendments. But indeed he did; namely, on the capital limit being raised to £16,000. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, just said, the Minister did not exactly satisfy me, but the House did so against the Government's wishes when it agreed to the amendment on the independent living fund. We all very much hope that the Government are considering that amendment sympathetically and will not seek to overturn it in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that he and the department would closely monitor various aspects of the Bill which were raised in this House, and particularly those on which he had given undertakings. I can assure him that not only the Government but also the voluntary societies, including the disability organisations, will be carefully monitoring the Bill.
In conclusion, I should like just to repeat my welcome to both parts of the Bill on the Second Reading. It is extremely imaginative of the Government to introduce both parts and, although we have marginally improved the Bill in both parts, nevertheless we very much hope for further improvements in the future. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that the Bill marks a distinct I improvement in social security affairs.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank those noble Lords who welcomed the Bill albeit they have said that it does not go far enough. I also thank them for introducing various changes that we have felt able to bring in during the course of the Bill.
The noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Banks, feel that the Bill does not go far enough. I can do no more than repeat what I said on another occasion when discussing these matters; namely, that we are living in the real world. One only has to look at our record on spending and provision for the long-term sick and disabled. That record speaks for itself and needs little repetition. I do not intend to repeat it on this occasion. The Bill is a continuation of that admirable record.
As I said, I am grateful for the partial acceptance of the virtues of the Bill. I am sorry that the noble Lords feel that it does not go far enough, but I imagine that that is the duty of the Opposition. Long may they remain the Opposition.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Televising the Proceedings of the House: Select Committee Report
3 p.m.
airman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)move, That the Report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting on Future Arrangements for Televising Proceedings of the House be agreed to [1st Report 1990–91, HL Paper 31].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the first report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting be agreed to.
In my opinion this House has a very proud record in the introduction of television to the British Parliament. Some of your Lordships may remember, as I certainly do, the first closed circuit television experiment that took place in this House in 1968, when cameras were rather more bulky and the equipment more primitive. Then in 1985 this House initiated an experiment in national television broadcasting, thanks to the help of the BBC and the ITN, who paid for the experiment, which proved to be in most people's opinion a great success. That led to the agreement to allow the permanent televising of our proceedings which we enjoy today. In 1989 a similar experiment in another place was instituted and now it too has agreed to permanent televising of that House. In the light of that decision, your committee has sought to achieve an integrated operation for televising Parliament as a whole.
The report is short, I hope to the point and, I believe, self-explanatory. But perhaps I should just briefly outline the main points. We worked in close collaboration with the broadcasters and with the committee in another place. We recommend the establishment of a company to be called the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited. It would have 15 directors: seven nominated by the broadcasters, seven nominated by the two Houses jointly and a chairman nominated by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Of the seven representatives of
1304
the two Houses three would be nominated by the Commons, three nominated by the Lords and the seventh would be the supervisor of broadcasting ex officio. The report proposes that the supervisor of broadcasting in another place, with the agreement of that House, should become an officer of both Houses.
The broadcasting unit would select a single independent operator to produce the clean feed of proceedings in both Houses under a contract. The costs of the equipment and the running costs would be met by the broadcasters, and any proceeds from the sale of the signal would be kept by them. Parliament would bear the cost of a central control room and any necessary alterations to the building.
So far as concerns this House, the proposal is that there should be five remote controlled cameras: two on each side of the Chamber, suspended under the Gallery, and one below Bar under the Press Gallery. However, that integrated system cannot be put in place until the siting and equipping of a control room is complete. At present various sites are under discussion and no final decision has been made. The result is that it will now be almost impossible to carry out the works required this summer and we shall probably have to wait until October 1992 before we have remote controlled cameras in this House. Until then we shall have to continue as at present with manual cameras on the Floor of the House, provided in future no longer by ITN but by the new operator selected by the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit.
From time to time the broadcasters have televised some of our Select Committee proceedings. We recommend that that should continue on the present basis. The most intrusive feature in the case of committees is the additional free-standing lighting which is required; so I am glad to report that the lighting in four of our committee rooms should fairly soon be upgraded to a level adequate for televising. One committee room is now in the process of being so converted.
Turning to the use of the signal, the committee has recommended that any programme purporting to report the proceedings of Parliament should at least make mention of the business of this House. We had in mind programmes covering parliamentary proceedings on the previous day or in the previous week; and we felt that even when public attention was much more closely focused on the affairs of the Commons, at least there should be some mention of what this House was doing if it was sitting. Otherwise, people have the impression that Parliament consists only of the House of Commons. If your Lordships agree to this Motion today, the resolutions of the House which govern the televising of our proceedings will be superseded by the provisions of this report. I would therefore propose to bring a Motion for a fresh resolution before your Lordships in due course.
Perhaps I may end with some well-deserved thanks, which go first to my colleagues on the committee, whose contributions to our deliberations have been invaluable. Secondly, I thank the broadcasters who have made the televising of the House of Lords possible by carrying almost the entire cost, in

1305
particular ITN, which provided the cameras, and its cameramen who have fitted so unobtrusively into the Chamber. They have even gone so far as to wear ties!
Thirdly, I give thanks to John Grist, the supervisor of broadcasting in the Commons, and Robert Longman, its technical adviser, for their skill and assistance. Finally I thank our Clerk to the Committee, Mary De Groose, who has been a tremendous support arid without whose help our deliberations would not have been so well summarised in the report now before your Lordships. I commend the report to the House.
Moved, That the Report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting on Future Arrangements for Televising Proceedings of the House be agreed to [1st Report 1990–91, HL Paper 31].—(The Chairman of Committees.)
6 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I should like to endorse all the compliments that the chairman of our Select Committee so rightly paid to those who contributed to our work and who appeared as witnesses. They have been most helpful.
I wish to concentrate on one or two small points. As committee members will know, I believe that we tend to over-light the House. I am glad to say that as cameras become more sensitive that tendency is less pronounced. I always feel that we are very unkind to the monarch at the opening of Parliament. We pile on the light. Not only do we use the ordinary lights; we put spotlights on her. There is about five times more lighting on the monarch than is needed with modern cameras.
However, the situation is improving. We need to bear in mind that the modern camera is much more sensitive than even 10 years ago. I contacted Sony, who supply the cameras. I asked how the sensitivity of the cameras and therefore the need for light had changed. In the past 10 years three separate models have been brought in, each substantially more sensitive than its predecessor. Today one only needs one-third of the light to achieve the same quality of picture as 10 years ago. That progress will continue.
We have seen only recently what is possible with a very small amount of light. Research into television cameras all over the world—the military progress made in that field was of supreme importance in guiding our missiles operating in complete darkness in the recent Middle East conflict—helps the drive towards more sensitive and higher definition cameras. The cameras are also much smaller. That is an important point.
When such cameras are not manned, there is no great problem about long hours. It is very difficult to predict the length of our debates. Our Wednesday debates are general debates to which we sometimes bring greater expertise than is ever assembled in another place. Good speeches are made. The Minister who winds up takes an immense amount of trouble. However, we can all recall occasions when, after 8 o'clock, the cameras are covered with red cloth and the cameramen have gone home. The answers to the debate are therefore never heard by anyone except
1306
those sitting in the Chamber. It is pointless to spend hours building up video tapes when one never hears the answer to the debating points made. With unmanned cameras a relatively small number of people can continue the recording. The present broadcasting staff numbers five. When everything is in place, with modern equipment, that number might increase to eight, I am told. However, that is a very small number. The camera can record proceedings in both Houses for endless hours.
Much discussion is taking place about the siting of the control room. I endorse everything that is said in the report. It is necessary to have a joint control room for the two Chambers. From time to time there may be additional interviews in a small outside studio. It is highly desirable that the control room should be within the Palace of Westminster. Last week I spent a little time crawling around the attics of this great building. I was amazed at how many dusty little corners there are. I found on the old heating plan Plant Room P, which runs over the top of this Chamber. It was used to provide water cooling for this Chamber until relatively recently. I believe that it was installed about the time of World War One. It has been there for at least 70 years but has not been used for some 40 years. We now use more modern methods. It provides a space 70 feet long, 15 feet wide and about 16 feet high. There is therefore room for two floors.
Another strong runner is the dome over the central Lobby. There is considerable space which could be adapted. Even if it were not adapted for a control room, it must be of interest given the pressure within the palace for space. Taking into account the cost per square foot outside the building, it must surely be in the interests of everyone to make important use of every square foot available within the Palace of Westminster.
I have been checking the cost per square foot of space outside the palace. I had thought that it was about £40 per square foot per year. One is talking about very big money. That is £40 for every square foot that one uses. I am now told that in some places the cost is £60 per square foot. That is a very large amount of money. If we have to use space at Millbank we shall be spending a great deal of money. One of those sites is 400 metres away. Noble Lords will notice that I use metres since I was once chairman of the metrication board—one of my failures in life I may say. The liaison with the controllers, the technical people, is bound to be more difficult if we are situated 400 metres away. One cannot say, "Come and have a cup of tea and we can talk about the arrangements." I can imagine a Whip saying, "Business has had to be changed. You might like to know that X will not take place until tomorrow," or something of that kind. Close liaison with the broadcasters is important. It makes for a better relationship and better results.
I know that every one of the 650 Members of Parliament wants a private room, as do many people in this building. I have the honour to share a room with eight very active Peers. We are relatively quiet but when we all use a telephone it is not easy to concentrate one's mind on abstruse and difficult matters. Pressure is obviously great. We have moved

1307
out of a slightly larger room into a smaller one in order to make room for Cross-Benchers. There are now 240 and I can well understand that there is a demand for space.
The site for the control room will be decided in another place very shortly. I hope that we shall give a fair chance to siting it somewhere in the Palace of Westminster. I hope that during a long recess—it will not be this year because I believe that that time is fully committed—some work might be undertaken. I was told that the Parliamentary Works Office is undermanned. Since there are a number of building firms which are overmanned at present and are longing for some work, it might be a good moment to place work with some of the building firms to clear out the redundant machinery of some 60 years ago. It is immensely heavy. It must be got out of the way for some good purpose.
I hope that those points will be borne in mind by the Select Committee in another place when a decision is made.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, it is remarkable that committees of both Houses of Parliament and the broadcasting companies should have reached such a practical, sensible and economical agreement about future arrangements for televising their proceedings. They are bargains struck between willing though not over-eager providers of the proceedings and keen though cautious providers and users of the signal.
I suggest that people interested in the subject should also read the stouter document from the House of Commons which complements our report. Our reports will be read with envy by parliamentary bodies in countries where the problems have not yet been solved to universal satisfaction. I hope that both Houses at Westminster will accept the reports and proceed to implement them as swiftly as possible.
We can at last accept that the great debate to televise or not is now over. Last July the other place came to the conclusion that we in this House had reached long before: that the nation should be able to see on the small domestic screen what happens at Westminster. It is remarkable that anybody ever held different views. Children of this generation will laugh when they read the history of the controversy in Parliament and about the wild fears and imaginings, just as we laugh today at the stories about a man with a flag having to walk in front of the first motor vehicles on the roads.
Legend has it that the proposal to televise the other place was rejected because the Prime Minister of the day uncharacteristically dithered and wobbled. Privately she came down firmly against it. Some of the young aspirants of her party thought of their futures and changed their minds at the last moment. That is ironic because television captured for history the Prime Minister's finest hour at Westminster; that was her brilliant and brave performance in defending a Motion of no confidence moved by Mr. Kinnock against the Government to which she was bidding a reluctant farewell.
1308
Readers of the reports will take careful note of the arrangements for the archive, which are not yet complete. We must safeguard it carefully. It will be a treasure house for historians, as are the sound archives which go back much further in time. We see the strength and weakness of the sound archives. They do not include Churchill's historic war-time speeches in the Commons. History is dependent upon his studio broadcasts. They do not include the enchanting cadences of Aneurin Bevan criticising Churchill's strategy; nor Leo Amery telling Arthur Greenwood to speak for England; nor, much later, lain Macleod obtaining an instant reputation with a speech on the National Health Service. Our own House has some historic records on television. I think of the Earl of Stockton at the age of 90 lamenting on the sale of the family silver and of Manny Shinwell speaking on his 100th birthday.
Former sceptics of television will read with care the provisions that are made and set out at length in the Commons' document to preserve the dignity of the House of Commons. They concern the rules of coverage and what may be shown to the viewer. The standard format for depicting the Member who has the floor should be a head and shoulders shot and not a close up. However, wide-angled shots of the Chamber may be used from time to time. When the Speaker or one of his deputies rises the director should switch the picture to the chair, especially during incidents of disorder. Viewers should never see an incident such as that when Miss Devlin crossed the floor and beat poor Reggie Maudling about the head or when a younger Michael Heseltine seized the Mace. However, I wonder whether shots which may not be shown to the viewers will be put into a secret archive and held for 30 years. I hope that they will because so many cameras must record what no one is allowed to see.
The broadcasters in this House work to the same rules but they are not codified. They are well observed and our dignity is well protected. However, one day the rules might be lightened, although I do not believe that that will be for some time. Except for the greatest of parliamentary occasions the viewer will see only severely limited episodes of life at Westminster. Nevertheless, he should be able to obtain a good impression in the weeks before an election is called. Democracy will be well served, and that is the whole case for televising Parliament. It is not for the fun of it, though there is fun in plenty, and not for the inflation of political egos, although there is also that. It is done in the interests of democracy.
The report looks forward to the time when there is a totally dedicated channel with continuous unedited coverage from the Commons from the start of business to the rising of the House. The Lords could be given similar treatment. But television will never satisfy the needs of people seriously interested in politics. They will have need of the written record but that is not easy to come by today. The best records are in government publications but they now bear a commercial and therefore heavy price. The slim report from the Commons that we are discussing today costs £12.30. This miserable little 8-page report from our

1309
House costs £85. A copy of the daily Hansard of this House costs £4. That is a heavy burden for the individual student of politics or for a voluntary organisation which needs to maintain parliamentary records.
There are of course the newspapers, but on the odd day a popular newspaper can get by without mentioning Parliament at all. What at various times have been called serious, quality, posh and heavy newspapers are immensely superior to those of 20 years ago. However, there is one exception and in that respect they are much worse; that is in the reporting of important speeches and above all of parliamentary speeches. Such reporting has gone out of fashion. I sometimes wonder whether the media today do not unconsciously regard themselves as an alternative political forum to Westminster. The great political debate is carried on not here by the Thames but in the columns of political commentators, leader columns, windy interviews, letters to the editor, searing dialogues between radio and television presenters and studio discussion groups. Radio and television take up the baton of the written press and use it to beat up the politicians. An electronic medium has discovered that politics is a human drama; that is the least costly drama that it can lay hands upon.
I welcome the politicisation of television. I rejoice that after holding out for years British editors have finally admitted the political columnists. At one time they regarded them as competing with the leader column and would not allow them near the place. Such an enormous amount of comment needs a substantial, solid and objective base of reporting. We do not find that base in The Times, Telegraph, Independent or Guardian. One can find a solid and objective base of reporting only on Radio 4 in a programme broadcast just before midnight. Do not praise the BBC for that. It has an obligatory task to report both Houses. The next morning, the briefer, less adequate and sometimes less objective reporting is wholly a matter for the BBC. That is the BBC's choice without any legal obligation.
It is not only Parliament which is neglected. All serious speeches are treated rather meanly. I do not know whether Mr. Major's critics are right that he is lacking in political philosophy. However, I know that when Mr. Major went to the North to give a keynote address to young Conservatives, no newspaper ran his speech. There were marvellous stories about his breakfast on the journey but the content of his speech eluded us. Although there were many interpretations of his television interview yesterday, which extended over 50 minutes, there are no extended verbatim reports. The Times and the Telegraph gave it a coverage of 300 or 400 words, and Mr. Major probably considered himself very lucky to get that. Mr. Kinnock speaking at length on the future of a Labour Government on the radio received even less coverage.
Fortunately the media, like the political parties, change their fashions. One day a revolutionary young editor will discover the importance of printing the spoken word and perhaps the BBC will then atone for its guilt in killing the listener.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, from these Benches we join with the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees in commending to your Lordships' House the report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting. Its principal recommendation for an integrated operation for the televising of both Houses of Parliament and committees should bring about a significant improvement in the technical quality of the coverage of your Lordships' House and should ensure a sound and stable structure for the future of parliamentary broadcasting.
At the time of the last report in the 1985–86 Session, I was in a sense on the other side of the fence in dealing with the question of broadcasting Parliament, as at that time I was chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. Therefore, perhaps it is permissible for me to say that your Lordships' House deserves great credit for its role in bringing about the long delayed entry of the British Parliament into the broadcasting age. Not for the first time your Lordships' House gave a sensible lead in an overdue reform.
I am glad that the committee is able to report that the rather tentative and somewhat primitive arrangements for televising your Lordships' House have:
"on the whole proved most satisfactory"
The committee has received few complaints. I know that ITN will greatly value the appreciation expressed to it by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees because it has served the House well.
From the broadcasters' side of the fence, I can report that the intensive surveys which are continually made about who watches what on the "box" show that the public have been impressed and perhaps rather surprised by the entertainment value of your Lordships' House on television, and more importantly by the way in which this venerable House makes its contribution to parliamentary debate.
That result has been achieved, as the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, remarked, without your Lordships' House laying down the kind of rules which govern camera shots in the other place. Paragraph 27 of the Select Committee report states:
"This House has … relied on the good judgment of the broadcasters … We have from time to time monitored the material produced and are satisfied that that confidence has not been misplaced".
That reflects credit on the judgment of both broadcasters and your Lordships' House. I am glad that, assuming professional standards continue under the new arrangements, the committee sees no reason to recommend any change in the present situation.
We are now recommending that the supervisor of broadcasting in the House of Commons should become a joint officer of both Houses. Perhaps it is permissible to express the hope that another place may now have sufficient confidence in the new integrated operation to adopt the more relaxed approach of your Lordships' House.
I hope that the new arrangements recommended for a joint broadcasting company and for the remote control technology will commend themselves to this House. I do not believe that the new camera positions

1311
under the Galleries will prove any more intrusive than the present man-manned cameras. Any inconvenience will certainly be more than compensated by the improved coverage, which will bring us up to the quality of picture already obtained in the House of Commons.
I am glad also that the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, mentioned that in the Select Committee report from another place a major proposal has been made for a cable and satellite channel dedicated to parliamentary broadcasting. An American organisation, United Artists, has put forward firm proposals for such a channel. As I understand it, that would be similar to the C-Span channel in America. Those who have seen that will regard it highly. It gives live in-depth coverage of the proceedings in Congress and other public events in the United States. In the beginning that would only be available to a growing minority of viewers who can only receive cable and satellite television. That would be a very important complement to the present coverage by BBC and ITV.
I very much hope that the remarks made in the Select Committee report of another place urging that the new proposal should use the ITC's Marco Polo satellite will be followed up urgently as is suggested. Following the merger of Sky Television and BSB, that satellite is now available at little or no cost for such a public service operation. It has the additional advantage of using the most advanced European technology, giving a higher definition picture. Britain played a large part in developing that technology. The Sky Television and BSB merger has placed at risk the future of that technology. It will be a very useful bonus if the new parliamentary broadcasting plan can act as a white knight to save that technology so that that is not left to the Japanese.
Finally, I hope that the House will fully endorse the Select Committee's report. Perhaps it is legitimate also to hope that once the new technology is in place and it is thought possible to broadcast from start to finish the proceedings in your Lordships' House, it may be possible to have a modest but slightly more generous share of broadcasting time for this House.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I was not a member of your Lordships' Select Committee, but after the experimental period of seeing the outcome of broadcasting the proceedings of this House, it fell to me to move that Motion on which your Lordships decided to make permanent broadcasting of this House. Therefore, I have read the report of the Select Committee with particular and special interest.
It seems almost odd now to recall that at the time when I moved the Motion—and it was by no means certain to go through without a Division because there were rumblings somewhat to my left (not in any political sense)—there was real doubt as to the wisdom of the House in deciding to make permanent the broadcasting of its proceedings. Therefore, it is particularly satisfying to me, having had the responsibility of moving that Motion, that it is now
1312
generally acknowledged that the broadcasting of the proceedings of this House has been an enormous success.
That is largely due to the admirable behaviour of the broadcasters. At the time of which I speak there was fear that there might be some bias in the handling of the proceedings in the House; that some political bias might intrude. It is a tribute to those handling the matter that that suspicion proved to be wholly unfounded. There is general satisfaction with the fair and proper treatment given by the broadcasters to the proceedings of this House. It is right to pay tribute to them for the fact that their behaviour enabled those fears of some years ago to be proved quite groundless.
It is a fact also that the standing and reputation of the House was greatly improved by its proceedings being broadcast. Before the proceedings were broadcast there was considerable ignorance in the country as a whole regarding what was the purpose of the House and what it did. We were perhaps thought to be a collection of rather complacent old gentlemen with little experience of the real world. However, the broadcasting of our proceedings has shown that the House is full of people who, in many ways, are leading authorities on any subject one could mention; and that our proceedings are supported by knowledge of almost every aspect of public and world affairs represented by your Lordships.
I hope that the noble Lord who is to follow me will not mind me saying that I am sure that is the reason we now hear nothing from any quarter regarding the abolition of your Lordships' House. It is only too clear that to declare oneself in favour of that policy would be a vote loser. That is a satisfactory and direct consequence of the broadcasting of our proceedings.
As another noble Lord indicated, Parliament as a whole should be broadcast. If one goes back to the beginnings of democracy in classical Greece the proceedings of the leading men took place in the market place where citizens could go and listen to the speeches and decide how they felt about them. That was how democracy began. In a curious way the broadcasting of your Lordships' proceedings and now of the proceedings of another place has enabled the whole country to enter the market place and listen to the speeches. That must be good not only for your Lordships' House and for another place, but also for democracy.
It has already been pointed out that many proceedings in both Houses do not receive a full report in the press. It is now possible for proceedings in both Houses to be listened to by many millions of people, and that amounts to a considerable improvement in the working of our political institutions. It is therefore a valuable contribution. It is pleasant to reflect that nobody for one moment now suggests that there is any question of ceasing to broadcast the proceedings of the House.
The Select Committee report was referred to in some detail and I shall not go over it, except to say that I am particularly glad to see Recommendation 13. That is to the effect that the whole proceedings of a sitting should be included in the broadcast. I have been in the House on a number of occasions when, as

1313
the evening proceeded, the lights have suddenly gone dim, the cameras been abandoned and there has developed a slight feeling of anti-climax; a feeling that interest was waning. However, as the noble Lord opposite pointed out, often we were coming to the climax of the debate and the wind-up speeches of the noble Lords on the Opposition and Government Front Benches. Under Recommendation 13 the whole proceedings will be included in the broadcast. That is a considerable improvement.
I entirely agree with the proposal to integrate the arrangements for broadcasting the proceedings of this House with those of another place. It is obvious good sense; it is economic and is a good way of keeping the broadcasts of the two houses in line and fairly apportioned between them. I was interested, as I am sure were other noble Lords, in what was said earlier by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing regarding the necessity of finding proper accommodation for the headquarters of the integrated system. It is so important that that integrated system be introduced that it would be a great failure on the part of the Government and both Houses of Parliament if the difficulties of finding accommodation were allowed to frustrate that implementation. It should be a high priority even if other parliamentary interests suffer.
Another point I wish to make was borne out by what my noble friend the Chairman of Committees said in opening. It is that the idea that these changes should be brought into operation by the time your Lordships' House returns after the Summer Recess this year is over-optimistic. In practice these operations always take longer than one hopes or expects. It is more important that we get them right from the start rather than operating by any specific date. I hope the new arrangements, with all the manifest advantages—new cameras, lighting systems and so forth—will be introduced as soon as possible. However, I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that it is more important to get the systems right than to get them operable by any specific date.
Finally, perhaps I may say that your Lordships' House owes a great debt to the Select Committee. It produced an extremely sensible report based on expert knowledge. It gives to the broadcasting of Parliament as a whole a new and effective start which will operate to the benefit of Parliament and of this country for many years. I should like to place on record my grateful thanks to my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees, whose work in presiding over the committee was of such importance, and to the members of the Select Committee. They have served this House extremely well.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, as a member of the Select Committee It gives me a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction to be able to speak in the debate. I begin by taking up some of the points made in a wholly non-partisan way by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. At the end of the day not only has the House of Lords been served well by the committee, but also the House of Lords has served the
1314
parliamentary process well over the past 10 years in being willing to take the steps of which this report is part.
I very much liked the phrase of my noble friend Lord Ardwick in what was an excellent speech from a distinctive point of view. It was a point of view that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said this House was unique in offering; that is, people with experience which is unique and which they bring especially to the service of the House.
My noble friend said that we were seeing history in the making. He was referring to previous stages. However, even at this moment we are taking part in a little bit of history. In 20 or 30 years' time historians of the day, when looking back over the previous 30 or 40 years, will see this particular moment in this specific debate—let us hope in a piece of television film. We are actually making history.
The debate concerns a Select Committee report. Although there have not been many contributors to the debate, they all speak from a distinctive point of view. I thoroughly enjoyed the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. I know that his background as a parliamentarian and other interests in broadcasting of which I am well aware enable him to make the kind of contribution that he did.
I think the other point I want to make is that what we are discussing is part of a combined operation. If we do not look after our own corner nobody else will. People down at the other end of the corridor—and that is not meant to be an offensive phrase—are certainly entitled to look at the parliamentary process but at the same time they say, "Let us make sure we get our share". What the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has been careful to recognise is that the process we are involved in is history ma king because it is a combined operation. However, we must make sure that we look after our own interests as well.
Certainly I should like to endorse the remarks that were made not only by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees but by others concerning our indebtedness to those who have served us. I call them "the professionals" as a collective noun, because we have been served by them as professionals in the service of this House. That is the first point. Secondly, from the point of view of television technique those professionals have made this to be a very remarkable and satisfying exercise indeed.
I believe that your Lordships' House can take some pride in recognising that this report embraces arrangements for the televising of proceedings throughout the Palace of Westminster. To me that is a significant phrase. Many times we find differences between ourselves and our colleagues at the other end of the corridor. As realists, we recognise, if I may use a clumsy phrase, our proper place in the scheme of things. Nevertheless, when it comes to a question of wanting the public to understand what we are about, I believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has said, that a great many people have been surprised, pleased and entertained simply by seeing your Lordships' House going about its daily work. Certainly I think that we are entitled to make reference to that.

1315
Not only does the report help in marking out what our role in Parliament should be but also in emphasising what our rights should be. More than one speaker has pointed out, without being too churlish, that there have been times, especially since the Commons have been televised, when somehow or other the pre-eminent position that we enjoyed when we were the only House to be televised—that was because we had the good sense to say yes while the other House said no—has changed and we have seemed not to be getting a fair crack of the whip. I believe that the arrangements which are now being made will at least entitle us to make our case as regards the arrangements for the directors, the committee and so on. I think that is all to the good.
Paragraph 2 acknowledges that arrangements made hitherto have proved satisfactory and I would endorse the premise that the televising of this Chamber has won over many sceptics. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said he doubted whether there was anyone who did not accept that this has been a resounding success. I have to tell him, without mentioning names, that one or two of my colleagues who said at the time that they were unhappy are still not very happy about the televising of the House. But at least they have had the good grace not to make too much of a song and dance about it. I believe that, if one is looking at this in terms of a vote winner or a vote loser in the context of the performance of the House, the public would give us full marks for having carried out our role in a dignified and educative way. We have demonstrated what our role is.
Paragraph 4 tells us that there are economies of scale in integrating the televising of the Lords with the Commons. While it is right and proper that cost should be a factor, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, it is much better for us to get it right than that we get it now. If it is time that we have to buy, let us buy time. I believe that, although one cannot disregard cost, because that would be stupid, in the context in which we are talking—that is, making history, recording and preserving history—if the costs are sensible (although certain people might jib at going to some authority—ultimately the taxpayer), and we think this money should be spent, we should do it right even though it will cost more than some people think it should.
Paragraphs 7 to 10 deal with what I consider to be the crux of our new arrangements and I am very pleased that your Lordships' House and all its Members are fully involved and protected. We are now going to have joint committees and professionals who will guide us. We are entering into no man's land but, looking at the numbers, at least your Lordships' House will have representation from all sides of the House. I believe that we are going to be very well served indeed.
Paragraphs 13 to 16 deal with the most important aspect of the report: that is, not what we say but how we look. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, also alluded to that point. I believe that it is right for us to be concerned about the image we present. There may
1316
have been some criticisms about the angles and the shots to be taken into account under the old system but, in my view, the new system must be better. I shall not be telling your Lordships a secret if I say that, by and large, comparing the televising of the other Chamber with that of our own, the mere passage of time and the application of improved techniques have demonstrated to me that if what we are going to get in improved technique and technical service is comparable to that which is enjoyed down the other end of the corridor, that will be a very good thing indeed.
I especially welcome the intention of eliminating the "lights out" syndrome, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I believe it had created a distinction because, although we know we are all equal, some of us who speak later in debates are less equal than others. There is nothing more aggravating, as the noble Lord mentioned, than the lights going out. I think it is more a question of "the twilight of the Lords" rather than "the twilight of the gods". I believe that many people have resented the fact that if they speak late they do not get coverage. What we shall have is a system which, as I see it, means that the whole proceedings will be televised unobtrusively and then it will be up to the good sense of the editor and those who manage matters to make sure that the final speeches of the day are given some prominence and some publicity.
Paragraph 24 deals in particular with the lighting. I would say that we do not want to spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. Again, we have to get things right in that particular way. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees draw attention to the intention to light committee rooms so that they are available at appropriate times. We all know in this Chamber that most of your Lordships' Committees are held in this Chamber as a full House, but those of us who have served in Committees in another place know—and this applies also when one sees them televised—that 18 or 20 colleagues in a real Committee atmosphere are able to convey a much better sense of a true debate than we are able to engender here. Therefore I am looking forward to that very much indeed.
My final point is that the modus operandi for a supervising committee to serve, as the report says, as a forum for complaints and representations from Lords or broadcasters is certainly right. We should never forget that television was made to serve Parliament and not the other way round. We have demonstrated that we can adjust and bend so that Parliament will be the ultimate beneficiary of modern, forward-looking televising of our proceedings. For the professional service and advice which we have received, I have nothing but praise and admiration; but it will be the viewing public, the electorate, to whom we must finally turn for a considered view on our changes. The jury on that one may be out for some time but I have no doubt what their verdict will be.
6.50 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, this has been a fascinating short debate. I am grateful to everybody who has taken part in it. The noble Lord,

1317
Lord Orr-Ewing, was always our technical man on the committee and he helped us concerning lighting and cameras. I agreed with a he said today about the need not to go mad about lighting. There is also the intriguing thought of the greater sensitivity of cameras in the future. There is even the happy prospect, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, that one day the lens of the camera will be separate from the rest of the works. We shall then be able to have small eyes hidden behind curtains while the rest of the works are outside the Chamber. However, that is rather for the future.
The noble Lords, Lord Orr-Ewing and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, also mentioned the importance of a centralised control room, which is the key to the whole operation. It is completely agreed between the two Houses that there should be a central control room. There is not yet any agreement in another place on where that control room should be. The noble Lords mentioned one or two possibilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, in a delightful speech, made particular mention of the archive. That gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the Parliamentary Sound Archive. It is part of the House of Lords Record Office which has done a splendid job in the past. It was formed in 1977, following the decision of both Houses to allow sound broadcasting of our proceedings. It then became an archive service for the televising of the House of Commons and also for some of our television programmes. However, the time has clearly come when, with a co-ordinated system between the two Houses, it is necessary to look at its present arrangements. A working party of officials has almost completed its report, which will very shortly be open to view and ready for discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, is a very great expert on television. I was happy to hear that he agreed with most of the report: so he should, as he was a member of the committee. I did not expect any terrible criticisms from him. At the same time he was extremely eloquent about what we were doing. He also mentioned the interesting subject of a dedicated channel and in particular the United Artists company. It has been to see us as well. I gather that, although it will concentrate on live broadcasting from the Commons, it will certainly include considerable extracts from our debates. That will be very valuable.
I was particularly grateful to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He was the only speaker who was not a member of the committee, and it was all the more important that he supported the report. I thank him very much for his kind words, not only about myself, but particularly about the committee. I know that the broadcasters will also appreciate the tribute that he paid to them. I thoroughly agree with him that television has done a great deal for the reputation of this House. In my part of Wales my neighbours saw this House only at the opening of Parliament. They thought that we always wore red dressing gowns. It was not until they actually saw us at work that they realised that we were a working House—and a very sensible working House.
Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. He also paid a warm tribute to the professionals, which was very welcome. He made
1318
particular mention of the Committee Rooms. Some of the televising from our Committee Rooms has been extremely interesting. I am sure that it will be valuable for the future. One day we shall perhaps have remote controlled cameras in our Committee Rooms. The Commons are already going ahead with that project, and they are paying for it themselves. At least we are able to go so far as to equip them properly with the lighting, which has always been intrusive in the past. I am sure that will be a great advantage. I should like to thank everybody who supported the report. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to

Medicinal Products: Proposed EC Regulation
6.55 p.m.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to announce support for the European Commission's proposed regulation relating to supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products (EC 6033/90) and, if so, what steps they are taking to secure agreement to the proposals.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Question is to obtain a long awaited Answer from Her Majesty's Government about the proposed EC Council Regulation concerning the creation of a supplemental protection certificate for medicinal products.This draft regulation was adopted by the Commission on 28th March of last year. It was then debated in your Lordships' House on 25th April. It also became subject to scrutiny by your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities. There has been an exchange of letters, as the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, knows, between himself and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, who is chairman of Committee E. Notwithstanding the lapse of 12 months, the Government did not state their position. Out of this long delay—out of this elephant—has been delivered a mouse, a mouse that was delivered this very afternoon not in your Lordships' House but in the Library of another place. This has placed myself and the other noble Lords who are participating in this debate in some strange position. Here was a government statement, on exactly the subject of the question that I tabled long ago, being delivered in the House of Commons. This has now been partly remedied because that same government statement has just been tabled in your Lordships' House.
The issue, as all noble Lords participating in the debate will know, is over a longer period of patent life for pharmaceutical products because the effective period of patent protection for pharmaceutical products has over the years, particularly over recent years, been progressively eroded. It has been progressively eroded because of the longer development period as complex drugs battle with more and more complex diseases. The period has been eroded too because of the greater time needed for the licensing process. Therefore it should be emphasised at the start of this short debate that the pharmaceutical industry

1319
is not seeking to steal a march and obtain a greater patent protection than is otherwise available to the innovators of new products. It is merely trying to regain the lost period of patent protection and place itself closer to the patent protection available for other products. That is a 20-year period. Under the EC proposals the effective period proposed is not 20 years but 16 years.
What have the Government done? They have, as I have already intimated to your Lordships, delayed. I have to put it a little more succinctly than that. Her Majesty's Government have dithered. Have the French Government dithered? The answer is no. The French Government have introduced legislation on the lines of the EC proposal. Have the Italian Government dithered? The answer is no; but this Government have dithered.
What are the basic facts? The UK pharmaceutical industry consists of United Kingdom companies and international companies operating and manufacturing in the United Kingdom. The first basic fact is that the industry is profitable, and particularly profitable. Your Lordships should perhaps be aware of the figures for 1990. Three hundred and fifty manufacturers operating in the United Kingdom produced a record pharmaceutical product worth £6,756 million. Further, the exports of pharmaceutical products from the United Kingdom rose in 1990 by another 12 per cent. The figure rose by 16 per cent. in 1989 and is now standing at a record level of £2,258 million. If your Lordships need further persuading about the effectiveness, profitability and success of the pharmaceutical industry, perhaps I may draw attention to the record trade surplus of £1.1 billion which was achieved in 1990. The UK pharmaceutical industry was the third largest positive contributor to the nation's balance of trade.
Secondly, it is not simply a story about a successful industry; it is also a story about an industry which makes another major contribution which ranks well above the wealth of the nation or the wealth of the EC. It is an industry which is also very important in protecting health and in alleviating suffering not only in the United Kingdom but also world wide. Thirdly, the pharmaceutical industry has worked under poor patent protection during recent years and is in a much poorer position, for example, than the United States of America and Japan. It is very difficult to draw an exact parallel between the periods of patent protection in different jurisdictions because the patent procedures are different. However, roughly speaking, the USA now has patent protection for pharmaceutical products for 14 years and in Japan the period is 17 years.
It is especially important to note my fourth point when considering the recent statement issued by the Government, that the pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive, both at the research and development level and—I emphasise—at the generic level. Perhaps I may now mention the position of the generic industry. There are one or two companies in that industry which represent a different viewpoint. However, the generic industry as a whole is supportive
1320
of these measures because it cannot exist unless and until the research and development industry has produced the products.
What then should the Government be doing? They should certainly not be dithering. Perhaps I may gently suggest that they should adopt the posture of supporting their industries. They should support their research-based industries; they should support the skilled scientists who work in such industries and, above all, they should encourage investment in the United Kingdom. However, what have they done? Well, they have certainly not given any feeling of comfort to the pharmaceutical industry. Worse still they are muddling the issue by including it with National Health Service costs. That is unfair because there are many pharmaceutical products that I could identify to your Lordships which actually save costs because they enable out-patient treatment to be given rather than in-patient treatment.
By the change of atmosphere in the Chamber, it would seem that we are now going through one of those "twilights" which always occur after the television lights have been switched off. I hope that I shall not be speaking to noble Lords in the doom and gloom of the night.
As well as being unfair, the issue of the National Health Service costs is unsound. Indeed it represents —I raised this point when we last debated the matter a year ago—a startling conflict of interest in the Government, acting as they do both for the supplier through the DTI (supposedly supportive of industry) and for the purchaser, through the DHS, in the purchase of products. I have to suggest to your Lordships that this position of both plaintiff and defendant is most unsatisfactory.
It is of course important to control the escalating costs of the National Health Service. There is no argument about that. However, it should be carried out by use of the proper means. It should be effected by the proper operation of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, the PPRS, or by other recently introduced means, such as the indicative prescribing scheme.
At this stage of the proceedings I believe that the swiftest and easiest course of action would be for us to look at the statement. I assume that the statement which I have with me is the same one as the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will be delivering to the House as his speech at the end of the debate. If that is the case, perhaps I may in anticipation of his speech, and certainly after having inspected the statement, venture to pose a few questions and make a few comments.
Having set out the history on the first page, the statement continues to deal with the National Health Service costs point. I have already commented upon that issue in my submission to the House. As I said, it is unsound for the reasons that I have already advanced. On page 2 the statement reads:
"In judging the right period of supplementary protection we need to look at the historical evidence".
That is the wrong way round. We are not looking at the past, we are looking at the future. We are looking

1321
at an industry which is tackling more and more complex diseases which are most costly to research. The statement continues to say that:
"the average period of protection for new chemical entities in the 1960s was around 13 years".
It is absolutely splendid for the Government to base their case on the period of patent protection applicable about 30 years ago. The statement continues, presumably in an effort to couple the 1960s with the 1990s, to say:
"More recent evidence on the products that matter in terms of company profits"—
I should be most interested if the Minister could explain what is meant by that part of the statement—
"shows a similar overall position, and the level of research and development remains high"
I have to point out that that bland statement is in its generality misleading, if not plain wrong. There are very important drugs which have only had a very limited period of patent protection. I refer, for example, to Feldine. I mentioned that drug when I spoke to your Lordships on the matter previously. It is the non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drug for the treatment of arthritic diseases. However, it only had four years of patent protection. Then there is Zoladex. It is also a very important drug and is used in the treatment of prostate cancer. Its period of patent protection has been reduced to six years. Finally there is Diprivan which is the anaesthetic drug which has special value for day surgery. Indeed, it is one of those drugs which is cost saving for the National Health Service. Its period of patent protection is five years.
The statement goes on to set out the Government's position in the penultimate paragraph. It states that their position is not to go for the 16 years' effective period of patent protection (as proposed by the Commission) but to go for one of 13 years with a maximum extension of five years. I assume that that means that the supplementary protection certificate should not, as in the EC proposal, be a period of 10 years, but that it should be a period of five years. If that is right, I have to say on first blush—and I must admit that I am no mathematician—that I do not believe the Government's mathematics are very good. I say that because if one studies the period of patent protection, on the Government's proposal one finds that during the last six years it progressively goes down from 11 years, to 10 years, to nine years, to eight years, to seven years and finally to six years. On a very elementary mathematical calculation, it seems that the period that the Government are trying to achieve in their proposals does not give an effective patent period of 13 years; it gives rather less.
The most important drugs in this connection are those which are tackling the most difficult diseases. They are the ones which take much more time to pass through the development and licensing processes. Those are the drugs which are the most valuable. Further, it is precisely those drugs which will be prejudiced by the Government's position.
Another factor that your Lordships should bear in mind is that the Government make no recommendation for any change on the EC proposals under which the time runs from the first authorisation in a member state. The licensing procedure takes different periods
1322
of time in different member states. I can cite examples where in some member states a drug has been cleared through the licensing process in year one and in another member state exactly the same drug has taken three or four years longer to be cleared. The date of the patent protection under the EC proposals goes back to the first authorisation. If the Government maintain their present position, the only result will be that we shall handicap a major industry. We shall continue to run behind the USA and Japan. The exercise is to catch up, not to overtake patent protection in Japan and the USA.
Above all, your Lordships should take into account that when tackling progressive and degenerative diseases like multiple sclerosis, Alzheimier's disease or schizophrenia, drugs to combat these diseases must have an extended period of development because the disease itself is slow and remedies cannot be discovered and tests verified over a short timeframe. Therefore, drugs for these diseases need more time for research and licensing.
I know from discussions that the Minister has had with members of the industry that he is not unsympathetic. However, we have had very little time in which to consider the full implications of the Government's statement. Can he give the subject careful thought? In the unsatisfactory position in which my fellow speakers and I find ourselves this evening, I reserve the right to return to the subject later in the parliamentary session.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. While I appreciate his remarks about an elephant providing us with a mouse this evening, I should not like anyone in the Chamber to think that I am speaking against the Government. Rather, I hope that I shall be able to speak up for British industry of which the pharmaceutical industry is to me an important part.
I was intrigued when I had the opportunity to read the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which concerned innovation in British industry. I think that no one in the Chamber will disagree with the many quotations to be found in the document from all corners of the earth driving home how important innovation is for industries in countries like ours. If one is developing an industry with low labour costs in the Far East, making running shoes, or even motor cars with robots, that is one thing. However, to produce new pharmaceutical compounds one needs a fascinating, complex network of infrastructure. One needs schools producing certificate-holders competent in the sciences, especially the practical sciences: chemistry, physics and biology. Later, one must find graduates competent in physiology and pharmacology as well as medical graduates to help test the new medicines. These are all part of an intriguingly complex network of the division of labour which cannot be produced quickly in developing or recently-emerging countries.
To my mind, one of the important attributes of the pharmaceutical and other similar industries to us as a people is that we start in a fairly highly competitive

1323
position. In my notebook there are quotations from people in, for example, Japan making the point that if one is to try to keep ahead in technological industry, one must not let one's lead lessen. It is difficult to get it back. The cutting edge is intellectual creativity. If we lose the people carrying out the cutting-edge work in laboratories or trials, woe betide us! It is like a good jazz band, it takes a long time to get a good jazz band together to go into the future.
I grew up in the Midlands. My school friends were all busy in the competitive industries producing motor cycles and motor cars. When I qualified medically, I did not find it difficult to become interested in the development of new pharmaceutical products. I must declare my experience and background. While I was professor of medicine at Guy's and later at Cambridge, I carried out a large number of trials on new products for the pharmaceutical industry in conjunction with the opportunities offered by the National Health Service. Many of the people who did that work were university research scientists and research doctors. I have been honoured by being chairman for six years of the Medicines Commission which is at the core of the Medicines Act 1971. That Act was concerned with the efficacy and purity of the medicines we produce in this country. It emerged from that terrible catastrophe: thalidomide. That is a catastrophe which has undoubtedly brought the whips and lashes on to the pharmaceutical industry ever since the 1960s. I shall return to that in a moment when I refer to the statement which the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, mentioned.
I am still consulted, I am proud to say, by pharmaceutical companies in the United States and this country, as well as France and Germany. So to some extent I am in the thick of it. I suppose that means that I hold dear the efforts that I find my friends and colleagues pursuing in their attempts to bring better and safer drugs to the patients of whom I used to take care and whom I still look after as a doctor.
Another feature of which I wish to remind the House on the pharmaceutical industry in this country is how often the leading edge work has sprung from British science. I do not need to remind noble Lords about Fleming, Florey and the whole avalanche of antibiotics which have grown up worldwide which came from these islands.
Noble Lords should also know that the molecular biologists who grew out of Cambridge (where I live and work now) provided the pharmaceutical industry worldwide with ways of looking at drug developments and drug actions which were quite unheard of 30 years ago. Perhaps I may go one step further and strike a blow for the physics department at Cambridge because it was the work of the Braggs, father and son, with X-ray crystallography which evolved the means whereby pharmaceutical research laboratories can work out the shape of the surface of the cells of the body. This is truly important.
When I was first a medical student and antibiotics came out, until endocrinology marched through the practice of medicine, from insulin through to the steroids, we dealt all the time with events outside the
1324
cells of the body, usually on the surface of the cells. It is much easier working and checking the safety of one's products if one is working outside the cells than working on the problems that face the medical profession, pharmaceutical scientists and research workers at this stage. We are now concerned with trying to get our pharmaceutical products into the cells. In Alzheimer's disease, there are great tangles of molecules. We do not know exactly how they arrived there, nor how we will manage to get rid of them. However, the molecular biologists have shown us what they look like, and there are prospects that we may be able to find compounds which will get into the brain cells and remove them.
AIDS is a fabulously difficult problem because it involves a virus that has not only got into the cell but also into the nucleus of the cell and right into the main chemical of our hereditary processes. It is extremely difficult to envisage ways and means of getting at the virus and eliminating it.
Those matters are running around in my mind. I hope the Minister will not mind if I say that I was rather shocked by the comment in the statement that,
"The average period of protection for new chemical entities in the 1960s was around 13 years".
The thalidomide tragedy occurred in the 1960s. I do not believe that is a good flag to nail to one's mast. It seems to me inevitable that it will take longer to find compounds to get into cells to deal with the new, complicated diseases that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, referred to in his splendid speech. It is quite clear to me that far from looking back to a period of 13 years, we should be trying to find ways and means to enable these incredibly able young people with their computerised views of holes in the cell through which we can get our new medicines to have a good run, to come up with the kinds of products that we shall need in the future.
I very much hope that somehow the pharmaceutical price regulations scheme, the Department of Health, the pharmaceutical industry and those of us who are still concerned, or will be more concerned —when I said "still" I was thinking of myself—with the treatment of patients, will be brought together to try to find an extension to the fair deals which were struck between price regulation, the pharmaceutical industry and the Department of Health and Social Security as it was when I was chairman of the Medicines Commission. I detect a rather belligerent attitude as regards the desire to ensure that we take account of the considerable cost to the health service of pharmaceuticals. I hope that does not mean that there is a pejorative attitude towards the research and the innovation that the pharmaceutical industry will have to develop.
We have a complicated network which ranges, as I have mentioned, from school children to Nobel prizewinners and from general practitioners to brilliant research investigators who are not all necessarily physicians. I believe this country can strike the right balance here. I hope that ways and means to strike that balance will be achieved. I have just been listening to the fascinating debate on televising the proceedings of the House. In my brief sojourn in the

1325
House of Lords I have been fascinated by the will for people to work together for the common good. I sense that will on all sides of the House. I am sure that is the kind of spirit that must be exhibited as regards this complicated problem that lies before us.
Over the weekend I considered what remarks to make tonight. I did not know that we would have the statement. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will not mind if I exercise one or two of my little dreams. I am aware that the NHS costs some £25 billion to run, but an extra £1 billion have been pumped into it for the computerisation of general practice and for the increased management of the health service. I do not wish us to think that we shall be able to export those computers second-hand to help our balance of trade. I am not persuaded either that the management techniques that we appear to be learning from the Americans will be as potentially advantageous financially to the country as well-designed, new pharmaceutical products.
I know there is grave concern on all sides of the House about the cost to the NHS of drugs. I know that care has been taken in balancing that cost through the pharmaceutical price regulatory scheme. I knew the civil servant in the Department of Health and Social Security who was largely responsible for those negotiations. He is almost a legendary umpire. I believe that he has, regrettably, been moved away from that work for the moment and is now involved with the problems of virgin births. That latter matter may be more important in the long run; but I am anxious to do all I can while I am on my feet this evening to encourage fair pricing for the products that we use.
In general terms, I am strongly in favour of government helping British industry. When the time comes for your Lordships to debate the Select Committee report of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, on innovation in industry, I shall listen to the discussions, and I shall be on tiptoe to hear how the debate progresses. There is no doubt that over the past 10 years we have not done terribly well as regards research and development. The figures that the noble Viscount and his colleagues will set down will show how well other countries have done, and how they have, through their governments, increased investment in research and development, whereas Britain is the only major industrial country, according to the Caldecote committee, to devote a diminishing proportion of the gross national product to research and development.
I am for British industry and I am for the pharmaceutical industry. I have a nightmare in which the West Germans, the French, the Americans and the Japanese run our pharmaceutical industry off its legs. I like the pharmaceutical industry as an industry because it is a clean industry. I know it has had a terrible problem with thalidomide; but apart from that dreadful blot on its escutcheon, which legend has it is due to a marketing decision and not to a scientific decision, there is nothing to be deplored. Pharmaceutical plants usually contain a workforce which is half female and half male. Many of the staff are young people. The research workers are full of
1326
enthusiasm and are well aware that they have some much tougher problems to solve than was the case in my day when we were puzzling over the best way to manage the problems of people with diabetes.
One can see that the Minister will have to stonewall a little, like Stonewall Jackson, after the release of the Government's statement. We did not realise that the statement was going to be made just before this debate started. I hope the Minister will do all he can to encourage those of us who want to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to look forward not to shrinking but rather to developing some technique for extending the patent protection, particularly when people have hard therapeutic nuts to crack.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for raising this matter, even though the debate was strangled at the outset by the fact that a statement was made by the Government in another place this afternoon. I must say straight away from this Dispatch Box that we shall need a certain amount of time to digest the contents of the statement. I am unable this evening to make any considered comments on the matter.
I start with the usual platitude with which the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, will be familiar. We want to strike a reasonable balance between a proper return to the pharmaceutical companies and a proper cost to the National Health Service particularly, and to the users of drugs. That platitude is taken up in the government statement. I am sure that all noble Lords would assent to that platitude. The problem is how such a balance can be struck. I shall not discuss the question of patent protection in any great detail, but there are some peripheral issues on which I wish to consult the Minister. I hope that having given him notice of some of the issues, he will be able to reply to them.
I understand that as the statement was made in another place this afternoon, the Minister cannot elaborate on it other than possibly to expand a phrase into a sentence or to use the rhetorical genius that he sometimes has in making what may appear to be rather vague statements into rather more precise statements. I shall come back to what the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said on that subject in a moment.
Perhaps I may first ask the Minister what is the legal basis for the proposed European regulation. The Government do not take a view in the statement as to whether the proposed regulation is proper in the sense of whether it should come under Article 100(A) of the Rome treaty, which would place it within the ambit of the single European market and make it subject to a qualified majority rather than unanimity, or whether it should more properly come under Article 101, which would make it a subject for unanimous judgment.
Furthermore, there seems to be some doubt as to whether the whole question of extension of patent protection should not properly be dealt with under an amendment to the European Patent. Convention, which again would make it a matter for proper discussion by individual member states. It is my

1327
understanding that a number of member states have already expressed reservations concerning the legal base for the proposed regulation. Indeed, I am informed that the German government have written to the European Patent Office in Munich indicating that they believe that the European Patent Convention is the right way to enact what the Commission has in mind. Of course any such amendment to the convention, if adopted in United Kingdom law, would require full parliamentary discussion and debate. Therefore, there is a question as to whether a regulation such as that proposed by the Commission is the right way to proceed, and indeed whether it is legally the proper way to proceed.
My second question concerns the effect of Directive 87/21 which effectively stopped licensing authorities referring to original patent holders data in giving access to generic producers. Directive 87/21, as your Lordships will recall, was not subject to United Kingdom legislation; it was implemented by administration. That is perfectly proper. I am bound to say that when I was being briefed on this subject I thought that European directives had to be translated into the legislation of the member states. However, it appears that it has to be legislated only if it is contrary to the existing legislation or there is a gap in the existing legislation. It appears that the directive to which I referred, which gives a certain degree of protection to patented products, was not the subject of parliamentary debate or legislation.
The third question that I would put to the Government is the same question as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, put in his opening speech. Have they got their arithmetic right? Is the protection allegedly afforded, according to the government statement (which I saw only at ten to five this afternoon) what the Government pretend it is? Does it simply restore the situation as it existed in the 1960s? Is the protection for 13 years, 15 years or five years? We have no clear idea. On the basis of a very brief study of the statement I share the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, as to whether the arithmetic is right.
I do not want to say more about what the Government have said today because I want to move on to the position in the United States and Japan. It is common ground among all those who deal with the subject that we want to be roughly on all fours with the United States and Japan. The Government have made that quite clear and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, made it perfectly clear in his opening speech. We would broadly endorse that.
In the United States the legislation is governed by the Waxman-Hatch Act, which resulted from a negotiated compromise between the demands of multinational pharmaceutical companies and the generic sector. In simple terms, it extended the nominal patent life by granting multinationals effective patent protection for the longer of 17 years from the date of the grant of the patent or, for a product approved after 1984, for five years of marketing exclusivity. However, and this is the important point, once the patent has expired all states in the United States allow and several require the
1328
pharmacist who dispenses a product to substitute a cheaper generic product, if available, when the patent is expired and if the patented drug has been prescribed by the doctor. The United States Act also encourages generic competition after patent expiry by using abridged application procedures. Therefore, in the United States there is what I would regard as fair patent protection. Nevertheless, there is encouragement for generic manufacturers to get into business once the patent has expired.
In Japan a law permitting patent extension was enacted in 1988, broadly on the same principles as the Waxman-Hatch Act although there are some differences in detail. Monopoly protection is given for the longer of 20 years from approval of the patent or 15 years from publication, whichever is the shorter, or a maximum of five years marketing exclusivity.
I want to get that firmly on the record so that there is no misunderstanding about the situation which exists in the United States and Japan. The point about the United States which I want to stress, without taking up too much of your Lordships' time, is that once a patent has expired there is what is known as generic substitution. Some of the effects of generic substitution can be quite dramatic. There is no doubt that when a generic product is allowed to be prescribed and to be dispensed by the pharmacist it can lead to very substantial cost savings.
In the United Kingdom at the moment there is no such thing as generic substitution except within the hospital system and except on something called the white list which has been in existence since 1985 and which provides government reimbursement only for those drugs on the list all of which are drugs using the generic name. If we look at the difference between the price of the generic product as a percentage of the brand price once the brand is out of patent we come up with the following figures. Where a branded price is 100 the generic price is anything between 57 per cent. at the highest and 5 per cent. at the lowest. I have taken a sample of 12 drugs which have come out of patent and for which there is a generic substitute.
Therefore, assuming that all other things are equal, the savings for the National Health Service would be very considerable if generic substitution were allowed once the patent had expired. The last point that I wish to address is that made very cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield. We all agree that there should be a proper climate of research. We all agree that there should be proper protection, not just for those people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, are already making profits, but for those people who develop drugs for the important, difficult and complex medical problems to which the noble Lords, Lord Butterfield and Lord Hacking, referred. I am not entirely convinced—I say this directly to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking—that that is a function of how much profit existing pharmaceutical companies are making at the moment on their present products. However, I am convinced by what the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, said; namely, that it is very much a question of the proper climate for research and that it is no good trying to penny-pinch in academic work in

1329
the universities and in trying to cut down on research activity where the results of that activity may never be seen, but, if they are seen, they have dramatic results.
For instance, if we compare the number of new chemical entities marketed over the years with research and development expenditure in the UK pharmaceutical industry in 1987 prices, we find that there has been a steady progression in R and D expenditure. It has gone up substantially between 1960 and 1989, the last year for which I have any data. New chemical entities were very high in the 1960s, fairly high in the 1970s, high in the early 1980s, went down in 1984–85 and came up again in 1988–89. It is not a straight correlation. It is important—this is where I join with the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield —to make sure that there is an adequate availability of trained research staff, that the academic infrastructure is properly maintained, that taxation incentives for research are provided by government, that salary levels for academics working together with industry are adequate and that there is the proper availability of sophisticated equipment.
I have taken up too much of your Lordships' time, particularly because I have been unable for various reasons to address the proper problem that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, raised in his Question as we have been faced by a government statement to which I have been unable to give a considered response. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will accept that there is more to this than simple patent protection. Patent protection is certainly part of it, but the health of a proper pharmaceutical industry, be it branded, patented or generic, depends very much on the quality of the research staff and the infrastructure of academic research which we need to encourage. I hope that the Minister will reinforce that message this evening.
7.44 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for introducing his Unstarred Question. First, may I apologise to your Lordships' House for the sudden element of confusion that entered into affairs before we reached the noble Lord's Question and at the same time perhaps I may try to assure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that, although not wishing to extend the range of the debate, I shall endeavour not to be repetitive.
It is fair to say that all of us in the House this evening miss the presence of the late Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran who, I am sure, would have made a great contribution to tonight's debate.
The Commission's proposal for a Council regulation is aimed at improving the protection of innovation in the pharmaceutical sector. The regulation would do that by extending the period of protection afforded to patented medicinal products for both human and veterinary use. In giving the Government's response, we support the motivation behind the Commission's proposal and we fully recognise the importance of patent protection for pharmaceuticals. Medicines are costly to develop and
1330
often easy to copy. The innovator must have an opportunity to secure a fair return for his or her invention. The phrase patent term granted under the European Patent Convention and the national laws of the United Kingdom and most other Community states is 20 years from the date of filing for the application for a patent. In practice, the patent term for pharmaceuticals is eroded because of the time that is needed for companies to carry out safety testing and to secure the necessary authorisation from the licensing authorities. That reduces the effective patent life of approved medicinal products.
We have already provided some improvements in protection. The 1977 Patents Act increased the term of protection for patents in all fields from 16 to 20 years, recognising that inventions generally were becoming more complicated and taking longer to commercialise. In the field of pharmaceuticals particularly we protect the data which the research-based companies produce at great expense in order to obtain a product licence. It is not available to others until the originator has had at least 10 years' exclusive marketing.
Nevertheless, the question is whether the period of protected marketing life is eroding to the point where the industry cannot obtain a return commensurate with the substantial research and development costs. Both the United States and Japan have accepted the need to guard against further erosion and already provide for the extension of patent term for pharmaceutical products.
Against this background, the Commission proposes additional protection for medicinal products which have taken a long time to bring to the market. The additional protection that it proposes is in the form of a certificate referred to as a supplementary protection certificate. The effect of the certificate would be to extend the period of protection to compensate for the patent life lost in obtaining marketing approval. The Commission proposes that the period of extra protection should be equal to the amount of patent life lost minus four years, subject to a maximum extension of 10 years. That arithmetic sounds complicated, but the broad result is that most medicinal products would enjoy a total of 16 years of useful protection.
It may be easiest if I show that by an example. If it had taken a company 12 years to get a European licence after the original patent date, it would currently have a further eight years of patent protection. Under the Commission's proposal, it would receive a supplementary certificate of protection of a further eight years to bring the protected life up to 16 years. In practice, products receiving their first European marketing approval within 14 years of their patent date would receive 16 years' protection.
We fully accept that companies should be protected from so severe an erosion of their market position as to undermine a proper return on their investment. We therefore support a safeguard against unlimited erosion of protected marketing life. There is no dispute on the principle. We also want to see a level playing field—on all fours, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said—as between the Community, the United States and Japan where, as I have said, there

1331
is already provision for patent term extension. But the Commission's proposal also needs to be considered in the wider context of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole. The market of exclusivity which goes with an extended period of protection would delay the entry of competitors into the market. Because the patent and hence the proposed certificate restrict what competitors may do to prepare for marketing, it may be some time after expiry of protection before competitors are really in business.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I would ask my noble friend to help the House on one particular point. When he speaks of competitors, is he referring to delaying other competitors in the research and development industry, or is the competition to which the noble Lord is referring with the generic industry?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I was referring to the generic industry.
This could result in the cost of drugs being higher than it would otherwise be. We believe we need to strike the right balance between a proper reward for the innovator and the encouragement of a competitive market. We must also take into account the considerable cost of pharmaceuticals to the National Health Service which amounts to some £3 billion annually. Here, the present Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme operates to control the profits that pharmaceutical companies may make and counters the effects of higher prices. For veterinary medicines the position is different; they are bought and paid for by farmers and pet owners and their prices are wholly determined by the market.
The question of precisely what the period of protection should be is complicated. In the United States where the patent term is 17 years from the date of grant, when calculating the extension account is taken of all of the time taken processing the product licence application but only half the development time leading to the application. The extension is also limited to a maximum of five years, and the maximum effective life of an extended patent is 14 years. In addition, there are special provisions to allow the generic companies to enter the market rapidly as soon as that period is over.
In Japan, the effective life of a patent starts at publication. The patent term is 15 years from grant or 20 years from the date of application, whichever is the shorter. They also allow a maximum extension of five years, but the maximum effective life of an extended patent is 15 years. A recent press report from Japan on a number of products receiving extended patent protection since 1988 showed an average protected life of just under 11 years and an average extension of fewer than four years. Consequently, exact comparisons are not possible owing to the different procedures for granting patents and calculating the patent terms in both the United States and Japan.
Nevertheless, it is apparent that the Commission's proposal which would give a maximum extension of 10 years and a maximum effective life of an extended patent of five years would be more generous than the United States or Japanese system. It goes beyond what
1332
was needed to create a level playing field. In judging the right period of extension we need to look at the historical evidence of effective patent life. The average period of protection for new chemical entities in the 1960s was around 13 years. More recent evidence on the products that matter in terms of company profits shows a similar overall position. However, we accept there is evidence of a further decline in the past decade for all products. Notwithstanding that, the level of research and development remains high in the present situation.
Taking all those factors into account, we have concluded it would be reasonable to introduce a safeguard such that, provided the overall patent term is not unduly extended, industry will be able to count on having 13 years of protected life rather than the 16 inherent in the Commission's proposal. We also consider that the maximum extension should be five years rather than 10. Those figures would be more in line with the United States' 14 and five years and Japan's 15 and five years—provisions which would prevent further erosion of the present effective patent term.
Therefore, during negotiations we shall be seeking to amend the Commission's proposal to limit the extension to five years. Within that extension we shall also seek to ensure a 13-year protected life of those products benefiting from an extension.
Finally, we think there is a case for reducing the period of extra protection if the proprietor has not been diligent in obtaining marketing approval. In the United States law already contains such a provision. Discussions on the Brussels proposals are continuing. I recognise that the formula that I have indicated may not be the only way of achieving the right balance between safeguarding the proper interests of the industry and the taxpayer in maintaining competition in the market.
Before concluding, perhaps I may address two or three points of a technical nature which were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, quite rightly referred to the important work of the pharmaceutical industry and the relationship between industry and academia. The Government recognises the complexity of research and the difficulty of dealing with some of the diseases to which the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, referred. That is why we support the principle of patent protection and why the PPRS is continuing to take significant account of companies' research costs when controlling the price and profits of today's medicines.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, at the very start of his words this evening referred to what he considered to be the UK's lukewarm approach. I think it important to repeat that the United Kingdom Government accept the concept of protection against severe erosion. But the circumstances in this country are different from elsewhere. It may be relevant that both France and Italy have had more directly controlled prices for products which need to secure agreement for reimbursement purposes and limited competition from generic products once patent protection has ended.

1333
The noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Williams, referred to the evidence of patent term erosion. The available evidence produces slightly different answers depending on whether one is looking at all new introductions or those which turn out to be the most important in terms of sales and profits. Data suggest that the industry achieved about 13 years' average effective life for all new chemical entities in the '60s and that this has declined to between eight and nine years. However, looking at successful products, Professor Redwood showed an average effective life of patented products in the top 100 of around 13 years in 1980 and also in 1988.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to Council Directive 87/21. That gives 10 year marketing exclusivity while not full protection. It delays the ability of competitors to use the original company's research data when applying for a product licence. Indeed, it is part of a series of actions which has improved the protection of intellectual property rights. The existence of such protection is a factor in considering our position. The question is how much further one should go on top of the protection already achieved. We believe that our approach strikes a reasonable balance between the proper protection of the industry's interest and the maintenance of competition from generic producers.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked whether there should be an amendment to the European Patent Convention. We think that strictly the proposal does not need an amendment to the convention, but we would certainly support an amendment to it if it put the matter beyond doubt.
The noble Lord also asked why the instrument being made was under Article 100(A). There have already been laws on supplementary protection certificates enacted in France and Italy. The European initiative is needed to avoid unharmonised laws growing up around Europe, and it therefore falls within the powers conferred by Article 100(A).
What is the position of the European discussion? It is important to remember that the proposal is subject
1334
to a qualified majority. France and Italy have supported the proposal and introduced their own national legislation, to which I have just referred. Germany has accepted it in principle but raised a number of questions in relation to the European Patent Convention, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, also referred. The need for transitional arrangements has suggested a rather different form of protection from that proposed by the Commission. On the other hand, Spain has argued that the Commission has no competence in this area. Discussions in Brussels are continuing. and we should not expect a final decision or position before the end of this year. The United Kingdom Government will continue to take account of those discussions in Europe.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may remind him that in my speech I asked him whether he would keep this matter under review. I should like particularly to ask him, in view of his comments at the end about the process through the Commission with the qualified majority and the difficulties that can be perceived, whether Her Majesty's Government, having decided upon their position on this issue, are also willing to introduce their own legislation in this country pending the final resolution of that EC process.
I ask that question because of the matters on which I addressed your Lordships earlier; namely, the late arrival of the United Kingdom Government and the EC to deal with this patent protection, problem when the United States has had such protection since about 1984 and the Japanese have had it effectively since about 1986. I wonder whether the Minister can help me on that point.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is perfectly true to say that future legislation is a matter discussed through the usual channels rather than on an ad hoc basis from the Dispatch Box.
House adjourned at eight o'clock.