Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill

HL Deb 11 March 1991 vol 527 cc10-64

3.1 p.m.

Lord Henley

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

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

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Clause 6 [Introduction of disability working allowance]:

Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 55: Page 9, line 45, leave out from ("disability") to end of line 46.

The noble Lord said: We now come to the second part of the Bill dealing with the disability working allowance. Mine is the first amendment on that part of the Bill but I do not wish to take up very much of the time of the Committee on the amendment.

At the outset I wish to reiterate what I said at Second Reading. I thoroughly approve of the imaginative concept of the disability working allowance. Consequently any amendment that I move will be either for the purposes of elucidation or to remove some of the many impediments to access to the disability working allowance with which the Bill is strewn. I move Amendment No. 55 in that spirit and in doing so I speak also to Amendments Nos. 61 and 71.

I do not understand the necessity for the additional test —the so-called disadvantage test. I have read the debates in another place and I am told that since those debates there has been considerable correspondence between Ministers and Members in another place, but I am still none the wiser.

There are two questions that I should like to ask the Minister today. First, what is the advantage of the disability disadvantage test? Secondly, what are the criteria to be applied in determining whether or not a person is at a disadvantage in getting a job?

A person has to show that, he has a physical or mental disability which puts him at a disadvantage in getting a job".

When does he have to show that? Is it before he gets the job or after? What are the criteria?

I ask about the criteria specifically because all of the other tests are well defined. There are a number of tests which are precedent to access to disability working allowance. They are the essential passports and they are all well defined. A person applying for the disability working allowance knows exactly what to do. However, when it comes to this additional test he simply does not know when to go about it or how to prove that he is disadvantaged. That is both a waste of time, being unnecessary, and humiliating. He has to prove a negative whereas there is concern that disabled people should do positive things rather than have to prove disadvantage.

Apart from all of the conditions precedent to providing him with a passport to the disability working allowance, the applicant also has to take a subsequent test. After six months he has to undergo a functional test of disability. I do not believe that any disabled person would object to a functional test but he does not want to have to say in what way he is at a disadvantage. In particular, he ought not to have to say, "I am at a disadvantage because I am doing the same job as somebody else but I am being paid 40 per cent. less in recognition of my disability". I hope that disabled people will not have to submit to that type of test in order to obtain the allowance. If that were the case the Government would be conniving at a discriminatory practice by employers; namely, the employer is getting the labour of a disabled person at a cut price. That cannot be right. I very much hope that that is not the reason why the Government saw fit to put that test into the Bill.

As I said, it is a negative test. It goes against what the Minister said at Second Reading. He said: I am sure everyone will share our belief that society should look increasingly at what people with disabilities can do, rather than at what they cannot do". —[Official Report, 26/2/91; col. 885.]

This is an essentially negative approach. It is for that reason, and to seek the information that I have requested under two heads, that I beg to move the amendment.

Baroness Turner of Camden

I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in moving Amendment No. 55 and also to speak to Amendments Nos. 61 and 71. These are important amendments. In my view they are important for the successful implementation of DWA. All of us want disabled people to be able to participate as far as possible in a normal life, and that includes working. The intention of the DWA, with which we are in agreement, is that they should be provided with an incentive to do just that. That being the case, we regret very much that the provision of DWA appears to be hedged about with so many restrictions that only a minority of disabled people who would be capable of some work appear likely to benefit from it.

The amendment deals with the concept of disadvantage. A person successfully claiming the allowance has to show that he has a physical or mental disability which puts him at a disadvantage in getting a job. The amendment seeks to remove that particular requirement. Amendment No. 61 is consequential upon that amendment and so to an extent is Amendment No. 71.

Why do we want to remove that wording from the Bill? It seems to us that a further test of disability is superfluous since people must already be entitled to one of the disability-related benefits in order to qualify for the allowance in the first place. The test itself is likely to be negative, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, and stigmatising, focusing on a person's inability to obtain suitable employment rather than on positive aspects of employment seeking and retention. The concept of disadvantage in getting a job is an entirely new one within social security legislation and will add further complexities to what could in any event become a fairly complex matter.

What would be the criteria for establishing disadvantage? Sometimes the disadvantage lies not in the disabled person's functional ability, or otherwise, but in the perceptions of employers. The Spastics Society, when it undertook research into discrimination in two studies produced in 1986 and 1989, found that when comparing two job applications that were equal in every respect except that one applicant had a disability, employers were one-and-a-half times more likely to offer an interview to an abled-bodied person than to a disabled person.

One of the Spastics Society's respondents said: "I am very dispirited about employment. How long do you have to go on trying before you call it a day?" That is by no means an unusual experience for disabled people. Do the Government think that suffering from a disability may not itself necessarily put a person at a disadvantage when getting a job? That is the implication of this qualification. Just how is disadvantage to be assessed? How can it be proved? Someone in a wheelchair may be no a disadvantage at all when doing certain jobs, particularly in the white collar area.

One of the cleverest lawyers I have ever known was confined to a wheelchair and had been for many years. That in no way inhibited him from applying his first-class mind to a range of complicated pensions issues. He did complain about the lack of access in many buildings and the fact that there were no proper lifts, ramps or any other provision for disabled people. Is the lack of such a provision a disadvantage? There are many firms which would not employ a person in a wheelchair because their buildings lack suitable facilities.

I make these points because it seems to me very difficult to define precisely what "disadvantage" means in this context. Is the provision intended to get people off benefit and on to DWA and then, when they succeed in holding down a job at no matter what cost in terms of effort, to hold that they are no longer at a disadvantage because they have already had a job? Is it the intention that the system will gradually run down after it has been set up? I hope the Minister will assure me that that is not so. I need hardly say that all the organisations representing disabled people have been highly critical of this qualification. I await with interest the Minister's response.

Lord Henley

I welcome this opportunity to explain the reason why we adopted the words to which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, object. In passing, perhaps I may say how pleased I am that the disability working allowance seems to have the general support of all parts of the Committee and in particular that of noble Lords who have spoken.

We might well have had a quieter life had we adopted the wording suggested by the noble Lords —in other words, had we left out those words. However, we decided not to do so because we believe that it is right that the Bill should indicate the objective of the disability test prescribed for the disability working allowance. The words which these amendments seek to remove are intended to indicate that the test is whether or not the claimant has a disability which reduces his capacity for work in some way. That is because DWA is a benefit for disabled people with partial capacity. I hope that the Committee would agree that if one is to give help to disabled people through the benefit system one has to devise a way of identifying the people who should receive it.

The expression in the Bill: a physical or mental disability which puts [the claimant] at a disadvantage in getting a job

is intended to recognise that the reason why some disabled people need a partial capacity benefit is that their disability makes it difficult for them to compete in the labour market for better paid jobs. They are at a disadvantage. Their inability to get a better paid job might arise because they can only work part-time, because they are only capable of work which is poorly rewarded, because they are unable to convince an employer that they are capable of more or because they cannot travel to where there are better jobs available or for some other reason. The expression is also intended to bring within the benefit disabled people in work who are doing jobs for which they are fully, rather than partially, capable but who could compete only for a limited range of other jobs because of their disability —the blind telephonist is an obvious example; the lawyer in the wheelchair whom the noble Baroness mentioned is another.

This brings me on to what the adjudication officers themselves will have to do. I must stress that they themselves will not have to judge whether someone is at a disadvantage in getting a job. Objective criteria will be set out in regulations. If those are satisfied, the claimant will be deemed to have passed the test. It will certainly not be the test that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, mentioned; namely, that the claimant is being paid less. Adjudication officers will not have to decide whether the claimant is actually at a disadvantage in getting the job that he has, only whether the objective criteria in the regulations are satisfied.

I believe that there has been some misunderstanding of our intentions. The wording of the Bill does not imply that the Government consider disabled people to be inherently less employable than able-bodied people. I know that the Committee will accept that that is not the case. Nor is it our intention to humiliate disabled people. I hope that I can give the noble Baroness that assurance. I have no doubt that later in the Bill we shall have other opportunities to explain in more detail how the test will be administered and to reassure noble Lords that the test has been designed so as not to be an ordeal or an obstacle to the disabled people for whom the benefit is intended.

Having said that, we believe that the words: a physical or mental disability which puts him at a disadvantage in getting a job",

convey the concept that the test should be one which looks at disabilities which affect the claimant's ability to compete with similar able-bodied people in obtaining work. However, if the committee feels that there is a better form of words, I shall be happy to discuss the matter and bring forward an amendment at Report stage. But I must stress that I should have to be satisfied that the wording of the Bill permitted my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to set out in regulations a test which is appropriate for the disability working allowance.

With that assurance I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will feel able to withdraw the amendment. If he cares to come forward with some other suggestions or if he would like to come to see me, my door will certainly be open, as I have said on earlier occasions.

3.15 p.m.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that conciliatory reply. I very much hope that I and perhaps some of my friends will be able to avail ourselves of his very kind offer to go to see him. At this stage I thank him very much for giving the underlying reason for drafting the Bill as it stands. Would he possibly be able to let us have sight now of the objective criteria which will be laid by regulation so that we can look at them in time for the report stage? Clearly one does not expect to have them in exact form but it would be nice to know how the Government are thinking. If we have them in draft form, I believe that that will help us greatly.

Having said that, I intend to withdraw the amendment but only after making the observation that comparatively harmless conditions are sometimes humiliating to disabled people. For instance, there is the requirement to register as a disabled person before one can operate under the quota system for employment. A large number of disabled people for various reasons which I assure the Committee are valid, do not wish to register and therefore the quota system does not apply to them. It is a matter of human feeling, and they do not register. I should like the Minister kindly to examine this provision in the light of possible feelings of humiliation among disabled people which may arise from the Bill as now drafted.

Lord Henley

As I said, we certainly would not want to do anything that might imply some humiliation for disabled people. However, I should have to be satisfied that, whatever the wording, it permitted my right honourable friend to set out the test. That is the main point. But if our words are not the right ones we should certainly be prepared to discuss the matter.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

It was never my intention to suggest or imply that the Government intended in any way to humiliate disabled people. I ask them just to re-examine the wording in the light of possible feelings of humiliation.

Lord Shepherd

The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, asked whether it was possible for him and his friends to see a rough draft of the regulations. I believe that it would be helpful if that could be made available in the Library. We recognise that it is only a rough draft but it would be an indication for all noble Lords if we have to look again at this matter on Report.

Lord Henley

I shall be prepared to consider that matter when the noble Lord comes to see me.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 56:

Page 10, line 7, at end insert: ("(e) for the purposes of this subsection "remunerative work" means work undertaken for 8 hours or more a week.").

The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to specify in legislation precisely what is meant by "remunerative work". The notes on DWA issued by the DSS indicate that that will in practice be defined as 16 hours per week. However, that is not acceptable. Many disabled people can undertake some work but not necessarily 16 hours continuously per week. I have some examples of disabilities provided by RADAR. That organisation states: The first group are those who are unable to work 16 hours a week at any time and for whom this is a permanent situation. The fatigue and pain associated with multiple sclerosis or with arthritis frequently limits the number of hours people can work. For a number of months a person may well be able to work 16 hours or more a week. But then there may be a relapse where they can continue working but only for a reduced period. Ironically it was pressure from these groups which led to the campaign for a partial incapacity benefit. It is these groups which often have more erratic work patterns due to the fluctuating nature of their disabilities. The DWA will not offer an incentive to people with fluctuating disabilities who know before they start that the disabling effects of their condition are not being taken into account. The second group are those people who may eventually be able to return to work on a full time bask but are recovering from an illness or accident. For them the value of being able to return to work on a gradual basis starting with a few hours a week and building up hours with time should not be underestimated. Despite its stated aim in The Way Ahead that a disability employment credit would also provide short-term rehabilitation help for people in the transition from unemployment to full-time work, the Government has missed an opportunity to provide for people in this situation".

Furthermore, the 16-hour rule will, it seems to me, force disabled people into the lowest paid employment. The argument has been advanced by the Government that relating DWA to 16 hours a week brings such employees within the range of employment protection. But there is no reason why such protection should not be available to people working eight hours or less a week. Indeed, that is proposed in one of the draft directives debated recently in this Chamber when we discussed your Lordships' Select Committee report on part time workers. In the meantime, we believe that the DWA will benefit larger numbers of disabled only if the amendment that we have put down for debate is accepted. I beg to move.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

I support the amendment. Two main groups require the flexibility that the amendment allows but which the Bill as drafted does not. The first group is those people who are unable to work the full 16 hours at any time and for whom that is a permanent situation. There are disabled people who would very much like to work for 16 hours a week but who are unable to do so. Unless this amendment is agreed to, they would be permanently excluded from the benefits of this part of the Bill.

The second group are people who might be able eventually to return to work on a full time basis but in the meantime are recovering from an illness and would very much like to work their way into a full time job again. They can do so only by working perhaps five to six hours, then eight to nine hours, nine to ten hours and 15 to 16 hours a week.

Both groups will be disadvantaged by the Bill as drafted. I should like the noble Lord who speaks from the Government Front Bench to indicate that he can allow some flexibility to meet those two groups.

Baroness Seear

I too support the amendment. The point has been made by both speakers that it is of the greatest importance to encourage people with disabilities to work again. It should be made as easy as possible, with the maximum amount of incentive to make them feel that the effort is worthwhile. Once that has happened, they may well move on from eight hours to 16 hours, or even many more, a week. If they can do so, it is to the benefit not only of the disabled person but also the employer and indeed the economy. The economy benefits from their work since it will be saved from paying benefits which the Government would otherwise have to pay them.

Lord Henley

As the noble Baroness said, this amendment will allow people to claim disability working allowance if they are working as little as eight hours a week or more.

I believe the arguments against it are convincing and therefore I cannot recommend that the Bill should be amended in the way suggested.

When we were developing our proposals for disability working allowance we received a number of comments on this aspect of the benefit. We were urged to consider letting people claim even though they were working for fewer hours than the present family credit minimum —that is, 24 hours a week.

The Disability Benefits Consortium said that we should allow people to claim if they were able to work two or three days a week. Others suggested that people should be able to claim if they were working 16 hours a week. Supporters of this option included the Work Rehabilitation Forum, a consortium which includes among its members MIND, MENCAP and a number of organisations involved in rehabilitation.

This seemed powerful evidence that we should consider setting the starting level somewhat below that for family credit, which is 24 hours a week. Sixteen hours seemed to us to be sensible for a number of reasons. If the number of hours that someone works is sometimes fewer than 16 hours a week we shall take an average over five weeks —or some other period as necessary —to arrive at a more representative figure.

The noble Baroness was not attracted by the argument that we should follow employment protection legislation. She cited the EC draft directive which relates to employment protection for people working more than 12 hours. It is only a draft directive. It is at a very preliminary stage of investigation. There is no certainty that it will be passed. People who work for 16 hours a week for two years are entitled to the full advantages of employment protection legislation. People working fewer than 16 hours a week do not qualify until they have been employed continuously by the same employer for five years.

If we had decided to adopt the rule suggested by the noble Baroness, I suspect people might have said that we were pushing disabled people to take jobs which did not give them this protection after two years. In any case, we thought it right to restrict DWA to people working to the extent that they would acquire full employment protection within two years —that is also the duration of the new long linking period we are introducing for DWA recipients who decide to give up invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance.

I think the more important point is that disability working allowance is designed to be a benefit for people in work. Sixteen hours represents about 40 per cent. of a week's work —two full days a week, as suggested by the Disability Benefits Consortium. I cannot imagine that many people who can work only eight hours a week —only one full day —are likely to give up the security of their incapacity benefit and take the inevitably risky decision to depend on their earnings for a significant proportion of their income.

Some cannot work for 16 hours, and the benefit system clearly should —and in fact does —recognise that fact. They must be allowed to do so. They will continue to need the full support of the benefit system. This support will continue to be provided.

Disabled people working for fewer than 16 hours per week will still be able to claim income support and will still receive the higher £15 per week disregard. I stress again that 16 hours is the figure for income support as it will be for DWA and for family credit after April. Some will be able to take advantage of the therapeutic earnings rule in invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance which allows disabled people to do some work (provided it is of a therapeutic nature) and earn up to £35 a week and still keep their full IVB or SDA. That will remain unchanged.

DWA adds to the range of options open to disabled people who want to do some work. Which of the options they choose will depend on them and their circumstances. For some, one of the options may become their means of support for a long period —perhaps all the time they are able to work. For others the different options will provide a way to move progressively into work. But, I repeat, DWA offers an extra option designed specifically for people who are able to work to an extent which at least approaches half time.

The therapeutic earnings rule and income support will continue to provide the safety net which is needed by people who have only a very limited capacity for work. These include disabled people who want to keep in touch with the labour market or want to keep up their work skills and also people who are making their first steps towards employment and want to see if they can manage just a few hours a week.

I have listened to the arguments advanced by the noble Baroness for allowing people who work only eight hours a week to claim DWA. But I remain to be convinced. I hope that what I have said about the other safeguards will persuade the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.

3.30 p.m.

Baroness Turner of Camden

I thank the Minister for that very full explanation, particularly in regard to the other safety nets —income support and the therapeutic earnings allowance. I am not entirely convinced that my amendment is not reasonable because it seems to me —the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, emphasised this —that it is important to try to get people back into some work. As we have indicated this afternoon, many disabled people will not feel able to tackle 16 hours a week all at once.

As regards the employment protection considerations, while it is true that they would be outside those provisions —eight hours per week —and the disabled person would have to be working for five years in a particular employment before employment protection became available, nevertheless it is a rather sad fact of life that that would in any case apply to relatively few disabled people. Therefore, they would not be losing very much; though we do not believe that they should lose employment protection in any event.

However, in the circumstances I do not intend to press the amendment at this stage. I shall look carefully at what the noble Lord said in such detail —and I thank him for that explanation —to see whether we need to advance similar arguments on Report for a different qualifying period. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 57:

Page 10, line 7, at end insert: ("(6AA) A claim for the disability working allowance will be accepted from a person who expects to be engaged and normally engaged in remunerative work within four weeks of making that claim where he can show that he is likely to satisfy the criteria specified in (b) to (d) of subsection (6A) above upon his commencement of that work. (6AB) Where an advance claim made under subsection (6AA) above is submitted the adjudication officer shall proceed to deal with all the questions arising so far as is practicable. However no payment of the disability working allowance shall be made before the week in which the claimant commences work.").

The noble Baroness said: The object of the amendment is to allow claimants to make a claim in advance so that they can be assured of receiving the DWA as quickly as possible.

The Government said that the purpose of the DWA is to provide an incentive for disabled people to take up remunerative work. As we said on the previous two amendments, that is an aim with which I am sure everybody in this Committee is in complete agreement. However, without the facility to make a claim in advance of seeking work, since the payment of itself involves the loss of other benefits, many disabled people may not want to take the risk. Half the prospective DWA claimants will be coming off invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance. It must be remembered that in the main we are talking about very poor people. They must wait for their first week's wages. To my knowledge no employer ever pays in advance.

I understand that it is the Government's intention that it will be possible and will be simple enough for the claimants to have everything sorted out by their first day or two at work. However, according to the Disability Alliance the claimants must stop their claims to IVB or SDA and, if relevant, must stop claims to income support. Housing benefit must be reclaimed and different sets of details provided. Community charge benefit must be reclaimed notifying changed circumstances. Claimants must obtain details from their employers to give to the DSS and claimants must physically go the DSS office on their first day of work to give proof of earnings and hours in order to show entitlement to DWA. It seems to me that that is rather a lot for a disabled person to cope with when remunerative employment has been obtained.

The Government have promised a fast track for DWA claimants. However, the organisations representing the disabled, to whom I am indebted for much of the briefing on this Bill, are not reassured. With those comments, I beg to move.

Baroness Fisher of Rednal

Perhaps my noble friend will agree that while a claimant must go to the DSS once he obtains work, after about a month at work, because of changed circumstances, he may find that it is necessary to return to the DSS office. Therefore, he will not know what his income is from week to week. That may be because of his disablement or the need for more hospital treatment, and so on. Therefore, his income is constantly in a state of flux.

Baroness Phillips

We all know that disabled people must go through these procedures. One looks at this legislation and the mind boggles. Are these people legally trained? If one receives an allowance to which one is not entitled because of a misunderstanding as regards the form, one is made to feel that one has cheated the state. I can remember part-time workers who had received some money due to a genuine misunderstanding. I believe the princely sum of about £2 was involved. The money was taken from them in such a way that they felt totally humiliated; but it was merely a misunderstanding.

I have read and re-read these clauses. I find them extremely difficult to understand. One must know precisely what are all the benefits. They may apply also to other members of the family. It is very important that the forms should be simple, comprehensible and one should not have to wait before one commences work to be able to claim. We must appeal to the Government because this legislation is intended to make life better for the disabled. Therefore, it must be comprehensible and humane.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

We are speaking of very poor claimants who would find it very difficult to cope with a week's loss of money and the legal complications in order to ascertain that their claims are not against the law and that they will not lose out. Both of those are very important considerations.

However, all those matters are compounded when one is not merely very poor but also mentally handicapped. I do not know how a mentally handicapped person can possibly grasp the sort of technicalities which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, put before us. The mind boggles. This is an extraordinarily complicated Bill and everything should be made easier for poor and, indeed, mentally handicapped people. If the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, finds the Bill difficult to follow, how much more difficult it will be for these people at the bottom of the social heap.

I ask the noble Lord to ensure that guidance is made available not merely for the disabled and mentally handicapped people but also for their carers. Even those people working in citizens' advice bureaux need a guide to this tangled web of legislation. While I am about it, will the Minister tell us when this legislation is to be consolidated, because as drafted it is totally unintelligible except, I should imagine, to the draftsman.

Lord Henley

Obviously I would accept that any legislation on this subject is always complicated and difficult even for those of us trained in the law to understand. But I ought to stress to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that obviously we are not expecting any individual claimant to have to read the Act. We hope —and I think that this is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, was making —that the forms and procedures we produce will be kept as simple as possible so that they can be understood by as many people as possible or by their advisers.

I like to think that our record in the Department of Social Security has steadily improved over the years and that our forms have improved. I like to boast that we have on more than one occasion over the past 10 years managed to win awards from the Plain English Society for the standard of our leaflets. One hopes that, if the Plain English Society says that they are all right, then they probably are all right. If the noble Baroness would like to make any comments about any of our forms, or the forms that will be necessary for the disability working allowance when they come out, we will certainly take note of her comments and the comments of all those representing disabled people and disabled people themselves. Regarding the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, as to when this legislation might be consolidated, I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Lord's question. I think it is a matter for other authorities.

I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, when she says, as did others, that it is essential that disabled people who claim DWA should get their benefit as quickly as possible after they start work, and that they must not be left to survive on their low earnings alone, particularly as they have taken the risk of giving up their invalidity benefit, or whatever. There are special reasons for aiming for high standards of speed and accuracy in the DWA. The most important of those special reasons is that DWA is specifically intended to encourage and help disabled people make the difficult transition from incapacity to employment when they are ready to do so.

Rather than take claims before a claimant starts work we have decided to design a system which ensures claims are dealt with very quickly and efficiently. In this way we will remove the need for yet more rules and procedures to deal with advance claims. We have taken care in devising the rules to keep them as simple and straightforward as is reasonably possible. For example, we will not require claimants to be examined by a doctor when they first claim —an almost revolutionary departure. This will cut out one important potential cause of significant delay in making payments.

The way in which claims will be dealt with by the DWA office in Preston is being looked at closely to make sure it is as streamlined as possible. All first claims from people just starting work will be given priority and dealt with on a special fast path. We aim to ensure that the great majority of these will be processed and a payment sent off (if the claimant is entitled to benefit) within five days of the claim form reaching the office. Family credit has a similar system for dealing with urgent claims from people who are starting work and over 80 per cent. of the urgent cases are dealt with within five working days. Our very clear intention is to match the achievement of the family credit fast path. I hope that the Committee will accept those assurances.

Paradoxically, the present amendment might have the opposite effect from that intended. It would add significantly to the complexity of the procedures required to administer the benefit. It would require double handling of claims and so would be liable to hold up claims rather than speed them on their way. The crucial point is that disability working allowance will be a benefit for people in work. As the amendment recognises, claimants will have to be in work before benefit can be paid.

We considered very carefully whether to accept claims in advance from people who had obtained work, supported by evidence from the prospective employer of expected earnings. However, we came to the conclusion that it would still be necessary for the adjudication officer to satisfy himself that the claimant had in fact started work before entitlement could be established and so nothing would be gained.

We have concentrated on ensuring that the operational procedures for DWA are such that if a claim is made as soon as possible after a person starts work and the necessary supporting evidence is provided then an award will be put into payment without delay. We are confident that we can achieve a turn-around time of less than a week for the majority of such first claims. Necessarily, it will often take a little longer to assess the earnings of self-employed people, but we are looking at the best way to do this. Publicity will be specially targeted and emphasis will be placed on the need to claim at the right time.

The rules we intend to adopt will provide for the acceptance of estimates of earnings from employers where a job has just begun. We will do all we can to ensure that employers provide the information which is required about earnings without delay. For example, when it is appropriate to do so staff will telephone employers to ask about wages rather than send a form and wait for it to be returned.

I also mentioned the fact that there might be some people who would be slightly worried about giving up a particular benefit —IVB, SDA, or whatever —without the assurance that they would get the new disability working allowance. We are at present testing a new free inquiry service for people who want to know about disability benefits. If that service proves to be a success as I very much hope it will —disabled people will be able to ring a free phone number and get information about benefits. If they are interested in DWA they will also be able to go through the claim form, give their details, and be told as clearly as possible to what they would be entitled. Obviously that will not be binding. It will depend on the evidence that they give and on the information in the possession of the officer at the other end. They would then be sent a letter confirming that advice, and also a part-completed claim form to fill in and to send off when they start work.

So long as we retain the principle that benefit decisions are made by independent adjudication officers and are based closely on the facts as they are at the date of claim, I do not think that it would be possible to do much better than that. I hope that the Committee will accept my assurances that we are determined to provide as speedy a service as possible, and that therefore the Committee will feel that the amendment is unnecessary and the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press it.

3.45 p.m.

Baroness Turner of Camden

I thank the Minister for his, as usual, lucid explanation. There were one or two matters mentioned in his speech that were welcome, particularly the free inquiry service. I am glad that examination by a doctor will not be necessary as regards this new allowance, and also that the DWA office has instructions to deal quickly and efficiently with the claims. All that is very welcome. However, I am not entirely satisfied because the intention of my amendment, as I explained, was to ensure that the claimant would be able to collect the evidence before he starts work, and he can go along before he starts work to the DSS with supporting evidence from an employer. The officer concerned can then go ahead with checking all that is necessary, and then in the week that the claimant begins work the DWA can begin. Even with all the safeguards to which the Minister has referred, the individual concerned, even on the very fast track outlined by the Minister, will still experience a five day delay. In other words there will be a week before a very poor person can get the allowance.

It seems to me a relatively simple matter to accept the amendment that I have proposed. If the Committee decides that it likes the intention of the amendment, or agrees with the intention of the amendment, I hope it will vote for it. Then if the wording is not entirely satisfactory something else can be done on Report. The principle involved here seems simple to me. The claimant can collect the evidence before starting work, and he can go along with evidence from a supportive employer. All the work can be done on checking before the claimant begins work, and then the DWA can begin in the week that the allowance is due. Because unfortunately I do not feel able to accept the Minister's rejection of that particular argument, I have no alternative but to test the feeling of the Committee on this issue.

3.49 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 57) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 100.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Jacques, L.
Ardwick, L.	Jay, L.
Aylestone, L.	Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Birk, B.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Blackstone, B.	John-Mackie, L.
Bonham-Carter, L.	Kennet, L.
Bottomley, L.	Kinloss, Ly.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Leatherland, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Listowel, E.
Carter, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Longford, E.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	McGregor of Durris, L.
Darcy (de Knayth), B.	McNair, L.
David, B.	Masham of Ilton, B.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Mayhew, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Ennals, L.	Milverton, L.
Ezra, L.	Mishcon, L.
Falkender, B.	Molloy, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Foot, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Gallacher, L. [Teller.]	Nicol, B.
Galpern, L.	Palmer, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]	Phillips, B.
Grey, E.	Prys-Davies, L.
Grimond, L.	Richard, L.
Hanworth, V.	Richardson, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Robson of Kiddington, B.
Sainsbury, L.	Henderson of Brompton, L.
Hirshfield, L.	Seear, B.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.	Sefton of Garston, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Serota, B.
Hughes, L.	Shaughnessy, L.
Hutchinson of Lullington, L.	Shepherd, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Stallard, L.
	Stedman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Strabolgi, L.	White, B.
Tonypandy, V.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Tordoff, L.	Wilson of Rievaulx, L.
Turner of Camden, B.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Underhill, L.

3.57 p.m.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)

If Amendment No. 58 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 59.

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 58:

Page 10, line 10, leave out ("at least one of the eight weeks") and insert ("one or more of the 56 days").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 58 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 63 and 72. All three are drafting amendments.

Amendment No. 58 ensures that people will be able to make claims for disability working allowance if they have received one of the qualifying incapacity benefits for any period during the eight weeks before they claim DWA. Amendment No. 63 clarifies the drafting by referring to the actual start of DLA rather than to the "commencement" of the provision. Amendment No. 72 makes clear that the reference is to any benefit mentioned in subsection (6B). I beg to move.

Baroness Turner of Camden

This is a small concession. It does not in any way address the main problem we intended to deal with in Amendment No. 59. The amendment will succeed only in confusing claimants more; they will be left attempting to understand the subtle difference between "eight weeks" and "56 days". There is little point in opposing the amendment, but that means that I shall not be able to move Amendment No. 59. However, it is a small concession. The Government could perhaps have gone a little further.

Lord Henley

To place it on record, perhaps I may explain the difference between "eight weeks" and "56 days". If the position had been left at eight weeks, as drafted, the qualifying period would have had to be for a full week; fifty-six days —seven times eight —means that it can be a part of one week. That is the difference. It is more than a small concession, as was implied by the noble Baroness.

[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]

4 p.m.

Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 60:

Page 10, line 46, at end insert: ("or (d) when the claim for a disability working allowance is made or is treated as made, he has a physical or mental disability.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving to Amendment No. 60 I speak also to Amendment No. 62 which I understand has been grouped with it.

The purpose of this amendment is to provide an alternative way of qualifying for DWA on the ground of disability alone rather than through entitlement to a disability benefit. When people claim DWA for the first time they will have to show, among other things, that they are disabled and provide proof of qualifying benefits. They must also, as we have already discussed, show that they are at a disadvantage in securing work.

Given those rules it is hardly surprising that the DSS expects only about 50,000 people to qualify. This is at variance with other estimates by organisations representing disabled people that there are at least 285,000 disabled people wanting work —over five times the number the DSS itself considers are likely to benefit from the new DWA.

The Spastics Society has provided me with examples of people who ought to benefit but who will not because of the requirements laid down in the legislation. First, there are people on unemployment benefit, or other benefits, which are not listed in the Bill as qualifying benefits. For example, disabled persons may have been getting income support and/or unemployment benefit even though their disabilities were severe enough to qualify for an incapacity benefit. They may have preferred not to define themselves as incapable of work, or have thought that it might put them at a disadvantage in getting a job.

Secondly, there are people who have received incorrect advice —this does happen —and who therefore are not receiving disability benefits even though they are entitled to them. Thirdly, there are people who have never been able to claim benefits under their own right. This could include 16 and 17 year-olds who, under certain limited circumstances, can claim benefits. Fourthly, there are people who initially failed to qualify for DWA on income grounds but for a number of reasons their earnings have dropped. For instance, a person with a fluctuating disability may need to lower the hours worked, and hence earnings would drop. However, if that person received qualifying benefits for longer than eight weeks, he still could not claim DWA.

Fifthly, there are people who are in the process of claiming a qualifying benefit but who have not received proof of entitlement. This includes blind people who are waiting for their registration certificate to come through. Sixthly, there are people who simply did not qualify for the qualifying disability benefit; not because they are not disabled but because the rules for those benefits are narrowly defined. For example, DLA does not provide for people with severe disabilities who have communication problems. In particular that would include deaf people or those with cerebral palsy. That is quite a list of people who, on present rules, are unlikely to qualify for the new DWA.

We commend the idea of self-assessment, but the Government themselves proposed a six-monthly functional test for some people claiming DWA to establish that they are still disabled, and for a few initial claimants. Surely this could also be used for an initial claim in the case of people who do not have the right qualifying benefits. As things stand, it is illogical that one group of disabled people will be able to receive the DWA because they have qualifying benefits while another group which is equally disabled will not qualify. The amendment seeks to put that right, and I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept it. I beg to move.

Baroness Darcy (De Knayth)

I add my warm but brief support to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who has argued so clearly and compellingly for these amendments which would enable disabled people who do not have the right passporting benefits to qualify for DWA through the functional test.

The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, gave a long list of people who will not be eligible for DWA unless these amendments are passed. At the other end of the scale the amendment is also important for those disabled people who are in work and who are becoming disabled, or whose disability is increasing. They may be struggling to stay in full-time work which may be detrimental to their condition. I am thinking of somebody with multiple sclerosis who is insufficiently disabled to qualify for the attendance or mobility components of DLA. They should not have to leave work for 28 weeks to qualify for an incapacity benefit before trying to return to work with the help of the DWA.

The Disablement Income Group has always been particularly keen to see the introduction of a partial pension for a partial incapacity to work. The DIC puts the case so much more eloquently than I. It said: It should provide for all significantly disabled people seamless progression from full-time work into full retirement on health grounds and for others the reverse, a return to full-time work from invalidity benefit through therapeutic earnings".

This two-way seamless travel is important. It should work both backwards and forwards. Under the disability working allowance, as the Bill stands, some cannot travel forwards because they have no passporting benefits —the noble .Baroness has enumerated them —but many cannot travel smoothly backwards without getting shunted into a siding for 28 weeks. Amendments Nos. 60 and 62 would make that seamless travel possible, and would work both ways. I hope that when the Minister replies he will say something about how important he feels it is that the DWA should work both ways.

Lord Henley

It has been said by a number of noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading, and I think by myself, that the disability working allowance is a very important step forward. We believe it is a revolutionary step and that it would be of great benefit to disabled people. When criticising the benefit for what it will not do it is important to keep in mind the positive contribution the DWA will make.

As Amendment No. 60 suggests, DWA could be extended to very many more people. However, it could only be extended in the way suggested by Amendment No. 60 at very considerable cost. We estimate that the cost of such an extension would be about £200 million; that is, £200 million net of savings elsewhere in the benefit system, which is what the noble Baroness asked me. That is a very significant sum of money. The net value of all the changes announced in The Way Ahead will come to some £300 million by 1993/94. That is on top of our record over the past 10 years of doubling, in real terms, benefit expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled.

There is a further, positive, side. We said that the disability working allowance is intended to provide support for people making the difficult transition from incapacity to work. The requirement which Amendment No. 60 would have undermined —which I have referred to as the qualifying benefit test —ensures that the benefit can be designed specifically to meet the needs of this group. In particular, we have designed the benefit so that the process of claiming it is not an ordeal and so that decisions can be made very quickly provided claimants supply the information requested on the claim form.

One of the problems we had to solve was that of how to devise a disability test which could be applied very quickly and which would not put off disabled people from claiming. Some test is required because this is a benefit for disabled people and therefore some means is necessary to identify people with disabilities. Traditionally, this has been done by arranging for a doctor's opinion to be obtained, usually after a medical examination.

We feared that a traditional disability test based on fresh medical evidence would delay claims beyond what is acceptable. We were also concerned that claimants could not predict the outcome of such a test and so could not be sure whether they would be entitled to DWA. If they could not be sure of being entitled they could not take DWA into account when making the crucial decision to start looking for a job.

However we set the definition of disabled people for this benefit, some people obviously will fall out of the definition. The noble Baroness should tell us how she would distinguish disabled persons who are claiming income support, and who are unemployed, from the rest of the unemployed population. Does she envisage a new medical test? The noble Baroness is merely asking us to invent a wholly different benefit.

However, since the qualifying benefit test requires that all claimants should be getting either disability living allowance or an incapacity benefit shortly before first claiming DWA, we have been able to do away with the traditional requirement for medical evidence.

As regards first claims, we believe that it will be sufficient to ask the claimants for a simple declaration that they have a disability which puts them at a disadvantage in getting a job. The claim form will explain what that means. We are prepared to have discussions on whether a better form of wording is required. The qualifying benefit test will not provide proof. However, we believe that it will be sufficient confirmation so that only in very exceptional cases will we expect the adjudication officer to seek further evidence.

The evidence which is available from the qualifying benefit test relates to a prolonged period of illness or disability. If we did not have that evidence from the qualifying benefit test we should have to devise an alternative test which provided strong evidence that the claimant was disabled.

I cannot accept the amendment because of its very considerable cost. It would undermine the quick and effective method that we have devised for ensuring that DWA goes to the people for whom it is intended. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

Does the Minister acknowledge that there is a problem in relation to people who are still working; that is, those who have not left work and who qualify for a disability allowance? The Bill fails to sort out the problem for people who have a partial incapacity.

Lord Henley

We have always accepted that the provisions do not cover people already working. On grounds of simplicity and cost we had to decide exactly how far we could go. For simplicity's sake the provisions cover those entering the labour market. It is to those people that we should be looking and therefore the provisions will not affect someone already in employment.

Baroness Turner of Camden

The Minister's response is a little disappointing. It is clear that people who are disabled but can still work and who can benefit from DWA will not be entitled to claim because they have not been receiving the passporting benefits. He challenged me to say what we should do about people in such a situation. In moving the amendment I pointed out that the Government have proposed a six-monthly functional test for some people claiming DWA in order to establish that they are still disabled.

We suggest that the test might be used for initial claims in respect of people who do not have the correct passporting benefits. The point has not yet been dealt with, although we accept the argument that people who have the passporting benefits should have to do no more than comply with the self-assessment rules. I am not at all happy about the situation. It appears that many people who ought to benefit from the new allowance will be unable to do so. Some disabled people will benefit and others will not, even though the disablement is precisely the same or perhaps worse.

The Minister says that the DWA is a revolutionary step. Members on this side of the Committee have said from the beginning that we are in agreement with the DWA and should like the scheme to encourage as many people as possible to return to the labour market. The Minister says that if our amendment is accepted considerable cost will be involved. He quoted a figure of £200 million net of savings. I believe that if a benefit encouraged more people into the labour market and therefore off benefit there should ultimately be savings which would more than compensate for the amount expended on DWA. After all, the allowance is intended as an incentive for them to return to the labour market.

I am most unhappy with the Minister's response. I dislike a situation in which people who ought to be able to benefit will not do so. On that issue alone I am inclined to test the feeling of the Committee. If the Committee agrees with my views on the central issue and the amendment is accepted, the exact wording can be agreed on Report.

Lord Henley

I wish to correct a comment that I made in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), because it is relevant to the issue. People who are working and who are receiving any rate of DLA will be entitled to receive DWA. I omitted to make that point in my response and may have misled the noble Baroness.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

I had in mind someone who is suffering from multiple sclerosis, not yet sufficiently disabled to qualify for either component of DLA but who is struggling with a full-time job to the detriment of his or her health.

Baroness Turner of Camden

I feel strongly about the exclusion of people who do not have passporting benefits. As it is early in the afternoon I shall test the feeling of the Committee.

4.16 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.60) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 102.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Jacques, L.
Ardwick, L.	Jay, L.
Aylestone, L.	Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Birk, B.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Blackstone, B.	John-Mackie, L.
Bonham-Carter, L.	Kennet, L.
Bottomley, L.	Kinloss, Ly.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Leatherland, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Listowel, E.
Carter, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Longford, E.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	McGregor of Durris, L.
Darcy (de Knayth), B.	McNair, L.
David, B.	Masham of Ilton, B.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Mayhew, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Ennals, L.	Milverton, L.
Ezra, L.	Mishcon, L.
Falkender, B.	Molloy, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Foot, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Gallacher, L. [Teller.]	Nicol, B.
Galpern, L.	Palmer, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]	Phillips, B.
Grey, E.	Prys-Davies, L.
Grimond, L.	Richard, L.
Hanworth, V.	Richardson, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Robson of Kiddington, B.
Sainsbury, L.	Henderson of Brompton, L.
Hirshfield, L.	Seear, B.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.	Sefton of Garston, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Serota, B.
Hughes, L.	Shaughnessy, L.
Hutchinson of Lullington, L.	Shepherd, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Stallard, L.
	Stedman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Strabolgi, L.	White, B.
Tonypandy, V.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Tordoff, L.	Wilson of Rievaulx, L.
Turner of Camden, B.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Underhill, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aldington, L.	Long, V.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Ampthill, L	Macleod of Borve, B.
Astor, V.	Mancroft, L.
Auckland, L.	Manton, L.
Bauer, L.	Merrivale, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Mersey, V.
Bessborough, E.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Birdwood, L.	Mountevans, L.
Blatch, B.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Blyth, L.	Munster, E.
Boardman, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Borthwick, L.	Nelson, E.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Norfolk, D.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Broadbridge, L.	Orkney, E.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Butterworth, L.	Oxfuird, V.
Caithness, E.	Pender, L.
Carnock, L.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Cavendish of Furness, L.	Platt of Writtle, B.
Clanwilliam, E.	Quinton, L.
Cockfield, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Constantine of Stanmore, L.	Reay, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Rippon of Hexham, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Romney, E.
De Freyne, L.	Saint Albans, D.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	St. John of Fawsley, L.
Dilhorne, V.	Shannon, E.
Eccles of Moulton, B.	Sharples, B.
Fanshawe of Richmond, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Ferrers, E.	Slim, V.
Flather, B.	Strange, B.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Gainford, L.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Gardner of Parkes, B.	Strathspey, L.
Gibson-Watt, L.	Swansea, L.
Gridley, L.	Swinfen, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L	Terrington, L.
Henley, L.	Teviot, L.
Hesketh, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Holderness, L.	Trefgarne, L.
Hood, V.	Trumpington, B.
Hooper, B.	Ullswater, V.
Howe, E.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Jeffreys, L.	Wade of Chorlton, L.
Joseph, L.	Whitelaw, V.
Kimball, L.	Windlesham, L.
Kinnaird, L.	Wise, L.
Knollys, V.	Young, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Division No. 2
CONTENTS
Acton, L.	John-Mackie, L.
Ardwick, L.	Kennet, L.
Aylestone, L.	Kinloss, Ly.
Birk, B.	Listowel, E.
Blackstone, B.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Bonham-Carter, L.	Lockwood, B.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Longford, E.
Broadbridge, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	McGregor of Durris, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	McNair, L.
Carter, L.	Masham of Ilton, B.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Mayhew, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Milverton, L.
Craigavon, V.	Mishcon, L.
Darcy (de Knayth), B.	Molloy, L.
David, B.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Nicol, B.
Ennals, L.	Palmer, L.
Falkender, B.	Phillips, B.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Foot, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Gallacher, L. [Teller]	Richard, L.
Galpern, L.	Robson of Kiddington, B.
Gladwyn, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Grey, E.	Seear, B.
Hanworth, V.	Serota, B.
Hayter, L.	Shepherd, L.
Henderson of Brompton, L.	Stallard, L.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.	Stedman, B.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hughes, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Hutchinson of Lullington, L.	Tordoff, L. [Teller.]
Hylton-Foster, B.	Turner of Camden, B.
Irvine of Lairg, L.	Underhill, L.
Jacques, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Jay, L.	White, B.
Jeger, B.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	Wilson of Rievaulx, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS
Aldington, L.	Dilhorne, V.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Eccles of Moulton, B.
Astor, V.	Elles, B.
Bauer, L.	Fanshawe of Richmond, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Ferrers, E.
Bessborough, E.	Flather, B.
Birdwood, L.	Fraser of Kilmorack, L.
Blatch, B.	Gainford, L.
Blyth, L.	Gibson-Watt, L.
Boardman, L.	Gridley, L.
Borthwick, L.	Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Hemphill, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Henley, L.
Butterworth, L. Caithness, E.	Hesketh, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Holderness, L.
Carnock, L.	Hood, V.
Cavendish of Furness, L.	Hooper, B.
Clanwilliam, E.	Howe, E.
Cockfield, L.	Inchcape, E.
Constantine of Stanmore, L.	Jeffreys, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Joseph, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller]	Kimball, L.
Denham, L.	Knollys, V.

Layton, L.	Richardson, L.
Long, V. [Teller.]	Romney, E.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Saint Albans, D.
Mackay of Clashfern, L.	St. John of Fawsley, L.
Macleod of Borve, B.	Shannon, E.
Mancroft, L.	Sharpies, B.
Manton, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Merrivale, L.	Slim, V.
Mersey, V.	Strange, B.
Monteagle of Brandon, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Mountevans, L.	Strathmore and Kinghome, E.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.	Sudeley, L.
Munster, E.	Swansea, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.	Swinfen, L.
Nelson, E.	Terrington, L.
Norfolk, D.	Teviot, L.
Nugent of Guildford, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Orkney, E.	Trefgarne, L.
Orr-Ewing, L.	Trumpington, B.
Pender, L.	Ullswater, V.
Peyton of Yeovil, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Platt of Writtle, B.	Wade of Chorlton, L.
Plumb, L.	Westbury, L.
Portsmouth, E.	Whitelaw, V.
Quinton, L.	Wise, L.
Rankeillour, L.	Young, B.
Reay, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.24 p.m.

[Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 not moved.]

Lord Henleymoved Amendment No. 63: Page 11, line 19, leave out ("commencement of section 1 above") and insert ("first day in respect of which disability living allowance is payable").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 64:

Page 11, line 48, after ("percentage") insert ("which shall not exceed 40 per cent.").

The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that once a disabled person starts earning over a certain amount a poverty trap is not created because of large corresponding deductions in his DWA. The DSS is proposing that if a disabled person who is single earns more than £34.60 a week then the excess is to be reduced from the DWA by 70p in the pound. Lone parents and couples will be subject to the same rules on an income of more than £57.60 a week. It is believed that this 70 per cent. taper will produce a formidable poverty trap for DWA claimants and will prove to be a huge disincentive for disabled persons considering accepting low-paid work with a benefit top-up.

The low threshold and benefit levels combined with this steep taper mean that the claimants will have to consider very carefully which is the better option. All things considered, they might be better off to stay on social security benefits and not seek work at all. That can hardly have been the object of this exercise, the exercise designed to produce the DWA.

During Committee proceedings in another place the Government refused to accept proposed amendments substantially reducing the taper. The 40 per cent. in this amendment represents a compromise on what was then suggested. I understand that this could create its own poverty trap but at a higher level. We do not believe it to be over generous, particularly as there will also be reductions in housing benefit and community charge benefit. The Government have asserted that a reduction in the taper to 40 per cent. will cost around £30 million. But in the long term the Government will gain as people come off long-term incapacity benefits. The financial implications of the DWA at present are said to be neutral. However. according to the financial memorandum which accompanies the Bill, there will be savings of £10 million on a tax basis. I do not believe it is right to make savings; rather we should be prepared to invest in disabled people's ability to contribute to general welfare through the workforce.

If a 40 per cent. taper were introduced the maximum net earnings for a single person claiming DWA would have to be less than £127.60 a week, or £187.97 for a couple. That is not over generous. We have repeatedly said from this side of the Chamber, and will say so again in the course of the Committee proceedings, that it costs much more to be disabled. The nearer the earnings are to these ceilings, the less DWA will be awarded. According to the White Paper on which the Bill is based, it is necessary to plug the gap so that disabled people have an incentive to rejoin or join the workforce at a level of work which they are capable of doing. The Bill, if unamended, will do little to plug this gap. I therefore hope that the Government will accept the sense of what I am saying and accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

I should like to support the amendment. The noble Baroness has said very nearly everything that has to be said. I hope that the Committee will agree that wherever a poverty trap is found —so often it is inadvertent, but there clearly is a poverty trap here —it should be eliminated or if not eliminated then mitigated. This amendment is a mitigating amendment. As the noble Baroness has said, it will still be a poverty trap but it will be a poverty trap at a higher level. To that extent, it is less objectionable than the provisions in the Bill.

The other point which I commend to the Committee is the contention of the noble Baroness that ultimately this will not cost the Government any money. If the Government look to the long term they will find that there may be an expected saving —in fact they have said so —from DWA as people come off long-term incapacity benefits. If those two points on what the Government are going to make out of DWA are taken together, they should surely look with a kindly eye on an amendment which is designed to mitigate a poverty trap. With those few words, I strongly support the amendment.

Baroness Seear

The noble Baroness has mentioned most of what we wished to say, so I shall not repeat it. However, I ask the Government what they are trying to achieve with this allowance. Are they merely trying to make life a little less unpleasant for the disabled and to give them a chance to work and get out of the house? Or do they believe that there is a big potential for getting disabled people who have lost heart and think that they cannot cope in an ordinary working environment to realise that they can? Surely, that should be the priority.

We all know that when people are away from work for a long time they begin to believe that they can do nothing, they are finished and will never be able to do anything. However, a great many can. If that is what we wish to encourage then surely there should not be a poverty trap and a cut off —every encouragement should be given. As my noble friend Lord Russell frequently says, we should try to "float off" people who have been on support but who do not need it when they discover what they can do. If that is the priority —which it should be —then the Government must surely accept the 40 per cent.

Baroness Phillips

To follow what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, whatever the way in which we try to make these arrangements work, they create what we can only describe as a poverty trap. I have worked for a long time with women of all ages and I remember how harsh it was that where there was an earnings rule on widows' pensions, women would not accept work which they needed because the earnings were taken off their pension. In the end, they tried to struggle on with something they could not manage. The position was the same with pensioners.

Happily, both those problems have been removed; but it is fatal to create yet another one. If the Government wish to save money —because we will be told that this will cost much more —why under this Bill do they have to have an advisory board? That will cost money. Surely it would be more sensible to give the money to the disabled rather than to install people who, so far as I can see, are not even ombudsmen. They are simply there to administer the Act. What is wrong with the department doing so?

4.30 p.m.

Lord Henley

I understand the anxiety about the combined effect of the rate at which income is taken into account in calculating the disability working allowance, the taper, and the housing benefit and community charge benefit tapers.

One or two preliminary points. Before the reforms in 1988 it was possible for someone to be made worse off if they increased their earnings. However, by basing benefit assessments on income after deductions for tax and national insurance, we removed this poverty trap. So before 1988 people could be worse off if they increased their earnings. This is now all but impossible. There is no poverty trap, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Phillips, have implied. Since the 1988 reforms, we have moved on. It is also important to remember that awards for the disability working allowance will be made for 26 weeks and not changed during this period. That means that however much the claimant's income rises, the disability working allowance award will not be reduced.

We have said that we intend to set the taper at 70 per cent. Opting for a figure below 70 per cent. increases the cost of the benefit. So, for example, setting the taper at 40 per cent., as this amendment suggests, would increase the cost of the disability working allowance by about £30 million after allowing for offsetting savings elsewhere. That £30 million takes account of savings on housing benefit and community charge benefit and of the incentive effect of attracting people to the disability working allowance.

I am not attracted by the suggestion that we would save money in the long term. I hear again and again, particularly from the Benches on which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, sits, that if we do this or that, it costs more money but somehow we will end up saving money. I tend to be rather cynical about those arguments. The cost of this, taking into account other savings, will be £30 million. That is a considerable sum.

We decided that the benefit should be designed to give as much help as possible to people with the lowest earnings so as to ensure that they were not made worse off by deciding to take a job. However, reducing the taper would give little or nothing to those with the lowest earnings. A shallow taper would give most to people who are already better off but would make little or no difference to those claimants with earnings at or a little above the applicable amount. I am sure we all agree that the latter are in the greatest need of help within what can be afforded. As noble Lords may have worked out, reducing the taper to 40 per cent. still leaves marginal withdrawal rates at a much higher level if one combines the effects of the DWA, housing benefit and community charge benefit tapers, where all these apply.

High combined deduction rates are an unavoidable consequence of introducing comparatively generous income related benefits which, although they are withdrawn by the tapers, provide a significant boost to the incomes of those eligible to receive them —the least well off in society. We intend to set the figure of the taper by regulation later in the year and at that time noble Lords will have a further opportunity to debate this. For all these reasons, I cannot recommend the amendment to the Committee.

Baroness Turner of Camden

I am not entirely surprised at the noble Lord's response. Again, we have heard the argument advanced by him that to accept our amendment would cost up to £30 million. As he rightly says, that is a substantial sum. He has discounted the arguments advanced from this side of the Chamber that getting people back into employment is worth while and should be regarded as an investment rather than as expenditure. Just as we regard training as investment rather than expenditure, so getting back into employment people who have hitherto not been able to be employed or who have felt that they were not employable is a positive and progressive action.

I do not intend to press the amendment now. I wish to examine carefully what the Minister has said; particularly his argument that with the 40 per cent. many of the lowest paid would be worse off. That is not in accordance with the briefing that I have received.

Lord Henley

Will the noble Baroness give way? I suggested that the 40 per cent. would not particularly benefit the worse off, it would benefit the slightly better off.

Baroness Turner of Camden

I understand what the Minister is arguing. Very well, I shall examine the matter between now and Report stage. If it seems practicable and possible, at Report stage I shall make another attempt at covering the problem of the taper, perhaps with a different figure. We shall consider tomorrow what the Minister said. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 65:

Page 11, line 49, at end insert: ("( ) Where a person is entitled to the disability working allowance by virtue of section 20(6A) (c) (i) or (ii) above the amount shall include an amount in respect of his mortgage interest payments or other housing costs as are prescribed.").

The noble Baroness said: The intention of this amendment is to try to ensure that mortgage interest and other housing cost provisions which are allowed for in the calculation of income support are also allowed for in the calculation of DWA. The director of Shelter has written to me, as I understand she has to the Minister. It has been pointed out to me by Shelter and by many other organisations that if these housing costs are not taken into account, many people with disabilities will end up worse off if they decide to claim the new allowance. This would result in another poverty trap and benefit inconsistency between people in similar circumstances.

Many people who may wish to move away from long-term incapacity benefits into work will not be able to do so because they may be worse off. Examples have been given to me by the Spastics Society in confirmation of this. It quotes the case of a disabled couple earning £39.60 a week receiving the maximum DWA. The society contends that the couple will be worse off by £6.35 a week, with only a modest mortgage and with loan interest repayments of £18 per week.

It is imperative that disabled people should be able to afford to live independently in their own homes. Unless mortgage interest is taken into account, the objective of DWA will be seriously undermined. One disabled person with cerebral palsy quoted by the Spastics Society said: "I worry about my mortgage. Why shouldn't disabled people have a mortgage like everyone else? It is part of living normally". The Government say that no one is obliged to take up DWA. Apparently disabled people are supposed to consider their circumstances and make a judgment as to whether or not DWA suits them. However, that is hardly an incentive to join the workforce and start living as normal a life as possible. I therefore hope that the Government will feel inclined to look favourably upon the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Henley

As ever there is a balance to be struck between the conflicting needs of disabled people who will claim disability working allowance. On the one hand, some —probably only a small number —will be better off on income support because no allowance is made in DWA for mortgage interest. On the other hand, all claimants need a system which is as simple as possible so that they can understand it and which can be administered quickly and efficiently.

There are immense problems estimating how many people with mortgages might claim DWA. Our best estimate —I stress this is an estimate —is that probably 10,000 will claim and will be better off working and claiming DWA than they would be on income support. A much smaller number with larger mortgages and low earnings will not be better off on DWA; but, of course, if they really want to work they will be better off with DWA than they would be if the benefit were not introduced.

The majority of people who will be considering claiming disability working allowance will not be receiving any benefit which includes an allowance for mortgage interest or other housing costs. Invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance do not include any allowance for mortgage interest for example. At the start we expect that perhaps 15,000 people —that is, 30 per cent. of the caseload we are expecting to reach —will already be in work. Those with mortgages will be getting no help with the interest other than tax relief, and DWA will provide a bonus for them.

Given the design we have chosen for the structure of disability working allowance, it will be possible for people with quite reasonable wages to be getting some benefit. For example, using the illustrative rates we have given in the note on disability working allowance, a couple with two children between 11 and 15 could still be getting DWA if they were earning £170 a week. On top of that they would have child benefit and some would have disability living allowance. If an allowance was added for mortgage interest, we would be paying an income related benefit to people whose income was around the national average. I do not think most people would think that right.

Disability working allowance is necessarily a broad brush scheme and makes no provision at all for specific outgoings. It would change the fundamental nature of the scheme to allow for mortgage interest and other housing costs. It would alter the scope and targeting and bring in people with large mortgages who were in fact quite high earners. The major source of Government help for owner occupiers in work is through mortgage interest tax relief. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendments.

Baroness Turner of Camden

I have again listened carefully to what the Minister has said. Again it seems to me that DWA is likely to benefit relatively few people, and that may well have been the Government's intention. The object of our amendments so far this afternoon has been to extend entitlement to DWA to people who have disabilities and who are capable of working, and may wish to work, but who may otherwise have no incentive to do so. That includes people who have mortgages and receive some allowance for mortgage interest. However, they would not receive such an allowance if they were to transfer to DWA. I am not very happy with the Minister's response but I recognise that this is one of a number of attempts we are making to broaden entitlement. We shall have to consider the Minister's comments in the light of what has been said on other amendments before deciding how we shall pursue the matter further on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.45 p.m.

Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 66: Page 11, line 49, at end insert: ("(3C) Where a person is entitled to a disability working allowance and —

1. (i) lives in a residential care home or nursing home; or
2. (ii) if the claimant is a member of a family, he and the members of the family live in such a home,

the amount shall he the difference between his income from his employment and the applicable amount.

(3D) in section 21(3C) above — the applicable amount" shall be the aggregate of:

1. (a) the amount of income support to which the claimant could be entitled were the claimant not in employment and not in receipt of the income from his employment and
2. (b) a sum to be disregarded from his earnings, equal to the sum which would be disregarded from his earning, were he entitled to income support.").

The noble Baroness said: The object of this amendment is to try to ensure that people living in residential care are not made financially worse off by taking employment. Residential accommodation nowadays is a much wider category than institutions for the elderly and severely disabled and includes a variety of community based facilities. Many people in residential care are willing and able to take employment. If they can, they should be encouraged to do so. However, because of the special rules for income support for this kind of accommodation, they may end up losing money by taking work. Indeed the loss may be so great that they could not stay in the accommodation if they got a job.

People in residential accommodation receive high levels of income support to help meet the fees. Typically this is around £190 a week. If they take employment for over 24 hours a week, they lose all entitlement to income support and to "passported" benefits such as free prescriptions and spectacles. This effectively disqualifies them from employment, as it is extremely unlikely that they will find a job paying enough to meet the fees for their accommodation. The amendment would help by ensuring that DWA is enough to enable the person to take employment without being worse off.

I shall refer to an example that has been mentioned to me. Alan is mentally handicapped and lives in supported accommodation that is registered with the local authority. He receives £189.40 per week in income support and severe disablement allowance of which £180 pays for his accommodation. He is offered a job in a cafe paying £90 a week. However, he has to turn the job down because he would lose his income support and SDA and would be unable to pay for his accommodation.

Under the amendment, Alan would receive £90 in pay and £114.40 in disability working allowance. That is equivalent to the shortfall in income support together with the therapeutic earnings disregard of £15 per week.

The Government would save £75 a week —this is another instance of the Government being able to save money by supporting one of our amendments —while Alan would benefit from being at work. He would also be £15 per week better off. He would be back in the workforce and would be able to participate much more successfully in normal life.

If the Government do not like the amendment, they could achieve the same objective by amending the income support regulations so that people do not have to choose between keeping their accommodation and obtaining employment. I hope that the Minister will think our comments are sensible and will respond accordingly. I beg to move.

Lord Henley

I acknowledge that there are probably very few people in residential care and nursing homes who might claim DWA if this amendment were accepted. It is impossible to estimate with any hope of accuracy, but I would guess that less than 500 people would fall into this group. But I must stress that they will not be made any worse off by the introduction of disability working allowance. At the moment, some of this group can claim income support under a special rule which allows people whose earning capacity is reduced by 25 per cent. or more as a result of mental or physical disablement to claim even if they are working 24 hours a week or more. This rule will remain.

Similarly, those who are getting invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance and who can do some work of a therapeutic nature will still be able to earn up to £39 a week without any reduction in these benefits. This therapeutic earnings rule will continue unchanged. That was mentioned in connection with a previous amendment.

We all know that there are changes on the horizon which will affect the way in which we support people in residential care and nursing homes. These changes are part of the major improvements we are making in the field of community care. However, there is much yet to be worked out. But we will be changing the way in which income support is calculated for people going into homes after April 1993. This change will occur very soon after DWA is introduced. In those circumstances we decided that it would not be sensible to try to devise a special rate of benefit for so small a group.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue. I am certainly prepared to consider the case to which the noble Baroness referred, to see whether the provisions I have mentioned apply in that case. I hope that in the meantime the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.

Baroness Turner of Camden

I thank the Minister for his very sympathetic response to the amendment. As he rightly said, we are talking about only a small group of people. I shall be happy to supply him with the information that he requested about the case to which I referred.

I am very glad that it may not be necessary to do what we propose here because of changes contemplated in relation to income support, and that those changes may come about at the same time as DWA gets off the ground. In those circumstances, I shall not press the amendment. I am very grateful for the way in which the Minister received what I had to say on behalf of this small group of people, whom we would all like to see back in work that they are able to do if that can be achieved. I hope that it can be achieved in the manner that we indicated. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 67 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Henderson of Brompton moved manuscript Amendment No. 67A:

Page 12, line 4, at end insert:

("( ) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (6) of that section — (6G) The Secretary of State, in exercising his powers under the relevant enactments, shall exempt a claimant in receipt of the disability working allowance from prescription charges, dental charges, optical charges and the claimant shall be eligible for reimbursement of fares to hospitals." ").

The noble Lord said: In this Committee stage I seem fated to move manuscript amendments and I apologise sincerely to the Committee. In this case Amendment No. 67A is exactly the same as Amendment No. 67 on the Marshalled List except that the words: the claimant shall be eligible for have been added at the end of the fourth line of the original amendment. It is intended that the claimant shall be eligible for reimbursement of fares to hospital. As the amendment appeared on the Marshalled List the effect was precisely the opposite of our intention. I apologise to the Committee and hope that I shall be forgiven for circulating the manuscript amendment in order to put the matter right.

The amendment is designed to ensure that health charges do not result in a DWA claimant being worse off than if he or she had remained on income support. Unless the amendment or something very like it, though I cannot see any scope for variation, is accepted there is a real danger that the charges will act as a serious disincentive to disabled people to take up the benefit.

The citizens advice bureaux are in a very good position to give examples of hardship which result when poor people have to pay National Health Service charges. For example, the charge for a single prescription is £3.05. Disabled people often need a large number of items. They may need four or five items and so some £15 has gone immediately as a result of one visit to the doctor. There are other hardships which I do not need to list. However, the Government have introduced a very imaginative scheme involving season tickets, which cost £15.80 three times a year or £43.40 for a year. That may not seem a great deal to Members of this Committee, but it is a great deal to someone at the level of income support. Disabled people may need 14 or 15 prescriptions a year.

Let us not forget that disabled people, like the rest of us, have to go to the dentist. That costs £3.45 each time. One may incur a considerable amount of expenditure on treatment which could cost £100 or £200. Expenditure is also incurred in travelling to the dentist or to the optician. One also has to pay charges for treatment by the optician. Therefore it is no exaggeration to say that people on income support and family credit and also those on DWA will all suffer hardship.

Those receiving income support and family credit are exempted from those charges. Why therefore is one not exempt when one receives DWA? These people are scraping an existence at the bottom of our social pyramid. Those claiming DWA are in much the same position as those receiving income support and family credit and they deserve to be treated similarly. Otherwise there is a danger that they will fall into another poverty trap. I propose that DWA should be a passport to exemption from National Health Service charges.

Perhaps I may tell the Committee about the form which people will have to fill in in order to claim exemption if they are not able to claim exemption as a result of the amendment. Earlier in the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Henley, boasted about the Plain English award with which his department had been graced. I was extremely glad to hear about that, and I congratulate the department on the award. However, there is a form called the AG1 which is of enormous complexity. It covers 19 pages which have to be completed just to gain exemption from National Health Service charges.

The citizens advice bureaux say that the form has to be completed every six months. Even a trained CAB adviser finds that it takes half an hour to complete. How much longer will it take a disabled person to complete the form without assistance? The mind boggles. It passes comprehension that they will be able to do so. They will all have to queue up at the CAB twice a year in order to be able to complete that extraordinary form. Therefore I ask the Minister to look at the 19-page form to see whether it is necessary to complete it twice a year, and whether it can be simplified.

That is by the way because I am seeking the elimination of the need to complete the form for those who are in receipt of DWA. That is the burden of the amendment. It should be a passport to exemption from National Health Service charges. I beg to move.

Baroness Turner of Camden

I rise to support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has indicated, the object is to ensure that a DWA claimant will not be worse off than if he or she had remained on income support. Unless DWA claimants are exempted from health service charges, there is a real danger that those charges will act as a serious disincentive to taking up the DWA benefit.

Our evidence indicates that many people on low incomes experience considerable hardship in paying health charges. As has been indicated, those are not negligible. Prescriptions can cost over £3 per item, and sometimes more than one item is prescribed at a time. A dental check costs up to £3.45, and the cost of dental treatment can be substantial. Then there are the costs associated with optical treatment; fares to hospital; NHS wigs; supports; and so on.

The organisation MIND says that those disabled with mental health problems may have continuing costs associated with their condition. Many have very high prescription costs. They say that it is not uncommon for a person to take four or five drugs a day and that they may be prescribed on a weekly basis to reduce the risk of overdose. The costs of prescriptions can be as much as £12 a week. MIND has found that users receiving income support find prescription charges acting as a financial barrier to coming off benefit to take up work. That would surely apply to those considering part-time work with a DWA.

If DWA is not included as a passport benefit to exemption from health charges, the only help available would be the low income scheme. As has been indicated, that provides help towards the costs of some health charges depending on the claimant's level of income. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, indicated, the CABs report that many people fail to make successful claims because of the sheer complexity of the claiming process. There is a I9-page claim form —the AG1 —which has to be completed and, as he said, that form can take a CAB official —an individual who knows his or her way round such forms —as long as half an hour to complete. Imagine such a form having to be dealt with by somebody who is mentally or physically disabled.

It is to be hoped that the Government will look with sympathy on our amendment. Without it DWA is likely to attract even fewer claimants than the 50,000 estimated by the DSS. I should like to add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, with regard to the 19 page long AG1 form. Although that matter does not specifically arise from this Bill, I hope that the Minister will have a look at it because the form seems impossibly complex to handle for someone who is disabled either physically or mentally. With those few words, I support the amendment.

5 p.m.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

I should like to say briefly how strongly I support this amendment. It seems odd that if one receives family credit one is exempt, yet the DWA was modelled on family credit. It seems to me only logical and right that it should be brought into line with family credit.

My noble friend Lord Henderson and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, spoke about the difficulties of the low income scheme and the horrors of the dreaded AG1 . Another major inadequacy of the AG1 is that, although it provides help toward the cost of some health charges, in fact it provides no help with prescription charges, which I should have thought would form the major part of DWA claimants' health care costs anyway. I fully support this amendment.

Lord Swinfen

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, because I was not in my seat when he started to move this amendment. I have some sympathy with the amendment but I also have some doubts about it. As I understand it, it will help those disabled people whose disabilities allow them to work and increase their income by working. What about the disabled person who is so disabled that he is unable to work and increase his income in that way? I think that he will be left out.

Lord Henley

As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, stressed, this is his second manuscript amendment at Committee stage, and I accept his apology. But I trust that Members from all parts of the Chamber will bear that in mind if I have to come forward with any amendments at some later stage in the Bill.

Something has been said about the form AG1. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, mentioned the fact that I boasted earlier that the department which I represent, the Department of Social Security, had won the Plain English award on a number of occasions . At this Dispatch Box I speak for the entire Government but on this occasion I can tell the Committee that the Department of Health, not my department, is responsible for the AG1 and its complexity, though perhaps that may be rather unfair on the Department of Health.

We have recently considered this form. The scheme parallels the income support assessment process, which also takes into account housing costs, and it is necessarily very complex. The form is designed to take the claimant through step by step and very few will need to complete the whole document. Nevertheless, as I said, we have recently examined the form and I understand that my colleagues in the Department of Health will have another look at it.

Lord Skelmersdale

Before my noble friend leaves that point, perhaps he can enlighten the Committee and, no matter which department of state is responsible for that form, say whether it has or has not won an award for plain English.

Lord Henley

I cannot help my noble friend. It is not my understanding that it has won such an award but I shall certainly make inquiries. If he would like to put it forward for the Plain English award, I am sure that the organisers of that competition will be more than pleased.

Since 1952 all governments have believed it right that those who can afford to contribute to the cost of their medication and their dental and optical treatment should do so. Although the revenue raised in charges possibly makes only a small contribution, that contribution is a little over £600 million toward the cost of the national health services. It is a valuable addition to the resources available within the health service.

As the Committee will be aware, many patients are automatically exempt from charges —men over 65 and women over 60, children under 16 and students under 19 in full-time education, and those receiving income support or family credit and their dependants. In addition, exemption certificates can be obtained by expectant and nursing mothers, people suffering from certain specified medical conditions, and war pensioners in relation to their accepted disability.

There is also the NHS low income scheme, which is designed to protect those with limited resources who are not otherwise exempt from National Health Service charges. The threshold for exemption is set at about the same level as that used in assessing entitlement to income support, although the NHS scheme also allows for net housing costs to be taken into account. We believe that that is fair and sensible.

Many people who do not qualify for full help under the NHS low income scheme but who have limited resources can get partial help with all charges except prescription charges. Help with the cost of prescriptions is already available to anyone through the season ticket scheme, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, mentioned.

It is important to remember that because of the extensive exemption arrangements and the season ticket scheme, charges are paid on less than 20 per cent. of all items dispensed in the National Health Service. In 1988 –89 more than 13 million dental treatments were exempt from charges, which is more that 40 per cent. of all treatments.

One must also remember that virtually all DWA recipients will be better off than they would be on an incapacity benefit. Only a minority of them will have been entitled to exemption from charges before they started work and claimed DWA. We estimate that probably less than one-fifth of claimants will have been receiving income support before they claimed DWA. It therefore seems odd to give all those claimants exemption if they are already better off on DWA and most were not exempt from charges before they claimed DWA.

Against that background I can see little justification for extending the range of exemptions. To exempt recipients of DWA from health charges would cost some £3.3 million a year in loss of income from prescription charges, dental charges and provision of sight tests and optical vouchers. Those benefits would go not to those in greatest need —who will be eligible for help under the NHS low income scheme —but to those above the threshold for that scheme. Moreover such an exemption would create an anomalous situation where some of those who gain automatic exemption will have higher incomes than some who fail to qualify for help under the low income scheme.

Recipients of DWA will remain eligible to apply for help under the NHS low income scheme. This will provide partial help with all NHS charges except prescription charges. For prescription charges, as I said, help is already available in the form of season tickets. As well as the annual season ticket, there is also a four-monthly season ticket specifically to help anyone who might not find it easy to buy an annual certificate.

I remain unconvinced of the arguments that have been put forward. I accept that there might be a handful of people whose income, including their DWA, is slightly above income support level who will be made slightly worse off because they will lose exemption from prescription charges and will have to pay a contribution towards other NHS charges. However, wherever the line is drawn there will always be people who are made worse off by being a little on the wrong side of that line.

With the assurances that I have given and with the remarks that I have made about most people not being worse off, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Phillips

Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps the Minister can explain a mystery about a form relating to disability that came through my door, and not only mine —I believe that everyone in the borough received one. That was only six pages. However, it seemed to contain many totally irrelevant questions not directly connected with disability. Consequently, I unfortunately threw it away.

How many forms will be issued? If the form to which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred is 19 pages long, I feel jealous. The one I received had only six. On a serious note, will the form be so complicated that in the end people will not make application? Is that the idea behind it?

Lord Henley

I cannot comment. I do not know what form the noble Baroness received or whether she received it from her borough. I do not know who it came from.

Baroness Phillips

I assumed that it came from the borough. It was addressed to "the occupier".

Lord Henley

I do not know which borough. I cannot comment. The form about which I speak is the form for claiming exemption from NHS charges on the ground of low income. Necessarily, it has to be detailed because one has to go into the income of the person claiming the exemption.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

We have at least been entertained by the Minister's gallant defence of another Ministry, the Department of Health. It was gallant but not convincing. This dreadful form of 19 pages should be redesigned, simplified, shortened and submitted for a Plain English award.

Lord Henley

I said that we would have another look at it. If the noble Lord wishes to make any specific comment, I am sure that my colleagues in the Department of Health will be prepared to listen to it.

Lord Skelmersdale

Before the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, pursues the matter, perhaps he will agree that it is not the length of the form that is pertinent: it is the way in which the questions are phrased and framed, and how easy they are to answer which will or will not qualify the form for a Plain English award. More importantly, will it put off the people for whom exemption is both right and desirable?

Lord Henderson of Brompton

I am not an expert on forms. However, one of the first lessons of oratory is to respect one's audience. The first lesson in writing a form is to respect the reader of the form. To that extent, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. If the form were redesigned, simplified and shortened that would help the recipient. It would help the CAB expert who now takes half an hour to complete the form. That cannot be right. I much look forward to a plain English award being given after such efforts by the Department of Health.

However, that is not the main point of the amendment. It is to relieve the recipient of the disabled working allowance from all National Health Service charges. The nub of the debate was the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). She stated that DWA was modelled on family credit, and that if family credit is a passport to freedom from national health charges, DWA should be as well.

I was not impressed by the Minister's reply, however ingenious. He said that it is only a matter of £3.3 million. That is rather straining at a gnat. I ask the Committee to remember the great lines that, High Heaven rejects the lore Of nicely-calculated less or more", and come into the Division Lobby with me. I commend the amendment.

5.14 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.67A) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 93.

Division No. 3
CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Henderson of Brompton, L. [Teller].
Airedale, L.
Ardwick, L.	Hooson, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Aylestone, L.
Howie of Troon, L.	Birk, B.
Hughes, L.	Boston of Faversham, L.
Hutchinson of Lullington, L.	Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Bruce of Donington, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.	Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Jay, L.	Carter, L.
Jeger, B.	Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.	Clinton-Davis. L.
John-Mackie, L.	Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.
Kennet, L.	Craigavon, V.
Kilmarnock, L.	Darcy (de Knayth), B.[Teller].
Kinloss, Ly.	David, B.
Kirkhill, L.	Dean of Beswick, L.
Lawrence, L.	Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.
Listowel, E.	Dormand of Easington, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Falkender, B.
Lockwood, B.	Gallacher, L.
Longford, E.	Galpern, L.
Lovell-Davis, L.	Gladwyn, L.
McNair, L.	Graham of Edmonton, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.	Grey, E.
Mason of Barnsley, L.	Hampton, L.
Milverton, L.	Hanworth, V.
Mishcon, L.	Harris of Greenwich, L.
Morris of Castle Morris, L.	Hatch of Lusby, L.
Mulley, L.	Hayter, L.

Nicol, B.	Stedman, B.
Palmer, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Phillips, B.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Pitt of Hampstead, L.	Tordoff, L.
Prys-Davies, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Richard, L.	Underhill, L.
Robson of Kiddington, B.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.	White, B.
Seear, B.	Wigoder, L.
Sefton of Garston, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Shaughnessy, L.	Wilson of Rievaulx, L.
Shepherd, L	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aldington, L.	Layton, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Long, V.
Ashbourne, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Astor, V.	McAlpine of West Green, L.
Auckland, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Bauer, L.	Mancroft, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Merrivale, L.
Bessborough, E.	Mersey, V.
Blatch, B.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Blyth, L.	Mottistone, L.
Boardman, L.	Mountevans, L.
Borthwick, L.	Munster, E.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Nelson, E.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Newall, L.
Butterworth, L.	Norfolk, D.
Caithness, E.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Orkney, E.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Carnock, L.	Pender, L.
Cavendish of Furness, L.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Clanwilliam, E.	Platt of Writtle, B.
Coleraine, L.	Portsmouth, E.
Constantine of Stanmore, L.	Quinton, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Reay, L.
Davidson, V.[Teller.]	Renwick, L.
Denham, L.	Romney, E.
Dilhorne, V.	Sharples, B.
Eccles of Moulton, B.	Skelmersdale, L.
Elles, B.	Strange, B.
Elton, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Fanshawe of Richmond, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Ferrers, E.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Gibson-Watt, L.	Sudeley, L.
Gridley, L.	Swansea, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
	Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Hemphill, L.	Trumpington, B.
Henley, L.	Ullswater, V.
Holderness, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Hood, V.	Waddington, L.
Howe, E.	Wade of Chorlton, L.
Inchcape, E.	Windlesham, L.
Ironside, L.	Wise, L.
Jeffreys, L.	Young, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5.22 p.m.

Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 68:

Page 12, line 4, at end insert: ("( ) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (5) of section 22 of the 1986 Act (calculation) — (5A) Subsection (5) above shall not apply where a person is claiming the disability working allowance." ").

The noble Baroness said: In the absence of my noble friend, Lady Hollis of Heigham, I move Amendment No. 68. As I understand it, under the present drafting of the Bill if one member of a couple claims disability working allowance, the partner's income would be taken into account both for the purposes of assessing entitlement and in calculating the amount of benefit payable.

This amendment seeks to ensure that only the individual's income is taken into account. The combined effect of the steep means test for the disability working allowance and the inclusion in the calculation of a partner's income will be to deny the majority of disabled people who would like to work, but whose partners are already working, the right to work without the risk of forfeiting their continued entitlement to incapacity benefits or it may force one or other member of a couple to forgo the opportunity to continue in or take up an offer of paid employment.

The Government have repeatedly asserted that this benefit has been introduced in order to enable more people with disabilities to attain financial independence through work. In the Government's own words, this is a benefit aimed at helping people who are at a disadvantage in obtaining a job. We spoke about this earlier this afternoon. Therefore, it is inconsistent to treat a benefit whose primary purpose is to help individuals with a disability in the same way as other benefits aimed at families or households. I understand that that is what the Government are attempting to do here.

We believe very strongly that unless there is an amendment to individualise the benefit, a number of people who might otherwise benefit —in particular married women —would be at a disadvantage in claiming DWA. We believe that that would be a pity because disabled people, on an individual basis, should be given an encouragement to look for suitable work and to take it if it is offered.

This is a very simple amendment and the argument is also very simple. I shall not take up more time of the Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Henley

This amendment would be a very significant step away from the principle which applies and has always applied in income related benefits that the income and other resources of partners are taken into account in calculating the benefit paid for the family. For this reason, I cannot recommend the amendment to the Committee.

Like income support, family credit, housing benefit and community charge benefit, DWA is a benefit for the claimant and his immediate family. It is not a personal benefit. The amount of benefit due for the whole family will be calculated and the whole family's resources (with certain specific exceptions) will be aggregated and taken into account. In effect, the rules governing income-related benefits merely reflect the pooling of resources that takes place in the majority of families. The 1988 reforms simplified benefits by aligning the rules for income-related benefits and introducing common rules for all benefits as far as possible. Aligning disability working allowance rules with those for other benefits where appropriate will make it easier for people to understand and ensures that there is a smooth progression from one benefit to another. So people moving from income support to DWA will find that similar rules apply. Those who are claiming housing benefit will also find that similar rules apply to that benefit.

The principal argument advanced in support of the amendment is that disregarding a partner's income and capital might well give the claimant more of an incentive to go to work.

Clearly, the question of incentives was one we considered very carefully when designing DWA. I believe we have ensured that the two most important incentives are there; namely, that the great majority of potential claimants will be better off in work than they would be on an incapacity benefit; and, as their earnings go up their net income will also increase so that they are at least a little better off. Beyond that there will always be debate about whether there is enough of a financial incentive. But I think we must have two things in mind. First, the crucial decision for the potential claimant must be whether he is ready to work. If he is ready, DWA will be there as a support if he needs it.

Secondly, I think we should have in mind the effect that the discussion of incentives has on people who are not able to work. None of us would want to give the impression that we think less of them or consider them less deserving of adequate support from social security because they have not managed to work. We believe that the resources which are available should be shared between those who can work and those who cannot.

The objective of disability working allowance is to give an opportunity where the claimant would not otherwise have a chance to try to work without risk of falling below income support level. If a claimant would not be entitled to DWA because his partner has income or capital which would take him above benefit level then he cannot be said to need DWA to avoid the risk of falling below income support level. Disregarding the partner's income and capital would increase the cost of DWA and I do not believe it would be a good use of public money. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Turner of Camden

It is not my intention to press this amendment. However, the Government are not consistent in their arguments. When the new allowance was discussed in the other place in November of last year, it was described as an important initiative to promote the independence of people with disabilities, giving sizeable numbers a new option of working without the risk of a drop in their income. As we have indicated on this side of the Committee, if one takes into account a partner's income, that affects a person's independence and he is no longer given an independent incentive.

Moreover, it is the view of the organisations representing the disabled that if this provision remains in the Bill, significant numbers will be excluded altogether from the benefit. They say that 70 per cent. of the partners of a person with a disability earn £100 a week or over, and 52 per cent. earn 150 a week or more. According to the illustrative benefit rates provided by the DSS in its note on disability working allowance the maximum amounts that can be earned in order to still qualify for the minimum level of DWA are £130.81 for a couple without children and £154.39 for a couple with two children under 11 years.

Thus they believe that approximately half of disabled people living as a couple would fail to qualify for even the minimum level of DWA on the grounds that their partners earned income exceeding the threshold level. I do not regard that as satisfactory. Nor do I think that it supports the contention that the DWA will provide an incentive for people to become more independent and to attempt to get work which they have not had hitherto. Nevertheless, as I said earlier, I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division this afternoon. I shall read carefully in Hansard what the noble Lord has said to see whether or not this is one of the issues that we shall be pursuing at the Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 69:

Page 12, line 4, at end insert: ("( ) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (6) of section 22 of the 1986 Act (calculation) — (6A) For the purposes of subsection (6) above, if the person is claiming a disability working allowance, the prescribed amount shall not be less than £16,000." ").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 69 and I am happy to say that on this occasion I do not need to move a manuscript amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to raise the present capital limit from £8,000 to £16,000 for DWA claims. An amendment was moved in the House of Commons to get rid of the capital limit altogether, and Ann Widdecombe, the Under-Secretary of State answering, said: We are trying to bring people's resources up to a given level, not benefit the better off.

She went on to say: We have shown in the past that we are prepared to raise the capital limits and we shall continue to ensure that the limit is pitched at the right level. At the moment we believe that £8,000 is the correct level for receiving disability working allowance, so keeping it in line with family credit and income support.

I fully appreciate that it is always good to keep limits in some kind of relationship with other benefits, and in this case I accept that £8,000 is in line with family credit and income support, but how does the Minister in another place reach "the right level"? I am glad that she has been so considerate as to say that the department will review this from time to time so that the right level is kept in place, but I do not understand how you arrive at the right level. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would perhaps let us into the secret of how to arrive at the right level for capital limits.

I would say that disabled people —and we have one here in the Committee who can testify to this and a noble Lord on the Government Front Bench who looks after disabled people and who has a great deal of experience as to their costs —have a much greater need of capital than able-bodied people. Surely everybody knows that. I should like to perhaps leave it to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness to give some indication to the Committee of how much capital a disabled person needs. Frankly, I think it is mean to say that if you have more than £8,000 capital then you are not going to get the DWA. It is shoddy and mean. The very least that the Government should do is to increase the limit to £16,000.

I know, and have been told of, a number of people who spend a lot of capital on their disability in order to enable them to get out to work. Some of that expenditure may be described as a luxury, but I regard it as usually necessary. Certainly there are people who spend £70,000 on equipment in order to be able to get about and to rejig their homes so that they can live on their own or with minimum help. To deny people DWA because they have £8,000 in capital is really mean and curmudgeonly, scrooge-like, and anything else nasty I can think of.

The Government may say that £8,000 is the correct level because it is in line with family credit and income support, but —and I am not repeating the House of Commons amendment, which I would like to do and which would get rid of the limit altogether —we are proposing a limit of £16,000. This conforms with the Social Security Advisory Committee's recommendation —the Government's expert advisers —and £16,000 happens to be the limit for housing benefit and community charge.

To put it in line with housing benefit and community charge is far more valid than putting it in line with family credit and income support. There is clearly more than one view as to the right level, but I must say that this Committee ought to urge the Government to be more generous than they are in the Bill, and for that reason I commend my amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Turner of Camden

I rise to support Amendment No. 69 coupled with Amendment No. 70 which is grouped with it. As has been said, the purpose of the amendments is to ensure that people with disabilities are not excluded from claiming DWA simply because their savings are too high. The intention, as I understand it, is that the capital rules for family credit will apply to DWA. There are, I understand, two basic rules. First, people who have capital are not entitled to any benefit if their capital exceeds £8,000 and, secondly, those who have capital of between £3,000 and £8,000 are subject to reductions to their benefits of £1 a week for every £250 over the £3,000 baseline.

Many disabled people have savings up to those amounts. Sometimes they may have come about as a result of compensation cases that have been won because the injuries producing the disability have occurred through the negligence of some other person; sometimes an employer. They are intended to provide compensation for the injury and to ensure that, so far as possible, that person can lead a reasonable life. But that costs money, particularly for people who have a permanent injury.

House adaptations are notoriously expensive. Electric wheelchairs can cost as much as £4,000. It also costs more to be disabled in general living terms. Do it yourself at home is out of the question for many disabled people. Others have to be paid to do work that people without disabilities can do for themselves as a matter of course.

We are not suggesting that there should be no limits, though I believe a powerful case was made in Committee in another place for having absolutely no capital rules. However, that is not what we say in these amendments. In current circumstances we believe that the limits in the Bill are far too low. This is particularly the case since, as I understand it, the capital of partners is to be taken into account. This could rule out many married women, as we discussed on the previous amendment. I hope, therefore, that the Government will heed our arguments and will meet the case that we have made.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

I briefly support these two amendments, particularly Amendment No. 69. There can be no doubt after Thursday's debate on the components about the extra day-to-day costs of living. As my noble friend Lord Henderson and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, there are big expenditures too on such improvements as adaptations. My noble friend has already mentioned the Social Security Advisory Committee, which recommended that the capital limit be increased to £16,000. I quote from page 3 of its January 1991 report. It says, disabled people have needs which differ from the able-bodied population. Capital is a cushion against increasing dependence on others; special equipment not available free of charge may be required in the future to retain independence as disability increased with age".

I support the amendment.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

I am somewhat worried. I should like to see higher capital savings permitted and to that extent I support the principle of the amendment. I have not been able to assess whether the figure quoted is correct because not enough has been said. Presumably the figure of savings is free capital as opposed to one's home or other assets to which one is entitled. That point has not been brought out.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, felt obliged to use all kinds of emotive words such as "miserly" and "curmudgeonly", and so on. I felt that that tended to fudge the issue. I should like to see that people with disabilities had sufficient savings in order to feel that they had a fallback position. One likes to feel that one is not totally dependent on outside factors. We must bear in mind also that some people who are a little unscrupulous or dishonest do not declare what they possess — they believe it might place them just above the required limit— and therefore those who are honest in stating what they have lose out to those persons who are less scrupulous.

I do not agree with the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, in regard to people who have claims. One reason there are now such high payments of compensation is due to the recognition of the amount of care required even over a lifetime. At the moment, we see enormously high figures calculated to take into account the special care that people may need. However, I should like the Government to say that they will consider raising the amount of permitted capital. It is not adequate at the present time.

Lord Clifford of Chudleigh

One matter that we seem to have forgotten is that everyone, whether disabled, aged or able to walk around and earn money, must pay a tax which, although under review, I shall mention anyway. I refer to the community charge. The disabled person must pay 20 per cent. of the new charge. If one is to have something equivalent to a head charge, which has been mentioned, it must be remembered that a disabled person who may be married and have children, must also pay that rate.

It fascinates me to think that we in this Chamber are allowed to claim around £24 a day to eat and drink each time we attend. The figure of £8,000 was mentioned earlier. When one considers £24 just for all the days of the year, £8,000 would cover that. Bearing in mind that we have not allowed certain exemptions because of the votes taken on Division, I suggest it would be worthwhile to consider the figure of £16,000.

Lord Swinfen

I approve of the amendment in principle. I do not know whether the figures are right. I hope that the Government will consider the matter and perhaps table their own amendment at a later stage.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Henley

Most Members of the Committee have been speaking to Amendment No. 69. My understanding is that we are speaking to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70. They concern different and separate points which need separate decisions. A decision on the first amendment, raising the upper limit from £8,000 to £16,000, should not necessarily bind. the Committee on a decision on the second amendment, which raises the lower limit from £3,000 to £8,000.

Disability working allowance is an income-related benefit in line with income support and family credit. Those income-related benefits are the nearest equivalent and are rather different to community charge and housing benefit. That is why we chose the figure of £3,000 for the lower limit and £8,000 for the upper capital limit.

It is difficult to achieve the right level. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State must weigh-up the priorities when deciding where to use the available resources. However, I make a brief point in regard to capital. It was a point made by my noble friend Lady Gardner. She asked what would be taken into account in assessing the value of the claimant's capital. It is easier to look at what will not be taken into account.

The surrender value of a life assurance policy, an annuity or an occupational pension will not be taken into account. Compensation for personal injury held in trust— a matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner— will be disregarded, as will the value of the claimant's home and their personal possessions. I understand that that will cover a wide area, even to the Rembrandt on the claimant's wall. If it were not an investment, my understanding is that it would not be taken into account. If it had been bought as an investment, its value would be taken into account.

Arrears of income-related benefit are ignored if received within the previous 12 months. Business assets where the claimant is a self-employed earner are not taken into account. Capital held by a dependent child or young person under 19 will not be taken into account, unless he or she has more than £3,000, in which case no child credit would be payable for the child. That is true for all income-related benefits.

In passing, I should perhaps make one other point about the level of capital; it was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. It concerns what would happen if a disabled person who had capital in excess of £8,000 spent that excess on items related to his disability, such as adaptations to his home or pieces of equipment, and ended up with less than £8,000. Obviously he would be entitled to benefit. I have taken advice on the matter. It would have to be within reason; if he had bought himself a special yacht designed for the disabled that might be seen as a misuse of his capital and a means of getting round the capital limits.

The Government believe that it is right to target the limited resources— I stress that they are limited— available to those who are relatively less well-off. The proposed rule reflects that aim by giving most help to those people with the lowest capital resources and tapering it off by means of £ 1 in every £250 above £3,000 as the capital rises to the appropriate limit, at which point no benefit is payable. People are not barred from receiving benefit for all time and may qualify if their capital is reduced.

It was argued that DWA recipients, being disabled, have particular need of a higher capital limit. I accept that the disabled possibly incur higher costs. However, I explained that if a disabled person spent some of that capital and thus reduced it to £8,000, providing it was spent on items relating to their disability, they would still be entitled to benefit.

One should remember also that those arguments become less convincing when one remembers some of the forms of capital which I stressed were wholly disregarded. For example, compensation for personal injury held in trust will be entirely disregarded, as will the claimant's home, their personal possessions and the surrender value of a life assurance policy, an annuity and an occupational pension. The proposed capital rules for DWA strike the right balance between encouraging people to save and ensuring the proper use of public money.

We have shown in the past that we are prepared to raise the capital limits and will continue to ensure that the limit is pitched at the right level. At the moment we believe that we have found the correct level for receiving disability working allowance. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not feel compelled to press the amendment.

Baroness Seear

Can the Minister say whether the capital limits are automatically indexed?

Lord Henley

No, they are not. The Secretary of State must consider them every year in the usual up-rating process and he will raise them as and when he feels it is necessary or possible so to do.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. One question I asked was how one could calculate what was right.

Is whatever the Secretary of State decides right?

Lord Henley

I think I made it quite clear. There is no way in which we can calculate which is exactly the right figure. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has to make certain very difficult decisions about the correct use of public money and the correct level. He has decided on balance that £8,000 is about the right level. It is the same level as in income support and family credit. Of the five income-related benefits those are the two with which we feel disability working allowance fits in best.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

I find that to be an unsatisfactory reply, first because the Minister has now confirmed what we all darkly suspected, that what is right is whatever the Secretary of State decides is right. There is no yardstick at all by which he judges such things. He just consults himself and says, "This is right". I do not regard that as being satisfactory.

Secondly, even more unsatisfactory is the fact that he has heard two pleas from his own Benches, from Lady Gardner of Parkes and from the far corner behind him, to say that there is some merit in this amendment and to ask him to take it away and think about it between now and the next stage. He has given no reply. This is very unusual. I wonder whether, even at this late stage, he could say that he will reconsider the £8,000 in the light of the discussion we have had this afternoon and of the requests of his two noble friends.

Lord Henley

Putting it very simply, I should certainly be prepared to take away the first of the amendments and look through it. On the second one, raising £3,000 capital disregard to a figure that does not exist anywhere else in the income related benefits is not something on which I could move. I could not offer any real hope to the noble Lord or to the supporters of that amendment that I might be prepared to move.

Lady Carnegy of Lour

Before the noble Lord decides what he will do with his amendment, it seems to me that he has been a little unfair in the way that he has attacked my noble friend the Minister. My noble friend explained very clearly that the problem was the total sum that could be made available for this particular assistance to disabled people. We know that the whole Bill is making quite a lot of extra money available. It is quite clear to all of us that £8,000 of capital in any respect nowadays is a very small sum indeed. Sixteen thousand pounds is not very much. We also know that we should like people to save more, and that there is a disincentive to saving here. All those things are true, and I agree with my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes that in the long run this is something which needs to be looked at in a national context. It is related to the community charge, and we have all looked at how different families were affected by the capital limit. Sixteen thousand pounds is still low because of what has happened to the value of money and because of what people need by way of savings, whether they are disabled or not. That is not the point at present.

The noble Lord is asking for a great deal more money— we do not know how much— to be put into this particular part of the Bill, this particular assistance to disabled people. It would be very much better if he just got up and said, "I don't think there's nearly enough and I want more spent". He did not need to go into all the devious arguments telling the Government that they are mean. Quite honestly, that makes me a little fed up. It undermines the noble Lord's mission, which is a very laudable one, to try to do everything he can to get more resources of the country moved from other areas into helping disabled people. That is his aim, and I do not feel he should have talked as he did.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

Does the noble Lady realise that her speech is an interruption in my winding-up speech? It would have been much better if she had said this in the proper place. To carry on like this making a speech of several minutes as an interruption to my winding-up speech is quite wrong. It is a misuse of the procedures of this Chamber, and she should recognise that and not seek to rise to her feet again. If I may say so, it would have saved a great deal of time because what I was about to do could have been done in five or 10 seconds, instead of our having another five or six minutes added to the length of the debate. This does not accord with the usual procedures in the Committee.

Lady Carnegy of Lour

I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but he had not said the things which riled me until he was making his winding-up speech. He was making these somewhat derogatory remarks and I got a little fed up. That was all. I am sorry, but this is the Committee stage.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

I am sorry that we should all have to put up with the noble Lady being fed up. It is very unattractive. The fact is that I said far nastier things in my opening speech than in my winding-up speech. Perhaps the noble Lady was not here. But I think that has dealt with her reasonably well, as they say. It is always a mistake to come in at the end of a debate not having heard the earlier part.

I can now say very briefly what I was going to say half an hour ago but for the noble Lady's interruption — that is, that the noble Lord has been very gracious indeed in having given way in answer to my query as to whether he would look at this again. He said very graciously, as I was going to say even before the noble Lady's intemperate interruption, that he has acceded to the request of his two noble friends in regard to the limit of £16,000. I am extremely grateful to him for that. I do not expect him to respond to the other amendment, which, incidentally, I failed to couple with my amendment, but in regard to the amendment which I am moving I am grateful to him. Naturally, in the light of what he has said, despite what the noble Baroness has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Turner of Camden

had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 70:

Page 12, line 4, 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 5,000."").

The noble Baroness said: These two amendments were grouped but the Minister said he thought the Committee should have the opportunity of considering them separately. I do not want to say very much because in view of what has just taken place I do not think there would be much virtue in my pressing the amendment. But I should like to take issue with the noble Lord over the £3,000 baseline because, as I understand it, the £3,000 baseline for other benefits has not changed since 1984.

Using the Treasury figures, the £5,000 which is proposed in this amendment is merely an up-rating, taking account of inflation since 1984. Furthermore, as I understand it, the figure conforms with the Social Security Advisory Committee's recommendations, and is also aligned with rules for capital in regard to calculations of housing benefit. In other words, it is not only addressing the Government's concern that present benefits must be aligned in some way but it is also consistent with the Government's own advisers' recommendations.

Before I sit down, perhaps I may say a few words about the references of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, to amounts of compensation in injury cases. It is quite true that there have been some very large awards, but in my experience these have been in exceptional cases. The general level of awards is not very high, and the exceptional cases have usually been in instances where people have been almost totally paralysed as a result of their injuries. I know of one case of that kind which happened in my own union and in which the amount of money awarded was very large indeed, but the poor individual concerned was totally paralysed from the chin downwards and needed an enormous amount of support services. So, where those very large amounts of money are awarded, the disability is usually so grievous as to prevent the person concerned ever envisaging going on to DWA or doing any sort of work. The general level of compensation payments is very much lower.

Having said that, I do not intend to move my amendment.

[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 [Disability working allowance— supplementary]:

[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 72:

Page 12, line 35, leave out ("one of those sub-paragraphs") and insert ("that paragraph").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 58. I beg to move.

6 p.m.

Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 73:

Page 12, line 37, at end insert— ("( ) If a repeat claim is made during a period in which the claimant—

1. (a) is in receipt of statutory sick pay,
2. (b) would be entitled to statutory sick pay but for the fact that his earnings were below the lower earnings limit,
3. (c) is on maternity leave, or
4. (d) is on unpaid leave,

for the purposes of section 20(6A) ((a)) above he shall be deemed to be engaged or normally engaged in remunerative work.").

The noble Baroness said: The object of the amendment is to correct a somewhat anomalous situation. If a claimant is absent from work because he or she is sick, on unpaid holiday or on maternity leave at the time that his or her award of DWA falls due for renewal, he or she will be unable to make a renewal claim until back at work. That will mean a gap in benefit payments during which the person will have only a low wage on which to keep him or herself. However, if such events fall within the claimed period, benefit will continue to be paid; in other words, the DWA will not be interrupted.

I understand that the conditions are modelled on those relating to family credit. In that case the claimant must be engaged on remunerative work (defined as not less than 24 hours per week) and is so only if he or she is engaged on such work in either the week during which the claim is made or in one of the two weeks before the claim provided he or she is still employed when the claim is made. If the claimant does not undertake at least 24 hours of work in any of those three weeks the claim will be disallowed. That is the case even if the reason is that he or she has not worked the necessary hours because of sickness, maternity leave, suspension, short time, lay-off, and so forth.

The CAB has provided me with instances of the way in which that operates to the disadvantage of claimants in relation to family credit. It is difficult to believe that it is the intention of the Government that a person cannot make a claim for DWA until he or she is back at work. Yet the benefit is designed to help disabled people to obtain a job and keep it. The provision acts as a disincentive to working and is in addition to the anomaly whereby two claimants of DWA can be absent from work but because one is off work when renewal is due his or her benefit stops while the benefit of the other claimant continues.

This is a simple amendment. I hope that the Government will accept that its provisions are reasonable. I beg to move.

Lord Henley

I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward in favour of the amendment. I understand that its purpose is to protect the position of those disabled people whose condition fluctuates. I am sympathetic to their problems. We have striven to formulate the rules for the disability working allowance in such a way that it will cater for their needs as well as for those who are able to work regularly.

When assessing entitlement to DWA the adjudicating officer will be able to take account of a person's earnings over whatever past period it seems to him will best represent that person's normal weekly earnings at the time he or she makes the claim. Where a person's earning capacity falls into a regular pattern the average over a fairly long past period might best represent the norm. Where a person has recently had to reduce his hours, or perhaps take lighter work paying a lower hourly rate, the period immediately before the claim will be more representative.

A person who has given up IVB or SDA to take a job and come on to DWA during a period when he was well, but whose condition deteriorates towards the end of the 26 week award period, will, it is true, not be able to make a renewal claim while he is absent from work. That is because he will not be able to satisfy the 16 hour remunerative work test. But we have allowed a fair amount of latitude so that people will have a choice about when to make their repeat claims. This should mean that most people who have a short period of sickness are protected.

Six weeks before the end of an award we will send every claimant a renewal claim form. If he is off work sick, or is on holiday, he will be able to keep the form and choose when to send it back. If it is returned no more than two weeks after the old award expires the new award will be backdated so that there is no gap in his entitlement.

If he still has not recovered he will have a further six weeks during which, if his original qualifying benefit was IVB or SDA, he can make a claim. Of course, people who qualify for any rate of disability living allowance will be able to claim at any time.

The amendment would go far beyond helping people who happen to experience a period of short-term sickness at the time their DWA award runs out. It would enable people to go on receiving DWA for indefinite periods of leave from work and it would allow any number of repeat claims without the claimant having to satisfy the remunerative work test at any stage.

I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment. DWA is, after all, a benefit for people in work. For the sake of proper accountability of public funds we believe it not unreasonable to be able to confirm that a claimant is in work when we make an award which will last for 26 weeks.

We have made such provision as we can to help those whose health is uncertain; to protect everyone would not be possible without seriously complicating the rules of what must be a simple benefit to administer and to understand. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Turner of Camden

I am grateful to the Minister for his response and for setting out clearly the way in which the benefit is intended to work. Furthermore, I thank him for his sympathy for the problems of the people whom the amendment was intended to help. I am grateful for his assurance that the adjudicating officer will be expected to be fairly flexible and that there will be a fair amount of latitude. In the circumstances I do not intend to press the amendment. I shall read in Hansard what has been said. In the circumstances it was extremely helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Disability working allowance: amendments. Part 1— Amendments of 1986 Act. Part II— Amendments of other Acts.]

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 74:

Page 30, line 39, leave out ("and (3), 100C(6), 104A(1) (c) and (2)") and insert (", (3), (4) and (11), 100C(2) to (5), 100D(4) to (6), 104A(1) (c) and (d), (2) and (5)").

The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 75, 77, 78 and 79. They are minor and technical amendments which clarify how elements of the adjudication arrangements for attendance allowance and disability living allowance set out in Schedule I will apply to disability working allowance. I beg to move.

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 75:

Page 30, line 40, leave out ("(3) and").

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 76:

Page 31, line 3, after ("if") insert: ("(a) in subsection (3A), "(3)" were substituted for "(2)"; and (b)")

Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 77, 78 and 79:

Page 31, line 4, after ("omitted.";") insert: ("(cc) the following subsection were substituted for section 115C(3)— (3) An adjudication officer may refer for advice any case relating to attendance allowance or disability living allowance to a medical practitioner who is an officer of the Secretary of State.";").

Page 31, line 11, leave out ("its") and insert ("their").

Page 31, line 12, after ("100A") insert ("(1) and").

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 [Entitlement to other benefits after termination of entitlement to disability working allowance]:

Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 79A:

Page 13, line 31, at end insert: ("(5AA) In the case of a person suffering from an episodic illness, the period of two years specified in subsection (5A) (d) above may be extended by the Secretary of State by order.").

The noble Baroness said: On Second Reading I raised the problem of a person with an episodic illness. I have in mind someone with multiple sclerosis whose illness goes through periods of remission. The Bill does not make clear whether the period of two years will run from the original date of receiving invalidity benefit or whether it will become a rolling two years to enable the person to work as and when possible. The disability working allowance is designed to enable and encourage people to work whenever possible. It is more fulfilling for people to feel that they are doing a useful job.

The Minister kindly wrote to me. He appeared to say that the period ran for the correct time and at each stage it related back. However, I did not completely understand his letter and therefore move the amendment in order to have his explanation placed on record. I hope that the Minister will describe how the two-year period is measured. I beg to move.

Baroness Turner of Camden

I support the amendment. It is very similar in intention to my Amendment No. 81. If Amendment No. 79A commended itself to the Committee there would be no need for me to proceed with Amendment No. 81. That too is concerned with people who stop working, come off DWA, again become incapable of work and then reclaim their incapacity benefit within two years of last receiving it. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this issue. I may not move Amendment No. 81 if there is a satisfactory reply to the arguments advanced by myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

Perhaps I may comment on one of the major differences between Amendments Nos. 79A and 81, as I have not spoken to Amendment No. 81. Amendment No. 79A leaves a great discretion in the hands of the Secretary of State. It is not as detailed as Amendment No. 81 and for that reason is not as difficult for the Government to consider.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for moving this amendment. I sympathise very much with what she said at Second Reading. I should have felt deprived had we not as a Committee had the benefit of the Minister's reply and had the noble Baroness received it by way of correspondence. I think she has performed a great service. Amendment No. 81 involves slightly separate issues. I do not know whether the noble Baroness intends to move it, but I congratulate her on raising it at this stage.

Lord Skelmersdale

I hope that when my noble friend replies he will be able to tell the Committee that the trigger for this provision is the last day of work and not the last day that invalidity allowance was payable. If it was the last day at work it would seem that two years is a reasonable period. If, however, it is the last day for which invalidity benefit— referred to in the Bill as a pension— is payable, then that can be worked through very quickly and would not help the people whom my noble friend and other Members of the Committee want to help; namely, those with episodic illnesses like, for example, AIDS— or a certain stage of AIDS— and, of course, muscular dystrophy.

Lord Henley

I apologise for not copying the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, into my correspondence with my noble friend Lady Gardner. I did not in fact copy anyone into it. Perhaps it might have been useful if I had. My noble friend said that she would like an explanation on the record. I shall do my best.

I shall deal first with my noble friend's amendment and then turn to Amendment No. 81. At Second Reading my noble friend mentioned her concern about episodic illnesses. She asked how the new two-year linking rule which we are introducing for disability working allowance recipients will work in such cases. If someone gives up invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance and claims DWA within eight weeks he will have an extended period in which he is able to go back to his incapacity benefit. Provided he remains entitled to DWA for the whole intervening period, if his attempt at work fails within two years and he is incapable of work he will be able to go back to his old benefit.

The noble Baroness asked when the two years will run from. I can reassure the Committee that, however many times the claimant has claimed DWA in the past, the two years will always run from the date he last claimed DWA following a period on invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance.

In effect, the link will be a rolling two-year link. If someone who was getting DWA has a relapse within two years and has to give up work he will be able to return to IVB using the long linking rule. If he recovers, starts work and reclaims DWA, he will have a new two-year linking period running from the start of the new DWA award.

I hope my reply reassures my noble friend and that she will not feel it necessary to press her amendment.

The effect of Amendment No. 81 would be to give a perpetual linking rule for anyone receiving IVB or SDA in the eight weeks before he claimed DWA. We have given very detailed and very careful thought to this difficult but important aspect of the DWA scheme. I believe that in giving the long two-year linking rule we have gone a very long way towards dealing with the disincentive effect of the present rule. The new, more generous, two-year linking rule will provide protection for those people who need the reassurance that they can try working without becoming worse off either temporarily or in the longer term.

It is accepted that the present eight-week linking rule for invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance can act as a disincentive for some people on long term incapacity benefits. Therefore, the extension of the normal eight-week linking rule to two years is an important feature of disability working allowance. A person who was receiving IVB or SDA before starting work and coming onto DWA will be able to go back onto his previous long-term benefit rather than making a new claim to sickness benefit if he becomes incapable of work and has to give up his job within two years.

This new linking rule will remove a considerable anxiety for disabled people who would like to work but are uncertain about their ability to do so. People will no longer need to worry that an unsuccessful experiment with work could make them temporarily worse off. I believe that it is a generous provision which will remove many of the fears expressed by the lobby groups on behalf of disabled people with intermittently disabling conditions.

An open-ended linking rule, as proposed by this amendment, would be extremely difficult to administer. For one thing, the department would have to retain the records of IVB/SDA claims for all DWA claimants indefinitely. I doubt whether a great many DWA recipients would need a linking rule of more than two years and I think that the broad brush approach must be used: there comes a point at which the administrative cost and difficulties begin to outweigh the value of further extending the linking rule.

We must recognise that social security is constantly changing and over long periods even the aspects of policy which seem most stable can change. It is conceivable that there may be changes to invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance in the longer term. Therefore, the longer the interval before reclaiming IVB the more difficult it could become to determine the correct amount payable. I believe that is an important consideration.

There is also the question of principle. At some stage people who take DWA and work for a good length of time must be regarded as permanent members of the work force. Once a person has made the transition into employment and sustained his work for a number of years it becomes increasingly unreasonable for him to expect to maintain a link with long-term incapacity benefits.

Full employment protection rights are acquired by employees once they have worked for an employer for two years. It seems to me entirely reasonable to use the same period to break the link with long-term incapacity benefits. For all these reasons I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Amendment No. 81. I hope that I have satisfied my noble friend on her Amendment No. 79A.

6.15 p.m.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

I thank the Minister for his comments. Am I to take it that he thinks that my amendment is unnecessary as the Secretary of State has all the powers he needs to extend it? I take it from what he said that the two years is a rolling two years. That is splendid. However, I seek his confirmation that at the other end of the arrangement the 28 day qualifying period is not necessary either and that someone with an episodic illness can go from one support system to another.

Lord Henley

I think my noble friend meant 28 weeks and not 28 days. That is the point of the rolling. The protection that claimants are given is that they can go straight back onto the long-term benefits rather than having to rely on statutory sick pay— if I dare mention those words in this Chamber— for the first 28 weeks.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

I meant 28 weeks and not 28 days. My noble friend has explained it very well. I am also impressed by the fact that once someone has worked for two years he has full industrial rights. That applies if he has worked for the same person for the two years. If he has worked for different firms, as would be more likely with the episodic illness, then this rolling provision will help him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 80:

Page 14, line 39, at end insert: ("(3A) In Schedule 20 to the 1975 Act, at the end of the definition of "week" there shall be added the words "and except in relation to disability working allowance".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment clarifies our intention that the two-year linking rule with IVB and SDA shall apply for the whole of the period of entitlement to DWA. I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]

On Question, Whether Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Renton

Perhaps I may make a brief comment about Clause 9. Not only is it exceedingly long, but parts overlap and there is repetition to a great extent. It is entirely a matter of drafting and structure, but my noble friend would do well to get his advisers to examine it again. In contrast, I admire the effort made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in Amendment No. 81 which covers most of the scope of Clause 9 in a manner which is succinct and to the point. It would be a great service to the administrators of the Act if the drafting of Clause 9 were improved and made more succinct.

Lord Henley

I note my noble friend's anxiety. I have the greatest respect for his expertise; but it would be wrong for me to comment at this stage on his remarks or on the drafting of the clause. I shall take the remarks on board and examine the drafting of Amendment No. 81 with the help of those advising me. As my noble friend knows, parliamentary drafting is highly skilled. I have taken on board what my noble friend said.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Repeals]:

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 82:

Page 33, line 42, at end insert:

("1988 c.7. Social Security Act 1988.

In section 1(2), in paragraph (a), the words from "by" to "that Act", in paragraph (b), the words "by the Board or by such a delegate", in paragraph (c), the words from "by the Board" to "1975" and the word "and", and paragraph (d).").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 83:

Page 16, line 34, leave out ("5, 11.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment makes a minor change to the commencement provisions. Instead of coming into effect on Royal Assent, the powers in Clauses 5 and 11 (to make transitional and consequential regulations) will be brought in by commencement order. I beg to move.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past six o'clock.