Lords Sitting of 25 March 1991

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

Arms Manufacturers: Future
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their refusal to assist arms manufacturing companies to convert to production for civil purposes as set out by the Earl of Arran (H.L. Deb., 4th March, col. WA 63) indicates a lack of government concern, and if so whether they will reconsider their policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, no. It indicated the Government's belief that decisions about the way companies conduct their business are best left to the commercial judgment of the individual companies concerned.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that this is no time for ideological economics? The reiterations on the positions of Thatcherism will not convince anyone that the Government have left that position behind. Does the Minister agree that a number of companies are having difficulty in making the transition, and that unless the Government are prepared not merely to reiterate their theoretical position but also to give help, many of those companies will go under?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this is not an ideological situation, as the noble Lord tries to suggest. We are suggesting, as we always have, that this is a practical way forward. We accept the need to keep industry closely informed of our requirements. However, decisions on the forward equipment programme must be a matter for the department.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not rather a paradox that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, whose hostility towards arms manufacture is well known, should be asking the Government to subsidise those who in the past have indulged in it?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble and learned friend makes a good point.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while in the present situation there are bound to be substantial cuts in defence orders, it is the Government's duty to give the longest possible notice to the defence industry of changes? In that respect, why has a decision not yet been taken on the order from Vickers for new Challengers? The decision could have been taken by the end of last year. Is the Minister aware that as a result of being strung along in this way Vickers are experiencing great difficulties?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is undoubtedly aware that we have just returned from victorious conflict in the Gulf. Following the document Options for Change, it is extremely important to absorb and learn from lessons in the Gulf before any final decisions are taken.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, while his comment was accurate, during the cold war period there were many arms manufacturers and skilled craftsmen whom we should thank for their efficiency? Inevitably, they will now find themselves in difficulties. Should we not remember what they did during the cold war and help them as much as we can now that the thawing period is about to set in?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we are always mindful of the service that our suppliers have performed on our behalf. The Government fully consult and inform our suppliers at all times in order that they know our thinking.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that at present there are five naval shipyards which are employing 21,000 people, and that in five years' time there will be two naval shipyards employing only 8,000 people? All those people are part of a skilled workforce. Is it not possible for Members of the Government to sit down and plan the run-down of this major industry; or must we have the same old comments about market forces ruling? The Government have tried to junk most of Thatcherism, so when are they going to junk this aspect?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is a master of speculation and hypothesis. I am not sure from where he obtained the figures for the years that lie ahead; but he knows very well that under Options for Change much must be learnt, and great attention must be paid to the situation in the Soviet Union and to the evidence of arms control and its workings.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I must first declare an interest as chairman of a defence contractor employing between 15,000 and 20,000 people. Does the Minister agree that, in view of recent events in the Gulf and the continuing uncertainty in the Soviet Union, it is a little premature to talk of converting our defence industry for peaceful purposes? Will he assure the House that, if such a dismantling of the defence industry takes place, the Government will collaborate with industry in solving the problems of redundancy which will inevitably follow?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government are aware at all times of the need for industry to know of changes as far ahead as possible.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, have the Government received any approaches from the industry about possible government help for the industry in that conversion?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not know whether approaches have been made by the industry.

839
However, there is no reason why that should not take place, although it is up to the Government to take the initiative.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is very difficult and expensive to convert swords into ploughshares?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that does have its problems.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we agree, as the noble Earl said, that it is for the Government to take the initiative. Will he accept from me that the source of the figures which I gave him is no less than the chief executive of VSEL, a firm of which no doubt the Minister has heard? Is it not time that the Government took the initiative in contacting that chief executive about the run-down of VSEL in Barrow so as to give him some help?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is probably aware, my honourable friend in another place is about to go to Barrow on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry in order to consult with that company.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, despite the difficulties of converting swords into ploughshares, will the noble Earl express on behalf of the Government his hope and intention that that process will take place over the years? If that is the case, would it not be in the immediate interests of the workers in those factories, like British Aerospace, if the Government took the same attitude towards those industries as they have taken towards the agricultural industry through the CAP and the Rover car manufacture and assist, although not necessarily financially, in the transformation from wartime to peace-time manufacture?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, whatever transformation may take place in the future, the noble Lord will agree that the quality of arms which our British forces require for the defence of the country is of prime importance.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me the timescale regarding the new Challenger tank?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend about that; but as soon as there is any information, an announcement will be made.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, were not some of the present difficulties which are worrying employees in the private sector of the arms industry brought about by the Government's programme of privatising large sections of the arms industry which were formerly under public control?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not quite sure what is the point which the noble Lord makes. As I have indicated, there is much to do under Options for Change from the point of view of the quality and equipment of our armed forces.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if there was an indication of flexibility in the Minister's replies to this Question, many of us will welcome that. On the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, perhaps he will agree also that it is entirely logical for someone opposed to arms manufacture in principle to welcome and urge the Government to help those firms which wish to change from the production of arms to civil manufacture?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the way forward for manufacturing arms companies is best left to its management, directors and shareholders.

Wales: Army Command Structure
2.46 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have received in support of the retention of Wales as a separate military district within the United Kingdom military command structure.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, a number of representations have been received, principally in the form of letters from Members of Parliament and local authorities.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that clear and informative reply. Is he not aware that his right honourable friend the Prime Minister recently received a letter signed by every Lord Lieutenant in Wales protesting most vigorously, although with characteristic courtesy, against the proposal to downgrade Wales as a military district? Will the noble Earl tell the House what action the Government propose to take?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, there is no intention of downgrading Wales as a military presence. I must refute that in the strongest possible terms. The whole point of any new operational district structure of our armed forces is to make them operationally effective.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, from the information he has before him, does the noble Earl not agree that feeling in Wales about the reorganisation to which he referred is quite clear and very strong? To carry out that reorganisation and to leave the army in Wales in a position subordinate to its present position would be offensive to Wales and offensive to those Welsh soldiers who flew the red dragon on their tanks in the Gulf. It would also be very damaging to recruitment in Wales. Has the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales been consulted as to his views on the matter?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has indeed been consulted as has the Ministry of Defence. However, I must make clear to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that of paramount importance is the operational effectiveness of Her Majesty's armed forces.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, can the noble Earl explain the operational effectiveness which may be damaged by the maintenance of Wales as a military region? What estimates have the Government made of the manpower and financial savings arising from the change? Is he aware that they will have to be substantial to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the majority of Welsh people?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, jumps to a conclusion about change. No change has yet been announced although a decision is close. However, I repeat that operational effectiveness is designed by the Ministry of Defence in line with the district commanders in order to see that Her Majesty's armed forces are operationally able to take account of any situation which may arise, in particular the defence of the United Kingdom.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Earl admit the peculiar irony of the fact that yesterday the United States of America recognised Lieutenant-General Sir Peter de la Billiere, who recently served as General Officer Commanding Wales, for the great soldier that he is? Will the noble Earl also bear in mind during the negotiations with the Secretary of State that at the moment real hardship exists in Wales as the result of earlier defence retrenchment? The closing down of defence establishments around Wales is causing unemployment. If it were proposed that the military establishment at Brecon be moved elsewhere, that would only add to the problems of the Principality.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, Wales is part of the United Kingdom. If it should be thought that there is a continuing downgrading of Wales I ask the noble Lord, Lord Parry, to look at the position more closely. That is far from the truth. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, mentioned General Sir Peter de la Billiere. He was GOC for the Welsh district at some point. He did a good job there. He has done a great job on behalf of this country in the Gulf and has been rightly recognised for it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that for many years the Principality of Wales achieved enormous power and influence in the United Kingdom, in this House, in commerce and practically everywhere? Does the noble Earl believe that our Welsh colleagues now hold ambitions in the military field?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am sure that the admiration, devotion and love for the Principality of Wales is shared by all in your Lordships' House.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it is always helpful to have the support of a Scottish peer. Can the noble Earl say why a distinction has been drawn between Scotland and Wales in this matter?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge no distinction has been drawn.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that had it not been for the prowess of the Welsh under the rule of Henry Tudor, Britain as we
842
know it would not exist as a thoroughly united administrative country? It would have achieved neither the commercial nor the industrial strength that it has, nor indeed the military strength. Does the noble Earl recognise that fact? Will he ensure that Wales remains in case England once again needs to be saved from itself?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his fine sentiments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, the noble Earl said that there was to be no distinction in the treatment of Scotland and Wales. However, is it not the case that Scotland is to remain a military district on its own, whereas Wales is not?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, no announcement has been made and no decision has yet been taken.

Gulf War: Costs
2.53 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total cost to public funds of British participation in the Gulf war, and what was the total financial contribution made to this country by other participating states.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the additional costs of the Gulf conflict, falling to Defence Votes, are so far assessed at around £1.75 billion. The eventual costs will be significantly higher—possibly up to £3 billion, spread over several years. Financial contributions paid or pledged so far amount to £1.5 billion including some £250 million as the value of Saudi support and other nations' assistance in kind.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that extremely interesting reply. Can he say whether Her Majesty's Government are pursuing demands on those members of the European Community, other than France and Germany, whose contributions to our financial and military activities in the Gulf were negligible?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as my noble friend said, we received generous help both financially and in kind from a number of countries, for which we are most grateful. We are seeking further financial assistance and help with the recovery of our troops to the United Kingdom from a number of allies and other nations.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, would the Minister be good enough to say exactly how much Belgium paid? I have asked this question before; it is like talking to oneself.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord might ask that question. He can be content that I came to the Dispatch Box with the answer. Belgium contributed, or pledged to contribute, £15 million. It also had a strong military presence in the Gulf.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, could the noble Earl tell the House, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, how the Government are proposing to obtain more money from the European allies? For instance, will the war costs be one of the matters discussed at the meeting of Community Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg this week?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I need notice to answer such a question. However, if it will help the noble Lord, I shall write to him.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, having established the cost of the war, will my noble friend say whether British firms are to be assisted in winning some of the business opportunities that may arise in Kuwait?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that question is extremely wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most of us feel that the £3 billion spent in the Gulf is a good investment in the interests of peace and winning the war; and how does the Minister compare it with the £13 billion wasted when the poll tax legislation had to be changed? Does that not indicate that this Government are perhaps better at running the country during a war than during peacetime?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is even wider of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, as the war was ostensibly fought under the directions of the United Nations, is it not now the responsibility of the United Nations, rather than the European Community or any other regional grouping, to ensure that the bills are paid through the United Nations?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, no. It is up to each individual country to say how much to donate to coalition forces.

Air Service Agreement
2.57 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assessment they have made of the effect on British Airways of the new air service agreement which has been concluded with the United States of America.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, estimates were made of the value of the package from the point of view of UK carriers as a whole. The bulk of these benefits would be available to British Airways. Experts from the Civil Aviation Authority and representatives from British Airways were involved throughout the negotiation in assessing those benefits.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that ingenious reply. While the Government have been asserting that the agreement negotiated with the United States would enable British airlines and others to mount operations into the United States via points
844
in continental Europe, is it correct that that will not apply until we have similar agreements with the remainder of the European countries? Consequently, does that not mean that the Americans achieved everything they wanted, whereas there is nothing immediately on the table for British Airways?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, certainly not. As far as the value to UK carriers is concerned, the package was worth in excess of £200 million a year. It is true that not all the opportunities can be used immediately. However, the benefits are among those to which British Airways attached particular importance, looking forward to the completion of the internal market in Europe.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, would the Minister agree that three of the main strands of the negotiations in regard to the United Kingdom have not been met immediately? Two of them require congressional approval—namely, the right to operate cabotage routes in the United States and the right to control United States airlines in the United States—and that approval is a long way off. With regard to the right to be able to operate hub airports in Europe, that, as my noble friend Lord Stallard asserted, depends on the agreement of other European countries. What immediate benefits have arisen for British airlines in relation to these negotiations?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's first two points—that is to say, cabotage and inward investment—we knew perfectly well that, because of the need for congressional approval, the Americans could not deliver agreement on either of these matters in the short term and therefore that was not asked for in the negotiations recently concluded. British Airways was involved throughout in deciding our strategy and shopping list, virtually, all of which was obtained. There are a considerable number of benefits to UK airlines which are immediately available. In particular, there is the designation of a second British carrier to operate from Heathrow; a new facility for second or third UK airlines to ply on certain existing routes; fifth freedom opportunities, European fifth freedoms, code sharing, more permissive rules on joint ventures and a three-year restriction on US carriers' capacity at Heathrow.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that most of the benefits which he has just outlined are not immediate? Does he agree that the main planks of the negotiations which British Airways certainly wanted to assert have not been met and that they are unlikely to be met until a long time in the future? Does the Minister agree that it is a fact that Pan Am and TWA have been permitted to transfer their landing slots at Heathrow immediately to United States Airlines and American Airlines, which is of tremendous benefit to those two companies?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstands the situation. I have just listed a number of benefits which are immediately available. Perhaps I may quote from the New York Times for 18th March. It described these negotiations as,

845
"a British coup in accord on Heathrow. Many industry executives and analysts say that Britain got the best of the deal. We really did not get anything in return".
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that there is great anxiety in the industry at what seems to have been a fairly rushed and cobbled-up agreement in order to rescue the American airlines? We all understand the difficulties of Pan Am and the need to rescue it from its economic problems. We also understand the need to give Virgin airlines a slice of the cake. However this has been done at the expense of British Airways, which at the moment is discussing further staff redundancies. Is the Minister not worried that there is some concern in the industry about that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I certainly disagree with the noble Lord's assertion that these negotiations were rushed. There were detailed negotiations which took place over quite a few months. There was a series of meetings with the Americans. The choice was between a settlement which would benefit both the airlines, including British Airways, and the consumers, and a stand-off which would have given consumers less choice and British Airways no new competitive opportunities. We seized the opportunity.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to hazard a guess as to the extent to which consumers will benefit from these new arrangements through reduced airfares?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, history shows us that consumers benefit from greater choice, particularly on air routes. For example, the liberalisation of domestic routes to Scotland has proved itself.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Gaming (Bingo) Bill will be taken.

Business of the House
3.3. p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, in the event of the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill being brought from the Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Wednesday 27th March to enable the Bill to be taken through all its stages on that day; and that Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be also dispensed with to give the Bill precedence that day.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Criminal Justice Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—
Clauses 1 to 8,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 9 to 13,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 14 and 15,
Schedule 3,
Clauses 16 to 26,
Schedule 4,
Clauses 27 to 44,
Schedule 5,
Clauses 45 to 52,
Schedule 6,
Clauses 53 and 54,
Schedule 7,
Clauses 55 and 56,
Schedule 8,
Clauses 57 to 73,
Schedule 9,
Clauses 74 to 84,
Schedule 10,
Clause 85,
Schedules 11 and 12,
Clause 86.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill
3.4 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Introduction of disability living allowance]:
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, after ("mobility') insert ("(physical and mental disablement)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 7 to 18 inclusive and Amendment No. 34. In view of the government amendments, in particular Amendments Nos. 11 and 14, I do not think that I need take very long. It looks as though we are nearing the end of what has been quite a long-running serial. I wish briefly to remind your Lordships of what is in issue. These amendments are primarily concerned with about 8,000 to 9,000 people who suffer from severe mental handicap and severe behavioural problems. The Bill as drafted provides for two rates of mobility allowance, but Section 37ZC(1) (a) is in terms which preclude these people from qualifying for the higher rate. Their disability is not physical and, literally speaking, they can walk. The trouble is that no one knows where they will walk or whether they might instead lie down and scream or suddenly dart into the traffic unless physically restrained.

847
Presumably they would qualify for the lower rate of mobility allowance. Therefore we are concerned with the difference between the lower and the higher rate.
If there were a fairly complete take-up, the cost would be about £8 million or a little less. That is not a very large proportion of the total cost of the mobility allowance, which must now be coming up to about 100 times that figure. At Committee stage we reached the position that the Government accepted the figure of 8,000 to 9,000 people and that all that remained was the problem of definition. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that, if that could be solved, the Government,
"would be quite prepared to accept an amendment".—[Official Report, 7/3/91; col. 1527.]
In the discussions held since then we have agreed that there should be a preliminary hurdle to be surmounted; namely, that any applicant will first have to satisfy the conditions for the highest of the three rates of the care component as provided for in Section 37ZB(1)(b) and (c). We further agreed that this requirement should appear on the face of the Bill. However, as I understand it, agreement has also been reached with the department about the drafting of the regulations which would define what is meant by severe mental handicap and severe behavioural problems. If that is so, it looks as though no further difficulty remains. The department has been most helpful and I thank it for its efforts in finding a solution to this quite difficult drafting problem.
I was always a little dubious about the powers under the existing law to make regulations on behalf of the deaf and blind. I was therefore glad to see Amendment No. 10. I believe that the take-up under the present regulations has not been what was expected. I wonder whether they are drawn a little too tightly and whether it might be possible to take a slightly more relaxed approach for this group under these new powers. The amendment which I am moving is limited to the mentally handicapped, where the problem has been to devise a formula which is sufficiently tight.
If the Minister confirms what I have said about agreement having been reached, we need not have a very long debate. I am quite prepared not to press the amendments which are in my name and those of other noble Lords and to accept the government amendments if, as I believe they do, they achieve what our amendments are also trying to achieve. In my time, I have had far too much experience in the preparation of Bills to be surprised at parliamentary counsel being reluctant to accept other people's drafts on a complicated issue of this kind. I do not think that any question of principle remains. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has explained the background extremely well. It is appropriate to point out that this agreement by the Government is the end of a long campaign by MENCAP and other organisations, but particularly MENCAP. The House will wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and Mary Holland of MENCAP. They have kept to the job for a number of years. This is no
848
time for recrimination. The Government have accepted the argument and we are pleased about that. For the past four years I have had the privilege of being involved in the arguments from this side of the House. I am delighted that the Government now accept the points we have been making.
The government amendment is carefully drafted. It obviously meets all the requirements and the amendment that stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and myself will therefore be withdrawn. The government amendment specifically mentions the deaf and blind. As this is the only opportunity during our proceedings on the Bill to say a few words about the way in which the regulations appear to be working on the eligibility of the deaf and the blind for mobility allowance, I shall put some questions to the Minister. I do not expect him to reply on the spot. Perhaps he will write to me with the answers.
It appears that the rate of success at the moment of the deaf and the blind in applying for mobility allowance is very haphazard. We see people with similar symptoms treated differently by the examining doctor. Certainly, the organisation SENSE has expressed concern about the quality of the guidance directed to medical practitioners. The Mobility Allowance Amendment Regulations 1990 specifically require, in the case of the applicant, that,
"he is both blind and deaf and, by reason of the effects of those conditions in combination with each other, he is unable, without the assistance of another person, to walk to any intended or required destination while out of doors".
I should like to repeat the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Allen. Is the Minister able to tell the House how many people so far have qualified for mobility allowance for the deaf and the blind? The regulations state specifically "while out of doors".
The notes for medical practitioners state:
"If possible the test should be conducted outdoors so that the effects of loss of hearing on the claimant's outdoor mobility problems can be properly assessed. Where an outdoor test is not possible the results should be related to the outdoors".
On the "Link" programme yesterday for the disabled—I declare an interest as a director of the company which makes the "Link" programme for the disabled on the ITV network—there was an interview with a lady who is both profoundly deaf and totally blind. She told the interviewer that she was seen for less than 10 minutes in her flat by the examining doctor. How that was supposed to relate to outdoor conditions I do not know. That is perhaps an isolated incident. But there is concern among the organisations about the way the regulations are being interpreted.
The guidance to applicants for mobility allowance specifically refers to whether an applicant needs to have someone with him when he goes out of doors. I believe that in the first draft of paragraph 19 of the notes for medical practitioners the word "cripple" was used. That word is no longer acceptable in disabled circles. I hope that the Minister will be able to reply now or will write to me on these points.
I should like to return to the main government amendments, Amendments Nos. 7 to 18, which will replace the ones we have moved. This is a very happy

849
day for the carers of the 8,000 to 9,000 severely mentally handicapped people who will benefit from the Government's change of heart.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 11 and 14. They are the culmination of a long, hard struggle led ably and with dedication by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. He is to be congratulated on the outcome. I also pay tribute to Ministers for achieving, however belatedly, what noble Lords on both sides of the House have wanted to see done for such a long time. It would be churlish not to acknowledge generously the decisions now made by the Government.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as one of those past Ministers who may or may not have been referred to by my noble friend Lord Renton, I too congratulate my successor in the hot spot, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Social Security, on a very satisfactory outcome to a battle, so ably prosecuted by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, which has gone on for four years. Indeed I seem to remember that I was in the hot seat when the matter first arose in your Lordships' House. I have to say that then it was purely a matter of numbers, not a matter of being unwilling to prosecute the case. As I said in Committee I am very sad that it has taken so long to reach agreement as to the number of these particularly unfortunate members of society who would be affected and who therefore would benefit from the higher rate of mobility allowance. However, this is not a time for recriminations. It is a very successful outcome all round. My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, are to be warmly congratulated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I am glad that it is not a time for recriminations. In speaking to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, I shall be speaking to my own Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 17 and also to Amendment No. 34. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for moving his amendment and for saying that he would agree not to press it and that he preferred the government amendments. I also join all noble Lords and especially my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale who knows what it feels like to respond from the Dispatch Box on this issue in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for what I hope will he the successful conclusion to his campaign.
I am obviously delighted that we have been able to come forward with a solution to what has been the most difficult of problems. My right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People and I have never made any secret of the fact that we wanted to take the step if we could be sure of pin-pointing the group which both MENCAP and the Spastics Society in particular have always said they wanted to find. In passing I join the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Carter, in congratulating MENCAP on its campaign.
850
I freely admit that we have found it exasperating that the issue has remained so intractable. However, I do take great pleasure today in being able to add to the changes that we have made in the field of disability benefits—provision for the deaf-blind, double amputees and so on—in the context of a Bill which makes a further advance in provision to help with the extra costs of disability. What this will mean in cash terms is that severely mentally handicapped people will get more than £70 a week, or nearly £3,700 a year, from DLA alone. That is completely disregarded when calculating income related benefits. But if the claimant is getting income support that will add at least a further £16.65 to his income, making rather more than £4,500 a year from the state in recognition of the cost of his disability.
Today is clearly not the occasion to rehearse the difficulties which we have experienced in defining the group. I can assure the House that we have devoted much time, both at ministerial and at official level, in trying to devise the answer. I have no doubt that the same applies to the noble Lord and to his advisers. Again, I should like to pay tribute to the very constructive way in which the whole issue has been approached.
The amendments on the Marshalled List in my name and that of the noble Lord are so similar that it is obvious we have been working on very similar tracks. I do not believe that the House would want me to go into elaborate detail as to how we intend to define and then in practice find this group. A great deal of the detail on how we get the message to the people who will need to fill in the claim form, or provide the evidence, needs to be worked out over the coming year. I repeat, we shall again want to work very closely with the professional and voluntary groups which have expertise in the area.
I should like today to give the House the assurance that we accept that our target group is around 9,000 strong. That is the group we shall do the utmost to find. I can be quite unequivocal about our intention to identify that group through the regulations. I cannot give Members of the House copies of the draft regulations at this stage of the proceedings. We want to draw these up with some care in the coming months before letting interested parties see them. However, we shall be sending them out this summer along with other key draft regulations.
I turn now to Amendment No. 10 and the question of the deaf-blind and why we felt it was necessary to put this on the face of the Bill where previously we had felt that regulations would be sufficient. It is only a matter of putting entitlement to the higher rate of people who are both deaf and blind beyond any conceivable doubt. There is no doubt about our policy. Moreover, in the light of what my right honourable friend has admitted as being a slightly disappointing start in the area, we have taken steps to amend guidance and have also issued further publicity to ensure that the policy works.
However, we had a slight technical legal worry about the position of someone who, although deaf and blind, was not unable to walk but simply needed guidance to do so. Currently, we give someone in that

851
position mobility allowance. We shall now give them the higher rate mobility component. Conversely, we did not wish to fall foul of legal authorities which might just rule that if someone needed only guidance, they should receive the lower rate only. As I said, it is purely for the avoidance of any doubt. I trust that it is welcome news to see that this group's entitlement is enshrined in statute.
The noble Lord was also worried that we might have drafted the rules too tightly. As I said, we had some problems with take-up for the deaf-blind—about 400 to 500 people have qualified. However, I do not believe that the problem was in the drafting of the legislation; the problem was one of interpretation and take-up. We have discussed these problems with disability organisations and issued revised instructions to the adjudicating authorities and to the examining doctors. We now believe that there should be no difficulty for people who are both deaf and blind in obtaining the allowances.
In conclusion, I am delighted that we have found a way forward on the issue. We have listened to the representations made by all Members of this House, and also to those made by many experts outside the House. We have studied most carefully the information and research which we have been given. We always listen to what is said in the House, even if some Members wish that we moved faster and further than is possible. Moreover, we have already made substantial amendments to improve the Bill and I hope that I shall later be able to respond positively to further issues. That serves to demonstrate that we are always anxious to look at the whole picture on disability benefits to see where adjustments and improvements need to be made. There is no question of us sitting on our hands when we are persuaded that we should take action.
The government amendments represent a major improvement to the Bill which, as I have already said, already involves a major step forward as regards help with disabilities. As the noble Lord has indicated that he will not press his amendments—I am most grateful for the fact that he will be withdrawing them—I hope that I shall be able to move formally the amendments tabled in my name at a later stage.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Abbeydale, withdraws his amendment, perhaps I may just point out that, if any further proof was necessary, the long and protracted argument which has taken place establishes beyond doubt the value of this House as a second Chamber.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it merely remains for me to thank the Minister for what he said. I also much appreciate the remarks made by other Members of the House. I especially endorse the point just made by the noble and learned Lord. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert:
852
("(2) a person's entitlement to the disability living allowance may be an entitlement to one or more of the components specified in subsection (1) above, or to an extra cost component as the Secretary of State may prescribe. In prescribing such additions the Secretary of State shall have regard to research conducted under the terms of this Act.').
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall. with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendment No. 24. I was interested to hear what the Minister said at the end of his response to the previous amendment. He said that the Government listened and responded. I hope that they will be equally responsive in their reply to these amendments. The amendments deal with the extra costs of disability. We had a long and detailed discussion on the matter in Committees when a series of amendments were tabled which set out individual extra costs. Each of those amendments was spoken to by different Members of the Chamber.
We have approached the matter on Report from a different point of view. We have tried to use a more flexible approach so as to give the Government much more flexibility through regulations to deal with the problem. We are also requesting the Government to conduct research so that we can attempt to reach a resolution of the contentious issue of the level of the extra costs of disability.
Other Members of the House have attached their names to the amendments. I know that they will wish to put forward various details as regards the extra costs involved. Therefore, perhaps I may deal with the principle behind what is proposed. I should first point out that the amendments allow, but do not require, the Secretary of State to introduce a cost allowance. As I said, they ask him to conduct further research into the costs of disability.
It is clear that the issue of the extent of such extra costs, and the best way to allow for them in the care component, is not closed. We all know about the OPCS surveys on extra costs. However, I am sure that the Minister will agree that many organisations for disabled people have questioned the methodology of the OPCS approach and the figures which it has produced for the level of the extra costs. Indeed, Mr. Nicholas Scott, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, acknowledged in the other place that OPCS figures were less than perfect and that further research and monitoring are needed. He said:
"If I am honest with the House, I should say that I will be surprised if we get matters right first time … We will have to research and monitor the impact of all this to see whether we need to make any adjustment".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/91: col. 460.]
The amendment proposed is entirely in line with that sentiment: it allows for a period of reflection to see whether the new benefits work as intended. It also includes a mechanism to enable the Government to act quickly if the benefits do not appear to be working adequately.
In Committee in this place the Minister objected to the series of amendments which were put forward to deal with the matter. I believe that his argument was based largely on the grounds of costs and complexity. However, it would be fair to remind him that he said:
"The Government's intention in introducing the disability living allowance and the intentions of noble Lords in

853
introducing their amendments are not dissimilar, but there are significant differences between the routes which we have chosen to achieve our respective ends. I am sure that all sides of the Committee would like to create a wide-reaching disability benefit which would cater for all the many possible kinds of additional expenditure which people with varying disabilities may face".—[Official Report, 7/3/91; col. 1539.]
That is the intention of these amendments.
The Minister will know that we are not confident that the DLA as presently designed will adequately meet the range of costs which disabled people have to meet. Some disabled people have high costs in respect of their disability, notably for their dietary needs. That aspect of the matter was touched upon in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. He mentioned those who had no significant care or mobility costs and who would not therefore fall within the DLA; in other words, they would receive no help. Some people have the care or mobility costs, but that is not recognised, or is recognised only inadequately. That applies to a number of blind or partially sighted people. There is a strong feeling that the DLA, especially the lower rate, will be inadequate to cover the whole and range of costs.
Amendment No. 24 empowers the Secretary of State to undertake further research. There is a clear need for more research into disability costs. In its Ninth Report of the 1989-90 Session the Social Services Select Committee recommended that the Government, in conjunction with disability organisations, conduct and publish research on the actual and potential costs of disability. The argument is a strong one. We feel that the involvement of organisations representing disabled people at the design stage of the research would inform the methodology for that research while maintaining its independence. This is an important matter. There is great anxiety among organisations representing disabled people that the extra costs of disability are not fully met by the DLA. With the strength of the argument that I know the House will produce on this issue, I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendments or return on Third Reading with his own amendments. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my name is also down to the amendment, and of course I support it. We must bear in mind that technology and medical science are moving fast today; that more people with severe disabilities are staying alive much longer; and that we can help them in more ways. It is essential that regular research be carried out to ensure that we can give not just adequate but the right kind of help to mentally and physically disabled people.
If accepted, the amendments would allow the Government to change the allowances as needed, and probably more important from the Government's point of view, as funds are available. We all realise that we cannot do everything. Every housekeeping system has to keep something in reserve. There is one matter which we shall have to change on Third Reading: new Section 37ZA(5) talks about "both components" and "two components". Acceptance of the amendment would mean that there would be three
854
components. We can change that point without any difficulty when the Bill comes next to the House. I wholeheartedly support the amendments.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we add our support from these Benches. It is impossible to predict the changes that will take place in the matters that we are discussing. Research is therefore necessary, and it must be done properly.
On Amendment No. 24, Parliament should have an annual statement of the results of the research. That would give Parliament a necessary opportunity to keep in touch with what is going on and to press for such changes as the research shows to be necessary.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I too have my name to the amendments, and so I support them. They try to ensure that the DLA will more realistically reflect the costs of disabled life and is payable to those who have extra costs.
Amendment No. 24 gives the Government the opportunity to respond positively to the recommendations of the Social Services Select Committee on conducting and publishing on-going research into the actual and potential costs of disability. The Select Committee also said that it believed that there were sufficient reservations, not least from the OPCS, to warrant further research into the extra costs of disability. I hope the Minister will agree that the OPCS surveys, which were carried out before the Social Security Act 1986 under which additional requirement payments for diet, heating and laundry were abolished, are out of date and that new research should be commissioned. Is he aware that his right honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People said in Standing Committee E on 6th December 1990 (col. 26 of the Official Report) that the survey might not be representative of the current position of disabled people or of the benefits available to them.
Amendment No. 2 seeks to resolve the problem of those people with disabilities who do not meet the qualifying criteria for DLA, whatever their extra costs. In Committee, we talked about mentally handicapped people, people with cerebral palsy and paraplegics. I do not know whether we mentioned blind and partially sighted people. The RNIB says that it is almost impossible for them to qualify for mobility or attendance allowance solely on the basis of visual impairment. Such people have extra heating costs merely because they do not go out as often as others. They have extra laundry costs due to spillages, and so forth, because they must ensure that their clothes are clean. They also have to pay for DIY, garden maintenance and decorating. There are a number of groups that are not at the moment covered by the care and mobility components.
The Minister said:
"The real test of a benefit system is not how good it sounds but how successful it is at getting cash to the people who need it".—[Official Report, 7/3/91; col. 1543.]
With these two amendments, the cash stands a much better chance of reaching the people who need it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I too support the amendments. Audit is one of the most important aspects of the NHS to try to obtain good,

855
cost-effective standards. Why do we not have audits when dealing with disability needs? Anyone who understands severe disability knows that there are many varied needs, as was said by my noble friend.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I did not realise that the noble Baroness would finish so quickly. She usually has so many valuable things to say.
I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions. First, I refer to a Written Question in another place. In answer to Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Scott said that something under 500,000 people under the age of 65 said that they needed a special diet. I shall not give the whole of that answer, but at the end the Minister said that he estimated that nearly 200,000 of the people in that group would be in receipt of at least one of the rates of the new benefit.
That answer seems to identify a large gap. If my arithmetic is not wrong, it could be about 300,000 people. They are the people who were identified by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) in Committee (col. 1544) who will not qualify because the qualifying criteria are restricted to care and mobility. That was the point that they both made. Does the Minister accept that there is putative gap of about 300,000 people who will not receive any benefit under the Bill but who have additional diet requirements?
Research is vital. That is a point that has emerged during this short debate. The OPCS research was carried out in 1985. Even then, many people told the OPCS that diet was the greatest cost of their disablement. I gave the Minister a number of figures on Second Reading which I shall not repeat. He may remember that I took the Government to task a little for misinterpreting the figures of the two researchers, MacDonald and Forsythe, who later said that they did not think that the Government had used them properly. I raise that point again only as another argument in favour of renewed research into costs and needs. I very much hope that the Government will accept this amendment.
The noble Lord will not be surprised if I say that a further factor in relation to research relates to HIV and AIDS. The numbers were extremely low in 1985 and much less was known about the disease and the effects of therapeutic drugs which enable people with HIV to live in the community. I suggest that it is definitely time for more research into the needs of those people in order to enable them to survive in the community.
At Second Reading I gave examples of some of the enormous hospital costs which would be incurred if people were not enabled to survive in the community. There are plenty of AIDS organisations like the Terrence Higgins Trust, Frontliners and London Lighthouse which might well be involved at no great cost in collecting figures for the needs of those people to enable them to survive outside hospital. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could answer those queries when he replies.
Baroness Phillips: I wish to put on the record, in connection not only with this Bill but with many
856
others, the marvellous contribution of the two noble Baronesses who sit beside the Hansard Table. They are an inspiration to many other people who suffer disabilities and their courage in coming here on their own, often driving a long way, should be recorded. It is an example to other people outside this House.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I echo that sentiment. I wish to speak on this series of amendments, which seem to me to fall between two stools. There are the generic extra costs of disability which tend to apply to disabled people no matter what their disability. There are also the other specific disadvantages which incur extra costs and which we discussed at great length over 13 amendments at the Committee stage of the Bill.
On the first point, I believe that the Government, in the years since 1979, and, I confess, previous governments have been fairly generous in their treatment of the generic costs. In recent years on many occasions disability benefits have increased by more than the cost of inflation. That could be said to make some contribution to the generic costs as they arise.
On the other hand, the specific costs are a different matter. I shall not go into what I said about the KISS principle during the Committee stage, at risk of shocking some of your Lordships a second time round. I should have thought that the way to deal with these costs would be through the independent living fund. As your Lordships will recall, it was decided in Committee to make it a statutory organisation. Whether or not that decision was right will no doubt become apparent in the wash when the Bill returns from another place. However, the costs of specific disabilities are difficult to frame within the general social security law. I should like to see them treated rather more on a one-off basis, outside the normal social security arrangements.
Amendment No. 24 was specifically referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, when she talked about the results of research. Nobody could possibly be against the research being carried out in the first place and it being reported to Parliament. Whether that should be done "at least annually", I doubt. I should have thought it was far too short a period. However, I accept that on this amendment the remark is somewhat nitpicking. Perhaps the matter should be dealt with under Clause 1(5), which my noble friend mentioned, at a later stage in the Bill when we could pick up the point.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not feel that now is the time again to argue the case for the extra cost component which we argued at Committee stage. Briefly, I wish to touch on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, about diet. I do not accept that there is a major gap in provision in this area. The point that my right honourable friend made in his reply which the noble Lord quoted was that a sizeable proportion of people with dietary needs are receiving help through the new benefits. He has never argued,

857
and nor have I, that every one of the 6.2 million disabled people whom the OPCS report isolated should receive an extra cost benefit.
I accept that the amendment is a new approach to a subject which we have discussed before and in another place. In our earlier debates, various amendments seemed to be designed to extend the new benefit to include additional components by explicitly amending the Bill to include provision for them. The intention behind these amendments is to provide my right honourable friend the Secretary of State with power to add further components to the benefit at some future date.
I hope that noble Lords will not be too disappointed—particularly after the welcome news that I was able to give on the last set of amendments and bearing in mind that I hope that I shall continue to be in an amenable mood on one or two other issues which we are due to discuss later on—if I say that I cannot accept these amendments. Of course, I understand what they are trying to achieve and appreciate that noble Lords are above all concerned that the successful introduction of the disability living allowance should not mean that we then simply close the book on any possible future reform of the benefit system for people with disabilities. I hope, however, to persuade the House that those fears are groundless and that the terms of the amendments brought forward do not achieve anything of practical value.
I must make clear at the outset of my remarks that we do not propose to rest for ever more on the evidence provided by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, the OPCS reports. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was not particularly complimentary about the service but this was an excellent and extremely thorough piece of work, the most comprehensive survey of this type ever undertaken in this country. The six OPCS reports have helped us to identify the weaknesses of the current extra cost benefits, the attendance allowance and the mobility allowance. The reports have shaped the direction in which we have chosen to move in this Bill.
However, we recognise that the information produced by the OPCS studies is not and cannot be the last word in this area. Clearly, there is always an enormous amount of evidence coming into the Department of Social Security about the current circumstances of people with disabilities.
I know that there have been criticisms of the OPCS mythology, although I feel that these have sometimes been rather overdone. However, it is important to realise that the OPCS survey is on a different scale altogether from anything that could even be attempted under the terms of the amendment before us. I certainly do not intend to criticise the research community in any way when I say that the idea of having to produce an annual report about research carried out in these areas is rather beyond the realms of credibility.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that I am sure that, even were there not a requirement to produce an annual report, the noble Baroness would find ways of initiating at least an
858
annual debate on the subject. That is not least because on a fairly regular basis, to my knowledge, there has been such a debate every year; for example, a social security Bill normally comes before the House each year. The purpose of this research appears to be to provide reliable and soundly based information, which could then be subject to detailed analysis for developing policies in this area. But we have to bear in mind that such research would take a long time to set up and it would take even longer to report back on its findings. The collection of the data for the OPCS studies took some considerable time, as did the collation of the results and the publication of the six detailed reports on which we based the benefits which we have brought forward.
I have no doubt that there will be many interesting research surveys into specific extra costs or disabilities from a wide variety of sources. But this simply would not give us the full spectrum of information about the circumstances of people with disabilities. I really think that for the Government to look at a specific area of extra costs (such as extra expenditure on clothing) in one year, to act upon this and change the benefit and then look at another area of costs (such as additional expenditure on laundry) and then revise the benefit structure again the next year, and so on in succeeding years, would be a haphazard and irresponsible course of action to take. We do not believe that that would be a sensible way for us to proceed. Frankly, I think the various disability organisations would not necessarily want us to commission research with purely social security policy requirements in mind. One of the great merits of the work carried out by the OPCS was its independence, both in terms of the questions which were asked and the mythology which was chosen.
As my right honourable friend the Minister of State has said, we shall monitor closely the success of the new benefits. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), quite rightly referred to my comments in Committee when I said that the success of the benefit must be judged by its operation in practice, by what it achieves and by how many people it reaches. I am prepared to repeat and endorse what I said on that occasion. We shall certainly want to know whether DLA is achieving the objectives we have set for it. If that is not the case, we shall wish to have more information to enable us to put the matter right.
The House need only consider the changes we have made to income support premiums in recent years to appreciate that, when we introduce a new benefit, we do not just abandon it to its fate and move on to the next subject. Anyone who is involved with the social security system will know that it is constantly changing and developing. There are always opportunities to amend legislation where this proves necessary. I repeat that during the past few years social security Bills have been introduced almost on an annual basis. I hope that, in the light of those assurances, noble Lords will feel able to withdraw this group of amendments.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for that expected answer, although it is disappointing. I may have misheard the Minister, but I thought that he referred twice to the mythology

859
of the OPCS surveys. I think the Minister meant to refer to the methodology of those surveys. However, that may have been a Freudian slip on the Minister's part.
I am not entirely clear what the Government's view is on the value of the OPCS surveys, as regards the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). The Minister said that the Government do not intend to rely on OPCS information for evermore. However, if that is the case, what action do the Government propose and how do they propose to find out whether the DLA is working? The Minister said that an enormous amount of evidence comes into the department. If that is the case, why do the Government not publish it? We are certainly not asking for an annual OPCS survey. As the Minister said, that would be impossible. However, by means of annual sampling of different sectors of the disabled population, one would be able to discover levels of cost.
I do not think the Minister replied to the excellent point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, when she referred to the necessity for audits inside the health service. Nor do I think that the Minister answered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. The Minister merely said that he did not accept the figures and that there was no major gap in the provision regarding special diets. However, there are 300,000 people in this category who are not covered. I have obtained that information from a Written Answer in another place.
If annual research is considered too onerous, we would accept research conducted at less frequent intervals. However, I do not believe that that is the point here. Although the Government are prepared to acknowledge that there are specific extra costs for disabilities, I believe we are almost back where we started with the mobility allowance for the severely mentally handicapped. It is hard to agree on the numbers and on the definition. I hope that it will not take us four years to change the Government's mind. The only way to resolve this problem is to seek the opinion of the House.
3.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87 Not-Contents, 99 .

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L

Carter, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ardwick, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Attlee, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Aylestone, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Banks, L.

Craigavon, V.

Barnett, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Blackstone, B.

David, B.

Blease, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. [Teller.]

Bonham-Carter, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bottomley, L.

Falkland, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Fitt, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Foot, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gallacher, L.

860

Galpern, L.

Monson, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Nicol, B.

Grey, E.

Ogmore, L.

Halsbury, E.

Parry, L.

Hampton, L.

Phillips, B.

Hanworth, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Richard, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Russell, E.

Hayter, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hirshfield, L.

Seear, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hughes, L.

Serota, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Shackleton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shannon. E.

John-Mackie, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kagan, L.

Stallard, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stedman, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kissin, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Swinfen, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Underhill, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Walston, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

White, B.

Milverton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Molloy, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Howe, E.

Ampthill, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Astor, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Auckland, L.

Kitchener, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Knollys, V.

Belstead, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bessborough, E.

Long, V.

Birdwood, L.

Lucas of Chilworth. L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blyth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Manton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Margadale, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Nelson, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Norrie, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Oxfuird. V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Platt of Writtle, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Eccles, V.

Reay, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renwick, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Faithfull, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Selkirk, E.

Flather, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strange, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gridley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinton, E.

Terrington, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Teviot, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

861

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wise, L.

Waddington, L.

Wynford, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 6, leave out from ("satisfies") to end of line 7 and insert ("is resident in Great Britain at the time of claim, and at the time of payment except in such circumstances as shall be prescribed").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 is to some extent a probing amendment. The amendment was tabled at Committee stage but, although it deals with the presence test for DLA, at that time the discussion centred on armed forces personnel or their families who claim severe disability allowance. The amendment was very ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. At that time we did not have an opportunity to cover the point and I believe that it would be helpful if we discussed it and learnt the Government's response. The arguments regarding the residence test for DLA still apply, despite the fact that we discussed the matter at Committee stage.
The aim of the amendment is to ensure that the current strict presence tests which are applied to attendance allowance—weeks in the past year—not simply copied and carried over into the disability living allowance. There are no such requirements for means-tested or contributory benefits. We feel that they discriminate in particular against people with some family living outside Britain. The six months' presence test seems particularly unfair to claimants who satisfy the terminal illness rule and therefore have their waiting or qualifying period for the DLA care or mobility components waived.
If the amendment were accepted a claimant would still have to be resident in Great Britain. However, we feel that the presence test as proposed superimposes yet another test on top of the residence criterion. There seems to be no reason for the additional stipulation that the claimant should have been physically present in this country for six out of the 12 months prior to the claim.
I should like to ask the Minister what is the function of the retrospective presence test. Is it to prove an established connection with the country? If so, the claimant has already proved that, having satisfied the residence test. The residence test excludes tourists or people who maintain a home elsewhere or whose circumstances indicate that their connection with this country is tenuous. There is no retrospective presence test for the means-tested benefits nor for the contributory benefits. All that is required in those cases is that the claimant is present at the time of claim, decision and payment, with exceptions for short periods spent abroad.
Currently claimants are denied both mobility and attendance allowance, even where they satisfy the terminal illness test, on account of the presence rule. It seems very harsh that that rule will be continued and will be applied to people claiming and otherwise entitled to benefits under the DLA terminal illness rule.
It would be helpful if the Minister would explain the position with regard to nationals from the European Community, whether British or not, who are resident in Britain and claiming the allowance. Will they be denied entitlement on account of the presence rule even where they were present in another EC state for the previously specified period?
Can the Minister also inform the House for what length of time and under what circumstances people who have secured entitlement to and payment of the disability living allowance or attendance allowance will be allowed to travel or stay abroad while retaining payment of their award? I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am puzzled regarding the eligibility of families of Crown servants, and indeed of the Crown servants themselves. At Committee stage the Minister was kind enough to give me an undertaking with regard to the families of Crown servants receiving severe disablement allowance. Will he please tell the House whether Crown servants and the families of Crown servants will he eligible for disability living allowance under the Bill as it is currently drafted? In order to help me make up my mind should the noble Lord, Lord Carter, divide the House on his amendment, will my noble friend also tell the House whether they would be eligible under the amendment if it was included in the Bill?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made clear, in response to amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Swinfen I announced in Committee that the residence conditions for SDA would be amended to avoid problems for members of the armed forces and their families. I can assure my noble friend that this amendment goes very much further and would prevent perfectly reasonable requirements about residence and presence in this country from being applied to DLA.
It has always been accepted for attendance allowance and mobility allowance and for other non-contributory benefits, that a person should be expected to have established some connection with this country in order to receive benefit. As benefit is paid for by the British taxpayer that is hardly unfair. The amendment would go against that wholly unexceptionable principle.
To reply to my noble friend Lord Swinfen, as I explained in Committee, the Government intend that the residence and presence rules for disability living allowance should be the same as those which apply currently for attendance allowance and invalid care allowance. These are that the claimant is ordinarily resident in Great Britain; is currently present in Great Britain and has been present here for 26 weeks out of the last 12 months.
As I said in Committee, applying the attendance allowance rules to DLA is an improvement for people claiming the mobility component because currently mobility allowance requires presence in 52 weeks out of the last 18 months. That shows that the Government are not intent on placing undue restrictions on the entitlement to benefit of people who have been out of the country.

863
The principle effect of the amendment would be to remove the conditions about presence. In the Government's view a requirement that a person should be present in Great Britain and have been present for 26 weeks in the last 12 months is reasonable. I should also emphasise that people who are absent from Great Britain are deemed to be present in certain circumstances—example, where the person is a member of a forces family or has gone abroad temporarily for medical treatment or where the absence is for some other temporary purpose and has not lasted more that six months. Again, the exemptions show that the rules are not intended to be unduly restrictive.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the European dimension. The position is rather complex. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has recently written to me on the subject and I intend to reply to him soon. In those circumstances it may be helpful if I copy the noble Lord, Lord Carter, into that correspondence, hoping by that means to satisfy him. No doubt I can copy others into the correspondence should they make their wishes known to me.
We believe that our rules on residence and presence are appropriate for a benefit like DLA. We have adopted the tests which currently apply to attendance allowance, so there is certainly a gain for those on the mobility component. I cannot accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, which goes somewhat too wide. The noble Lord indicated that the amendment was more in the nature of a probing amendment because he felt he had not had an adequate explanation of the provisions at an earlier stage.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. This started as a probing amendment but, having heard the Minister's reply, I am not sure that is still the case. I take the point about having to establish a connection with the amount the British taxpayer has paid, though I do not entirely agree with it. That would apply to contributory benefits, but what about means-tested benefits? The British taxpayer has obviously paid for them, but the person who receives them does not contribute to the means-tested benefits.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the distinction between contributed benefits and income-related benefits is that the latter are benefits of last resort. That is why merely being here should be enough in such cases.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the other point which the noble Lord did not answer concerned those people who would qualify for DLA under the terminal illness rule but would still be caught by the presence requirements. Perhaps the Minister would kindly reply on that point before we decide on the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, this is Report stage, but if the noble Lord will bear with me, I should like to come back on that point. If he wants to come back to this at a later stage, that may be appropriate but I prefer to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. It is important that he deals with that point. I think we all agreed it would be extremely unfair if the presence test meant that somebody who was terminally ill and who would otherwise qualify for DLA should lose benefit on that ground alone.
I heard what the Minister said about returning to the point at a later stage. I shall almost certainly want to do that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 41, after ("person") insert:
(", except a child under the age of 16 who at the request of a paediatrician is accompanied or frequently visited by a parent or guardian who provides prolonged or repeated supervision or attention with his bodily functions while in hospital for medical treatment,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and in the absence of my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham, who I am afraid is unwell, I move Amendment No. 4.
The purpose of the amendment—and I emphasise the wording,
"at the request of a paediatrician"—
is to allow the parents of disabled children who continue to provide care and support on a regular basis while their children are in hospital undergoing medical treatment to keep their attendance allowance. A number of parents have experienced the withdrawal of their attendance allowance once their children have been in hospital for more than a month, despite the fact that they have continued to provide care on a regular basis in line with current health authority good practice of parents spending as much time as possible with their children while they are in hospital. Once a child has been in hospital for more than 28 days the parents can face withdrawal of attendance allowance for the subsequent period that the child stays in hospital.
I should like to emphasise that the amendment applies only to those parents who are already in receipt of attendance allowance and continue to provide significant levels of care while their children remain in hospital. It would be possible for this group of children to be defined by medical professionals who could confirm that that was the case. Obviously the Secretary of State could by regulations ensure that that group of needy parents were correctly described.
The amendment does not seek to alter the condition regarding respite care over and above the 28-day period but to separate hospital care from the regulations, as we feel that the considerations relating to hospital care do not apply to respite care. The parents to whom I am referring are those who continue to provide care and attention to their child throughout the day and who take over many of the essential nursing tasks. That situation is completely different from respite care where the parents are relieved of caring for short periods.
I have had a good deal of briefing on the matter from a number of disability organisations. Some of the cases they describe are quite harrowing. Those of

865
us who have had experience of parents staying in hospital to help nurse their children will be well aware of what it entails. A typical case would involve the parents of a child suffering from cerebral palsy. Such children go into hospital for complex operations to rectify medical conditions arising from that disability. The parents and children in that situation face enough trauma without the burden of having their essential benefits reduced or taken away after 28 days in hospital, especially when they continue to bear the costs of travelling to hospital on top of the other costs associated with having disabled children. From my own experience, when my son was in hospital I can remember the sheer heroism displayed by a number of parents who had to travel very long distances. They were people on low incomes. They spent some part of each day with their children, as the hospital required, in order to help with their care and attention.
The OPC report on disabled children, which we have heard of a number of times and will no doubt hear of again in discussion on this Bill, shows that in the case of severe disablement parents can face extra costs of over £20 per week. In addition, parents of disabled children already face a loss of income, having only 78 per cent. of the average equivalent income of families with children in the general population. We feel that to reduce further the financial support available to those parents at such a difficult time is very harsh indeed.
I would emphasise that the measure we are proposing is modest in terms of current expenditure. We are talking only about the support of parents whose children stay more than 28 days in hospital and are by definition severely disabled. We are not talking about a large group. We are also not talking about giving them more money but simply not removing the money they are usually entitled to.
The amendment does not propose any relaxation of the principle involved. At Committee stage the Minister said he would not favour a general relaxation of the rules on the payment of attendance allowance or DLA to people staying in hospital for protracted periods. We are not proposing any general relaxation. The whole amendment is hedged around with qualifications to ensure that the general principle is not challenged. To take account of that debate at Committee stage we have redrafted the amendment to make clear that the continued payment of attendance allowance or DLA would be considered only if the hospital paediatrician or specialist certified it as being necessary. That would also allow the Government in subsequent regulations to prescribe the evidence which the adjudication officer feels is needed to ensure that parents are carrying out the requisite care.
As I have said, the amendment is well targeted on a small group of disabled children who are in hospital for medical care and whose parents continue to provide the bulk of that care. Therefore, it addresses the principle of the benefit and fulfils the necessary conditions that the Government seemed to imply at Committee stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the amendment seems to be a very reasonable one. I am a trustee of the Yorkshire Children's Hospital Trust.
866
That trust was founded to provide specialised equipment for children's hospital needs. I give an example. A blind sick child had to be sent from Leeds to Birmingham. The mother had no funds to get to the hospital to be with her child. A Leeds social worker applied to the trust and, happily, we were able to supply the money. The mother stayed with the child. Unfortunately, the child died. We were very pleased to be able to help. There are many families on low incomes. When a child is in hospital it needs its parents or mother.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for her kind words to my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and myself which were quite unnecessary but much appreciated. The noble Baroness understands severe disability because she was knocked over by a motorbike. Happily, she did not become disabled.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment. It is now generally agreed that for younger children it is extremely desirable that parents should be at the hospital and taking a full part. That being so, surely they should be encouraged rather than discouraged from doing so through financial reasons.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I support the arguments that have been advanced so far. There is another one that often appeals to governments. I did a lot of work on the earnings rule which applied originally to widows and pensioners before this Government, happily, removed it. It was shown that when benefits were given and then taken back for a short period before being given again, the cost of the bookwork was far greater than the amount of money required to continue to pay the benefit. That has never been more true than it is now. It seems that it will cost far more to change the poll tax than to collect had it been left alone. I am sure that the same argument would apply in the case of a child who had been in hospital for six weeks and then had the matter dealt with. We are not talking about long-term patients. Perhaps that argument will appeal to the Government. I have found in my lifetime that people are usually much more moved by economics than by morals. I suggest that the Government bear that argument in mind.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should like briefly to support this amendment. The provision is so well hedged around with restrictions that it does not seem to me that it could be abused. I hope that when he answers this amendment the noble Lord who speaks on behalf of the Government will say how much he considers that this measure would cost. I do not suspect that it would cost a great deal, taking into account the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I should not have thought that it was worth resisting this amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, made my point for me. I intended to ask my noble friend what it would cost to switch on these benefits and to switch them off. How long does it take to reinstate the benefit after it has been removed?

867
When the time comes for the child to go home and for the benefit to go on again, how long will the parents have to wait? Delay can cause considerable hardship to families. In addition, one has to bear in mind that we are not just thinking of the child in hospital but also of other small children at home. Parents of a child in hospital who are required to visit and help that child, may well have to pay for care of children at home at considerably greater cost than is covered by the benefit that they will be losing.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I hope that this will be an occasion on which my noble friend Lord Henley has some good news for the House. There is no doubt that help is required by some parents when their child is in hospital, especially in those cases, about which my noble friend has just told us, in which there are other small children at home. However, I doubt that this Bill is the way to cope with that problem.
Having said that, I observe that subsection (10) of this clause states:
"Regulations may provide that a person shall not be paid any amount in respect of a disability living allowance which is attributable to entitlement to the care component for a period when he is a person for whom accommodation is provided".
That includes in hospital and other forms of material state support. It would be helpful to the House to know how far my noble friend and his department have gone in their thinking.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having given way. I missed the reference to the clause in question. Would he repeat it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is Clause 1(10), line 41 on page 4 of the Bill. I said that it would be helpful to know how far my noble friend and his department have gone in laying out these regulations. As he said in Committee, there is a great difficulty. There is a long-established principle in social security and national assistance law to the effect that two sources of support should not be available for the same need from the state.
Having said that, it occurs to me that subsection (10) may, if the regulations were framed correctly, be a way of getting round this problem. I should therefore be grateful if my noble friend could inform us of his department's thinking on that point.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, about the abolition of the earnings rule. I am glad that she recognised it for what it was; namely, a fine act by this Government. I look forward to seeing her come over to join us on these Benches and lend her support on many further occasions.
I understand and have some sympathy with the case put forward by the noble Lord on behalf of his noble friend. I recognise that in tabling the amendment the noble Baroness has gone some way to meet some of the anxieties that I expressed in Committee, particularly in her revised lines requiring that the parent's contribution to the care must specifically be requested by the paediatrician. I am most grateful for that.
868
I shall not weary the House with the arguments that I put forward in Committee. I shall just say that in the generality of cases we are quite sure that the policy of withdrawing DLA after some weeks have been spent in hospital is the right one. The very fact that attendance allowance is payable for the first four weeks of a hospital stay is an indication of the Government's preparedness to be flexible. That was a very valuable easement that we introduced in 1983.
I turn to the points made by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and other noble Lords. Quite rightly, there is a valid point of principle that must be borne in mind in our consideration of these matters. There is also the question of cost, a point which was also raised. At this stage I should not like to quantify the cost. It would depend on how many children are involved. I should need to look at the point. I should also like to examine the matter of administrative cost, which was again a very valid point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips.
I do not argue that the costs would be very great. I should not ever want to argue the cost line to resist this amendment. It is quite right that where costs are great, excessive or even substantial it is our duty to make clear to the House that such and such an amendment would have a considerable cost. The Government should exercise some responsibility over how they spend taxpayers' money. However, as I said, today I do not in any way want to argue the case of cost.
I do not advocate the adoption of this amendment but it is an issue at which I am prepared to have another look. I should be happy to explore it further. The noble Lord may wish to come to see me or perhaps send his noble friend Lady Hollis—it might be better. If they want to come to see me and discuss the matter I shall certainly take the issue on board. I look forward to seeing the noble Lord, his noble friend and certainly anybody else that they wish to accompany them.
I do not want to minimise the difficulties or raise any false hopes, but my understanding is that this is not an area in which we need primary legislation. Should it prove to be so there is anyway some time before this Bill has its Third Reading. I am convinced that on this occasion there would be more sense in exploring the issue outside the Chamber on a more informal basis.
With the assurance that I shall look very seriously at this matter to consider whether something sensible can be devised, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I am not sure why he feels that he should see my noble friend Lady Hollis instead of me, but if that will help to convince him, I shall certainly send her along. As he said, we tried to go some way to meet the anxieties of the Government.
Perhaps I may make just one point. The noble Lord referred to the generality of cases. This is not the generality of cases. We are talking about a small group. The noble Lord recognised that it is not an argument about the cost. That is extremely helpful, and on those grounds I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 6, at end insert:
("( ) A payment to or in respect of any person which is attributable to his entitlement to the care component and the right to receive such a payment shall (except in prescribed circumstances and for prescribed purposes) be disregarded in applying any enactment or instrument under which regard is to be had to a person's means.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment may I also join with my noble friend in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for her kind remarks. They were, as my noble friend said, unnecessary. I am sure that the Minister will realise that I cannot resist making the point that it is relatively easy for my noble friend and I to be reasonably effective because we are able to meet our extra costs, which are so crucial to effective disabled living. But there we are, I shall rapidly move on to Amendment No. 5.
This is an amendment that I moved and withdrew in Committee. Its purpose is to ensure that disabled people in receipt of a care component are not expected to contribute it to services provided by a local authority or health authority. The Spinal Injuries Association says that this has been a growing problem for its members, who are expected to contribute AA to personal and home help services, and also, for example, for the supply of incontinence pads.
I have tabled the amendment again to pursue some of the points raised in discussion in Committee. There are three main points. First, the Department of Health intends to issue guidance to local authorities and health authorities on income assessment for community care. In Committee I asked if disability organisations could be consulted to put the consumer's viewpoint. The Minister replied on 7th March at col. 1572 that he was not in a position to make a promise about guidance issued by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. I accept that, but will the Minister accept that there is a strong overlap between the two departments and agree to ask his right honourable friend to consult formally with the disability organisations?
For my next point I return to remarks made by the Minister on 14th June 1990 at the Report stage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill about using the attendance allowance for local authority services. He did not expand on his remarks when I asked him to in Committee, so I am giving him the opportunity to do so now. On 14th June 1990, at col. 466 of Hansard, the Minister said that,
"the local authority would be right not to take it"—
that is, attendance allowance, now the care component—
"into account if it was being spent on attendance needs not covered by the services the local authority was providing".
If the recipient is having to buy extra services elsewhere can we take it that he will not be asked to pay his attendance allowance? I gave the Minister notice of those two questions, so I hope he will be able to give me a positive response.
I did not warn the noble Lord about a third question, which is crucial to this whole issue. The Minister said twice in Committee on 7th March, at cols. 1571 and 1573, that,
"where a benefit is designed to pay for services which a local authority provides it is quite proper for that local authority to take the benefit into account in calculating charges for these services".
I argued twice—cols. 1570 and 1573—that attendance allowance was not designed specifically to pay for care but to help meet the general extra costs of a disabled person's daily living. DIG—the Disablement Income Group—has always stated that firmly, and the group was around at the time.
Research carried out by Professor Sally Baldwin as part of a PhD thesis at the Department of Social Policy and Social Work at York University shows the following points. Attendance allowance was introduced in response to Amelia Harris's first survey on disability. It was intended as a means of raising the incomes of disabled people and in particular to focus on those people who were most severely disabled. Attendance was used as a criterion for assessing and identifying those people. It was up to those entitled to the benefit to decide how to spend it. Since its introduction its title has led to confusion about the allowance. It is most important to recognise that it is not specifically intended for attendance, but that attendance is the criterion used for entitlement to it.
I hope that is enough to demonstrate that attendance allowance is not a specific benefit to be charged in return for personal services. It is an important benefit for the total income of a household that has a severely disabled member and therefore considerable additional costs. As many severely disabled people rely on hours of unpaid care from a relative or close friend, local authorities who take this money out of the household are taking it from those unpaid carers.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response, but if he cannot reply now—and, as I say, I did not warn him that I would be pursuing that issue—perhaps he will write to me; and I hope that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health will take the point into account when he is issuing the guidance. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to this amendment. It has been well argued by the noble Baroness. Perhaps the best thing I can do is to quote from a brief I received from the Disablement Income Group just before the debate. It states that its,
"Advisory Service has seen over the past year a great increase in the number of inquiries about home help services".
The group adds:
"Introduction of and an increase in charges made for home help and home care services. There is a worrying trend for charges being made where attendance allowance is received".
The DIG quotes the example of Hertfordshire where the client is receiving no benefit except attendance allowance. There is a charge of £15 per week. The group states:
"These are flat rate weekly charges and are not based on hours needed, so someone needing two hours per week pays the same as someone needing eight. The charges are to be paid 52 weeks a year regardless of whether or not you are there to receive the service (spells in hospital or holidays)".

871
The group continues, referring to a lady in Hertfordshire who,
"tells us that people getting attendance allowance are 'up in arms' about the charges. She uses her attendance allowance to cover her high heating bills incurred as a result of rheumatoid arthritis and has difficulty in scraping together the money for the service. She will have to pay the highest charge of £15. The attendance allowance will only be ignored if you are already using it all to pay for attendance".
Then there is the example of Cheshire:
"They are considering making an automatic charge where attendance allowance is paid, even if the client is receiving income support".
Those two counties are interpreting the rules differently. The DIG further states that Essex,
"also considers attendance allowance to be available to pay for care and again the highest charges are levied on attendance allowance recipients".
This is a worrying situation not only because of the general principle, well enunciated by the noble Baroness when she moved the amendment, but to show that different parts of the country and different local authorities are interpreting the situation in different ways. In principle, they are surely wrong to regard attendance allowance as being available for the provision of local authority services.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I add just a few more of the extra expenses incurred by disabled people and the worrying situation of the privatisation of certain facilities? If there is incontinence—and sometimes there is double incontinence—there is a lot of extra washing and the extra cost of water which is an essential of life. This is very worrying to severely disabled people. There is the extra cost of electricity for drying things and the extra cost if items are sent to a laundry.
Now I find that there is a new extra cost; and this is absolutely vital. In London I used to be able to get some deliveries of food. I could ring up the Army and Navy stores and the store would deliver to my flat. However, the store now charges £6 for delivery of essential items such as food. That is difficult for disabled people who cannot get out of their houses. If they are able to get out, sometimes they cannot park the car, or cannot get out of the car unaided. If you can get a good, reliable carer—and that is getting more difficult—there is the extra expense. We must remember that we now have more elderly people in our population than younger people, and the situation is developing all the time. Therefore, the problems are going to get worse, not better.
I have taken up the matter of incontinence with the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. There are some awful stories of people having to wash out incontinence pads and dry them out on the line, and so on. In a society such as ours people should not have to do that. Therefore, in mentioning these extra costs which are happening all the time—there seem to be extra costs every week—I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to this amendment.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, some very good points have been brought out by the two noble Baronesses. I am fascinated too, because there is one small point that I am sure a lot of noble Lords are aware of, certainly those who wear glasses. Should
872
you take your glasses off, you say, "Damn it, I can't see what that thing is saying. Is the sign saying 'on' or 'off'.
There is a specific point about home help. Noble Baronesses will know better than noble Lords that one must hoover a home. A hoover has an electric lead which can be dangerous to people who are blind or partially sighted. One can trip up on the lead. You can laugh until it happens to you; you can laugh until you are in a single storey house and trip over the lead near the stairs; you can laugh until you consider that the partially sighted person using the hoover lives on his or her own and is trying to clean the house.
I wished to add those points to the excellent points raised by the two noble Baronesses. I also agree with the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. If it were not for the likes of the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and Lady Masham, people in wheelchairs would not be correctly represented. They know how awkward it can be to do the normal things that others usually do after breakfast, for instance. It is difficult to operate in a wheelchair and one needs help. I agree entirely with the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, when the same amendment was moved in Committee I explained that it would create difficulties for local authorities by restricting their ability to charge for services. I must again advise your Lordships against amending a social security Bill in a way that could have far-reaching consequences outside the social security system.
In the Government's view the only sensible approach is to maintain the status quo. I emphasise that this is all the Bill seeks to achieve. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out that maintaining the status quo results in one rule for the mobility component and another for the care component. I agree that that looks a little untidy. But the fact is that different considerations apply to the two components. While I believe that it is acceptable to continue to provide for a general disregard of the mobility component I do not accept that it is wrong to leave local authorities with the discretion to take the care component or attendance allowance into account in deciding what to charge for certain services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said that the Department of Health had in the past asked local authorities to disregard attendance allowance in deciding home help charges. Certainly there was a circular to that effect published in 1971, but events have moved on. In particular the 1983 Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudication Act gave local authorities discretion to charge for welfare services, including day and domiciliary care. But perhaps more important, in the years since 1971 local authorities have more and more been developing services which are particularly designed to meet at least some of the personal care needs for which attendance allowance is intended. In many places home help has changed to home care, which includes personal care. Day centres and other local authority services may also cater for personal care needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said that attendance allowance was not intended to pay for

873
care. A person can hardly expect to be provided at public expense with both cash and services to meet the same need. Where the local authority is providing personal care it is surely perfectly reasonable for it to have the discretion—it is only a discretion—to take attendance allowance into account when deciding what to charge.
I can confirm that as part of the preparations for community care the Department of Health intends to issue new guidance on charging by local authorities. The local authority associations will be consulted before the guidance is issued. I understand that the Department of Health will also be happy to receive representations from disability organisations on the subject, although formal consultation is not planned.
I emphasise that in the White Paper Caring for People the Government made it clear that they had no intention of changing the current deliberately very flexible arrangements under which local authorities can charge whatever is reasonable in the circumstances for day and domiciliary care. If a user represents that he cannot afford to pay a charge the local authority is statutorily required to reduce the charge to such amount, if any, as appears reasonable. These arrangements are longstanding and I am not aware that they lead to any significant problems. In particular I do not believe that local authorities make excessive charges or that the provision of necessary services is made dependent on a person's ability to pay.
I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Baroness will not press her amendment. It would be wrong to use a social security Bill to make changes which have no effect at all on social security but cause unnecessary and undesirable disruption for local authorities. I hope that the noble Baroness has noted that the department will be happy to receive representations on the subject and that therefore she will make such representations.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to ask the Minister a question about the home help service. He said that the helpers, now called home carers, carried out a personal service. They no longer clean people's houses and, therefore, if disabled people do not wish to live in dirty houses they must pay for somebody to clean their houses. That is one more extra expense.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I was trying to point out that if home helps are providing personal care, surely it is reasonable for the authority to have the discretion to take into account the attendance allowance, which is provided for personal care, when deciding what to charge.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister address the point that I made about the three counties which I mentioned, all of which are interpreting the situation differently? I am sure that if he carried out a survey over the whole country he would discover that many local authorities and social services departments are
874
handling the matter in different ways. Will the drafting of the regulations that he mentioned have any effect on the situation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is obvious that if local authorities are given a discretion they will use it in different ways. We have had this argument on many occasions. Is the noble Lord suggesting that on no occasion should we give local authorities discretion?
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am sure he will realise that I am not totally overjoyed by it. I am glad to hear that the disability organisations can make representations to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. However, I should prefer the organisations to be consulted formally. I am far less happy about the rest of his reply. The crucial matter is the intention of the attendance allowance. On several occasions the Minister said that in 1983 a discretion was given to local authorities to charge for services. However, did the purpose for which the attendance allowance was intended also change? On three occasions in his reply the Minister said that it was right to charge attendance allowance because that was given to provide for personal care. I still wish to query that statement. Is the Minister willing to investigate the matter and write to me about it?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I wish to clarify a point which if it stays on the record unclarified might lead to misunderstanding. I understood the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, to say that the local authorities no longer provide the kind of home helps who clean the floor. I know that some local authorities do not do so as frequently, but surely it is not correct to say that they are not providing such vital help. Can that matter be clarified for the record because many people may be confused?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is nothing to prevent a local authority providing that sort of' help if it so wishes. I thought that I had made clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), that it is for the recipient to decide how the benefit is spent but it is paid in respect of personal care needs. If the noble Baroness is not happy with that response, I shall have another look at the matter and write to her. However, I understand that that is the purpose behind the attendance allowance.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should be grateful to the Minister if he would pursue that and write to me. He said that it is for the recipient to decide how to spend the allowance. That is not necessarily the same as spending on personal care as the DIG has always said and as Professor Sally Baldwin found in her PhD thesis. However, I am grateful to the Minister and if he does not write to me I shall pursue the matter by way of Written Questions and other means. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 10, leave out "5" and insert "2".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to extend the mobility component to

875
children over the age of two with disabilities who require much more help with mobility than children of the same age without disability.
We discussed the matter in Committee but I do not apologise for bringing it again to the attention of the House. It is very important. The lower age limit of five years for the mobility component of the DLA has been carried over from the existing rules on mobility allowance. The argument for having a lower age limit is that all children under five, whether or not they are disabled, could be considered to have mobility problems. Organisations representing disabled children have argued that specific mobility problems can be distinguished well before the age of five in most cases.
The proposed new Section 37ZC(2) specifies already that children under the age of 16 must satisfy an additional test of requiring,
"substantially more guidance or supervision from another person than persons of his age in normal physical and mental health would require".
I see no reason why that condition should not be used equally for children over the age of two to ensure that only those with substantially greater needs receive the allowance.
The first few years in the life of a disabled child can be very expensive for families. On a previous amendment we referred to an OPCS survey which showed that the standard of living is likely to be squeezed by a parent's loss of, or reduction in, earnings as well as the extra costs of a disability. Where spare money is available, the OPCS and other studies show that more is spent on relieving the extra needs of the disabled child. However, many families must go without and the disabled child's health and wellbeing being may suffer as a result.
The OPCS survey showed—and this is not surprising—that travel is the most expensive additional cost experienced by families with a disabled child. One can quote from one' own experience. Parents may need to purchase a car or a second car specifically because of the child's special needs. It may be necessary also to hire taxis or pay for lifts where it is difficult or impossible to use public transport.
The matter was raised in Committee in another place and here. I do not apologise for returning to it because I do not believe that we were given a satisfactory answer. In another place the Minister, Miss Widdecombe, argued that there had to he a lower age limit and, given that there must be an arbitrary line, it was sensible to draw that line at the age of five. She referred to that age as the statutory age at which a child is entitled to education. Therefore, she thought it sensible to set the lower age limit for the mobility component at the age of five on the same grounds. She said that if the age limit for education was lowered, the Government would need to look again at that. However, we know that the age from which a disabled child can be assessed for education is two years. Therefore, if the logic of the Minister's argument is followed, the limit for the mobility component should also be two years.
As I said, the other conditions for the component ensure that only disabled children with significantly greater mobility problems than non-disabled children
876
of the same age would qualify were the amendment to be accepted. The point was put extremely well by Mr. Dafydd Wigley in another place when he said that,
"where there is an identifiable additional need for mobility costs, as there is for many profoundly handicapped children of 3 or 4, there must be some way of responding. It is nonsense to close the door on even the most profoundly handicapped child who needs considerable assistance to get about and say that he is in the same category as an able bodied child who simply needs someone to supervise him while he runs about".
That is just not sensible. Many disabled children will have care needs but no mobility needs. Therefore, we are speaking of a small number of children whose disabilities are so severe that they have expensive mobility needs as well as expensive care needs which are distinguishable from a very early age. The Minister cannot assume that those families who receive a care component will necessarily receive sufficient money to cover care needs let alone have any spare money to meet mobility needs.
There is an immense difference between supervising a non-disabled child who is able to walk and climb on and off a bus and having to travel by taxi or private care with a child who suffers from cerebral palsy, who is mentally handicapped, who has violent and involuntary movements or epileptic fits or who may scream constantly and require to be accompanied by two adults.
The Government have estimated that the amendment may cost £30 million per year. If that is the case and the problem is the question of cost rather than principle, implementation could take place in stages. For example, perhaps the Minister will be prepared to say that the Government will consider an immediate reduction to the age of four to be followed by further reductions over time as funds become available. Something should be done for these families.
This is an important amendment. It does not affect a large number of children although the cost may seem high. The Minister was extremely helpful on this matter when I moved an amendment in Committee as regards severely disabled children in hospital. I hope that he will respond in the same way to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I support the amendment with which my noble friend Lord Winstanley is also associated. It was moved very competently by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I endorse all that he said.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that he remained convinced that the right age limit is five. However, he stressed that the cost would be £30 million. Either it is not the right age limit, or it is the right age limit but the cost is prohibitive. The Minister referred to the last Labour Government fixing the limit for this benefit at age five. We have now had some time to experience that age limit. As the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, pointed out in Committee, we now see that there are strong arguments for lowering the age limit to the age of two. If, on reflection, the Minister is impressed by the argument of his two noble friends, then he must fall back on the cost ground. It does not seem to me, mindful as I am of the need to take care in this area of expenditure, that £30 million is too costly for the extension of the benefit.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept that I am precluded from arguing on grounds of cost and other grounds. I emphasise the cost of such an amendment. In Committee I said that to lower the age to two would cost £30 million. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, pressed me to do some "salami slicing", if I may use that phrase, and calculate costs for different ages. I assure the noble Lord that the costs are still very expensive. Reduction to the age of four would cost £15 million, reduction to the age of three would cost £25 million and, as I said, reduction to the age of two would cost £30 million.
Although I emphasise the problem of cost, I do not say that that must be the prime consideration. The other consideration must be the Government's principal anxiety to set the level at the most appropriate point, having regard to all relevant factors. The most important is the age at which the generality of disabled children begin to have markedly greater needs than the generality of those who are not disabled. We are convinced, as were the previous Labour Government, that the most appropriate point for the age limit remains at five years—as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. In passing I may say that I do not know what the attitude of the previous Liberal Government was.
Some noble Lords may say that the Government believe the age of five is right because that is what it has always been. But I can assure your Lordships that the Government do not have a closed mind on these matters. The fact that the lower age limit for attendance allowance was abolished last year shows clearly that the Government are prepared to make changes when changes are justified.
As I said in Committee, in the case of the lower age limit for attendance allowance the Government were persuaded by strong evidence from paediatricians and others that abolition was appropriate because it is now clear that some young babies require substantially more care than others. But for the mobility component the arguments in favour of retaining a lower age limit of five are as strong today as they were when the then Labour Government first introduced it. No one is denying that it may be apparent before the age of five that a child is unlikely ever to be able to walk. The question is whether that disability causes extra costs over and above those incurred by parents looking after children of the same age who are not disabled
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, perhaps I could say in passing that any child between the ages of two and five who was so severely disabled as to benefit from the amendment would most likely be entitled to one of the three rates of care component, and probably one of the higher of those three rates.
The fact is that, as I said in Committee, below the age of five we all have some mobility needs. No child under five can be expected to walk any great distance. Nor can any child under five be expected to go far from its home without guidance and supervision. True, some people may be less able to make use of public transport if their children are disabled. But that will not always be the case and there are other reasons than disability why public transport may be difficult to
878
use—as any mother trying to get on a bus with two small children and a week's shopping will know and as my noble friend Lord Swinfen said at Committee stage.
I hope noble Lords will agree that it is not really possible to talk of any child under the age of five as being independently mobile. For all parents, taking young children out presents problems and can be costly. Disability may present different problems but it has not been demonstrated that in general the mobility needs of disabled children under the age of five create significant extra costs. It is possible to point to exceptional cases. But as with any dividing line a case can always be made for including some of those who fall on the wrong side of it.
As I said in Committee, it is at the age of five that most children start school and in many cases begin making journeys on their own. The Government remain convinced that this is the most sensible point at which to start distinguishing between the mobility needs of children with and without disabilities. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I see the point the noble Lord makes regarding children under the age of five needing to be accompanied. However, it is common in many areas for children to attend play school before the age of five. If that is so, then the case for the allowance is surely much stronger because the children need to attend regularly. Is it possible that, if a child were to be accepted into such a school before compulsory schooling age, then the question of the mobility allowance could be considered?
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that I do not believe that the noble Baroness's suggestion would be an easy change to introduce into social security legislation without matters becoming endlessly complicated. Even if a child attended school before the age of five, as many children do, as likely as not the child would still be accompanied, disabled or not. Children of that age are not independently mobile.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for his response, if not awfully happy about it. Perhaps I may deal with the point concerning the previous Labour Government, to which the noble Lord referred twice—he referred to it also in Committee. That was 12 years ago and from experience it was wrong. I am perfectly prepared to have that on the record.
Lord Henley; My Lords, the noble Lord said that the previous Labour Government were wrong. Is he speaking of all the policies of the previous Labour Government or just this one specific matter?
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is a remarkable display of forensic skill. I was referring to the decision of the previous Labour Government regarding the age limit of five, as the noble Lord is well aware. From experience we now know that that was wrong.
I could not entirely understand from the noble Lord's answer whether he was referring to cost or

879
other grounds, or both; he seemed to switch from one to the other. In Committee he gave the answer that children in this condition would be receiving the care component. That is so. But that is for care, not mobility. That is why it is called the care component. We are discussing the mobility allowance and the exceptional cases where extra costs of mobility are incurred.
The noble Lord's answer—I do not mean this in any personal sense—was rather detached from the reality of having to bring up disabled or severely handicapped children and the problems involved. No attempt was made to rest on the argument which the Government appeared to use in another place—that because five was the age for ordinary education needs, that was the age to use. We said, and the point has not been answered, that the education age of children requiring special needs is two. If the education age of five is right for non-disabled children, because that is the age at which they must attend school, obviously two is the correct age for children with special needs.
We offered to try to reduce the age to four and then three. The Minister did not seem to be prepared to accept that. The best we can do is to ask the opinion of the House.
5.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 96.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Ardwick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Hughes, L.

Attlee, E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Banks, L.

Jeger, B.

Birk, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blease, L.

Kagan, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kilhracken, L.

Boston of Faversham. L.

Kissin. L.

Bottomley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Harteliffe. L.

Nicol, B.

Craigavon. V.

Ogmore, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Richard, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Russell, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hayter, L.

Thurlow, L.

880

Turner of Camden, B.

White, B.

Underhill, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Walston, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Joseph, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Knollys, V.

Astor, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Margadale, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Milverton, L.

Caithness, E.

Montgomery of Alamein. V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Nelson, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Norrie, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cross, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Pennock, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Platt of Writtle, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Pym, L.

Downshire, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Eccles, V.

Reay, L.

Elibank, L.

Renwick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Ferrers, E.

Selkirk, E.

Flather, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strange, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sudeley, L.

Greenway, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gridley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Ullswater, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Waddington, L.

Henley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Wise, L.

Hooper, B.

Wynford, L.

Howe, E.

Young, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 13, at end insert:
("(aa) he falls within subsection (1A) below; or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment in discussing Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 13, at end insert:
("(ab) he falls within subsection (1B) below; or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 20, at end insert:

881
("(1A) A person falls within this subsection if—

(a) he is both blind and deaf; and

(b) he satisfies such other conditions as may be prescribed.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 20, at end insert:
("(1B) A person falls within this subsection if—

(a) he is severely mentally impaired; and

(b) he displays severe behavioural problems; and

(c) he satisfies both the conditions mentioned in section 37ZB(1) (b) and (c) above.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15:
Page 5, line 35, after ("(b)") insert ("or subsection (1A) (a)").
Page 5, line 35, at end insert:
"(3A) Regulations shall specify the cases which fall within subsection (1B) (a) and (b) above.
(3B) A person who is to be taken for the purposes of section 37ZB above to satisfy or not to satisfy a condition mentioned in subsection (1) (b) or (c) of that section is to be taken to satisfy or not to satisfy it for the purposes of subsection (1B)(c) above.").
Page 5, line 49, leave out ("(1) (a) and (b)") and insert ("(1)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, line 16, leave out ("the condition mentioned in subsection (1) (a)") and insert ("one or other of the conditions mentioned in subsection (1) (a), (aa) and (ab)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 7, line 8, leave out ("either") and insert ("the mobility").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment will allow people who become disabled after the age of 65 to apply for all three rates of the care component of DLA. That is an important step towards redressing the discrimination which older people face in disability benefits. We debated this matter in Committee. We read the Minister's answer with some care and we now return to the matter. The cost of the amendment would relate only to the lowest £10 rate of DLA as the two higher rates are equivalent to the two levels of the attendance allowance.
The Government have estimated the cost to be £165 million, which is considerably less than the cost of removing the upper age limit completely for entitlement to DLA. I am not sure whether the Minister has looked at Hansard for 7th March, col. 1584, and our debate in Committee. The Minister referred to the cost as £165 million. In reply to me the Minister said:
"I am sure that even the noble Lord will accept that that is not an inconsiderate sum".
I think that that is a Freudian slip on the part of the Hansard writer. In Committee the Government again argued the need to target extra help at younger
882
disabled people. They stated, not for the first time, that the OPCS surveys considered the levels of income of disabled and non-disabled people below pension age. Above pension age there is not the disparity of income which exists below pension age. As the surveys indicated, the differences in income between disabled and non-disabled pensioners are small because the pensioners are largely dependent on state benefits. On average they have lower incomes than non-pensioners. The majority of pensioners rely on state benefits for at least three-quarters of their income. The OPCS surveys clearly show that disabled pensioners are no better off financially than younger disabled people. We hope that the Minister will not argue that somehow they should be able to bear the cost of the disability because in some way they are better off.
There is also the tendency to see disability as a normal part of ageing. Discrimination solely on the grounds of age helps to fuel the assumption that older people should accept a level of disability which would be unacceptable to younger people. It serves to increase dependence on others for everyday tasks. The Bill attempts to recognise the needs of the less severely disabled people by introducing the new and lowest £10 rate for people over the age of 65. We have to congratulate the Government on that. People over 65 may have identical needs—for example, help with bodily functions for part of the day, or help with preparing a main meal—but are not able to claim the lowest rate.
Therefore, we can see no justification for excluding people over the age of 65 from benefits which aim to help with the costs of disability. For the minority who are disabled, their special needs and extra expenses do not decrease as they grow older. The Government have argued that pensioners have been enjoying large increases in average incomes. The implication was that people who become disabled after 65 should have had the opportunity to build up a sufficient income to be able to afford the extra costs of disability. This is not the place to go into the argument of whether the extra costs of disability should be met by a comprehensive disability cost allowance irrespective of means.
Many older people did not have the opportunity to benefit from SERPS or from occupational and personal pension schemes. There will always be people who, because of unemployment, low pay, their caring responsibilities or illness, are not able to build up significant entitlements for their retirement. Pensioners' incomes on average are considerably lower than the incomes of people of below pension age. We explored this ground at the Committee stage. We were not satisfied with the Minister's answer. I hope that this time he will be able to be more helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot take the noble Lord any further other than to assure him that when I said it was not an "inconsiderate sum" I meant to say "a not inconsiderable sum". I think that even the noble Lord, in his wildest whatevers, would accept that £165 million is a very large sum of money.
In framing the measures contained in this Bill, and indeed in the whole package of changes which started last year to restructure and improve provision for

883
people with disabilities, the Government took a conscious decision to target additional resources on disabled people under pension age. That decision does not imply any lack of regard for the needs of elderly people. The Government have, through other means to which I shall refer later, done a great deal to help pensioners, including those with disabilities, and have paid particular attention to the needs of those who depend primarily or solely on state benefits. I should also emphasise that no pensioner will get less help with the extra costs of disability as a result of the Bill.
Very many pensioners receive disability benefits and will continue to do so. As I pointed out in Committee, 543,000 attendance allowance recipients—64 per cent. of the total—are over pension age. Twenty-eight per cent. of those on mobility allowance are pensioners too. For the latter group this Bill is especially significant because the current upper age limit of 80 for receiving mobility allowance has not been carried forward into DLA. Once awarded, all rates of DLA will continue to be payable regardless of age, so long as the qualifying conditions are met.
Again, as I explained in Committee, the Government understand the desire of noble Lords to try to take the opportunity of this Bill to provide further help to people who are both disabled and pensioners. As I said then and as I have just repeated, the amendment would cost £165 million. It is the task of this Government—and for that matter any government—to weigh up competing priorities and find ways of directing help most effectively to those who need it. Our judgment has been that our main priorities over the past couple of years should be poorer pensioners, who received an extra £280 million in those past couple of years by way of improvements to income support premiums; younger disabled people, who will get an extra £300 million by 1993-94 through The Way Ahead package; and families with children, particularly lone parents, whom we are seeking to help through the Child Support Bill. All told, that adds up to nearly £650 million extra over the past couple of years. That is additional to the excellent record of provision for the long-term sick and disabled and all recipients of benefits in the social security system.
I do not apologise for the Government's record. In fact, I am very proud of it. Nor do I apologise for their choice of priorities. A great deal has been done and will continue to be done to meet the needs of pensioners. This Bill, however, is intended to give extra help to the younger disabled people. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment. I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister made a great deal of the £165 million, which I can well understand. According to The Times this morning, that is rather less than the cost of reissuing the poll tax bills. There is no attempt to suggest perhaps a higher age for eligibility at, say, 75, which would at least help. It is obvious that the Government are not prepared to move on this matter. As I said in Committee—I do not apologise for repeating it—we have different criteria for the care and mobility components. The care and
884
mobility allowances have been converted into one allowance but the two components have different criteria. I do not propose to carry the argument further. It is obvious that the Government will not change their mind. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford): My Lords, I should mention that if Amendment No. 20 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 21.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 7, leave out lines 22 to 25 and insert:
("( ) Claims for the disability living allowance must be made within the prescribed time.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hollis, who is absent through illness. We discussed this matter in Committee but we did not feel that we received a convincing answer. We should therefore like to try once more to change the Government's mind.
The basic objective of the amendment is to provide greater flexibility in the time limits for claiming DLA. Under the amendment a person would be able to have his benefit backdated provided he could show good cause for failing to claim earlier. As they presently stand the rules are harsher than for most other benefits. The fact of a disability itself provides the strongest case for greater rather than less flexibility in the rules attached to the benefit. We know that the principle of good cause exists in social security law to allow justice to be done in individual cases, where, for example, an applicant was misled by incorrect official advice and so delayed his or her claim. It is by no means a lenient area of case law. Ignorance does not count as good cause and the burden of proof is always on the claimant. Noble Lords are perhaps aware of the case that has been started in County Durham which is leading the department to look very hard indeed at this whole area of case law.
There is at the moment no backdating of either attendance or mobility allowance on the grounds of good cause. Obviously the Government are carrying this over into DLA. The provision for backdating is common to most benefits. It was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Hollis in Committee. Applicants for unemployment benefit, invalidity benefit, disablement benefit, reduced earnings allowance, community charge benefit, sickness benefit, income support, housing benefit, family credit and the social fund all have the right to backdate claims. The Minister may well respond that in some of these cases it is allowable because of the nature of the benefit and because there is a clear point at which one becomes unemployed or requires income support or family credit. This is not the case with sickness benefit, invalidity benefit or disablement benefit, all of which can have a variable and arguable date of commencement. I hope therefore that the Minister will not use that argument.
We feel that it is inconsistent to penalise people with the restrictions imposed on them by the very disability that entitled them to the benefit in the first place. The Minister said in Committee:
"The questions of whether a person has care or mobility needs, at what level, when the needs first arose and whether they have become more serious require more sophisticated judgments. To attempt to make such retrospective judgments the adjudication officer would need much more evidence than we plan to collect under the new self-assessment procedures".—[Official Report, 7/3/91; col. 1587.]
I have already made the point that, in the case of the three benefits where there is already backdating and where there is an indeterminate starting point, this has to be argued and proved. We accept that providing retrospective proof to meet the mobility and care criteria will not be easy. But the same is true of other disability benefits where backdating is allowed. There is no reason why DLA should present any greater problems. The proof of eligibility for a benefit will always depend on the claimant with respect to all benefits. There is no reason why the self-assessment procedure should present any greater problem in deciding such claims. If the proof of prior eligibility cannot be provided, the backdating rule can simply be refused, as applies to all the other benefits.
The case is a good one. Disabled people will be under a disadvantage if the Government do not accept the thrust of the argument. We are quite prepared to redraft the amendment for Third Reading if the Minister accepts the argument behind it but feels that the wording is not quite right. I hope that he will be able to give us a better answer than he was able to give us in Committee. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe I can safely suppose that the House and the noble Lord will generally welcome the new adjudication and assessment arrangements which we propose to introduce for DLA and AA. The noble Lord will know that there are government amendments to follow which deal with that issue. He will also know that our aims as regards adjudication and assessment are very clear: fewer medical examinations, more reliance on self-assessment, speedier clearance of claims and reviews. If one phrase is needed to summarise our approach as regards the service to our customers, if I may so call them, then it must be the one already coined in another place. I refer to that rather awful expression, "less hassle".
I am afraid that the amendments proposed would not comply with those objectives. To introduce a provision for backdating would endanger all that we are aiming to achieve. That is as true whether there is a specific time limit or an open-ended and extremely generous "good cause" provision allowing unlimited backdating, possibly for many years. I believe that the noble Lord referred to the cases in Durham which relate to claims for additional requirements under the old supplementary benefit, and its predecessors, going back to 1948. Those cases clearly show how necessary it was to change to the much simpler provisions of income support with the disability premium which goes automatically to anyone receiving attendance allowance, mobility allowance or DLA.
The noble Lord pointed out, as the noble Baroness argued in Committee, that many other benefits have self-assessment but that they also have backdating
886
provisions. I accept that fact. However, other benefits do not require the levels of judgment which are needed to determine entitlement to DLA. Take, for example, invalidity benefit, to which the noble Lord referred. That benefit is payable where a person is incapable of work. Incapacity is determined by a doctor who provides a medical certificate. If the claimant can provide such a certificate from a doctor, the adjudicating officer can consider backdating the period of the award.
However, doctors simply cannot play anything like such a central role in DLA assessment. I believe that that factor is generally accepted. I think that we are all agreed that doctors are not always best-placed to judge the effects that a person's disability may have upon his life, which is what is needed for DLA. I am sure that the only way in which we could devise a system which would be susceptible to decisions about backdating would be if we were to link entitlement to diagnosis. Yet we are constantly being exhorted, quite rightly, not to focus on the diagnosis but on the effect of the person's condition. That is where self-assessment comes in. But self-assessment would become extremely difficult if we had not only to establish the current situation of a disabled person, but also precisely how long he had satisfied the conditions of entitlement, bearing in mind that where a progressive disorder is concerned the person may have satisfied different qualifying conditions for different periods. That means much more lengthy claim forms. I believe that the noble Lord commented on the length of some claim forms. It will also mean more exchanges of correspondence and, in practically every case, medical examinations.
Yet again I must emphasise that we believe that prevention is the best cure. That means that we must ensure that the new benefits are well publicised so that people can claim them on time. I believe that our record on the threefold increase in attendance allowance recipients and the sixfold increase in mobility allowance for recipients over the past 11 to 12 years is something of which we can be proud. It shows that we are concerned to reach as many people as possible. In the circumstances, I cannot support the amendment.
I share with the noble Lord a desire to improve the administrative arrangements for disability benefits. Nevertheless, these amendments would seriously endanger our chances of making those improvements. I trust that, when we debate other aspects of administrative arrangements later today, I shall be able to be more helpful. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should first apologise to the House that when I moved Amendment No. 20 I should have stressed the fact that I was speaking also to Amendment No. 23.
I cannot help wondering whether the Government's attitude on this occasion is affected by the Durham case. That will have considerable repercussions. I can understand their concern as regards the principle of backdating and its likely outcome. Nevertheless, I take the point made by the Minister.

887
If the debate has done nothing else, it has at least emphasised the fact that the publicity for the new allowances must be effective. We should not, therefore, have the same problem which arose with other benefits; namely, a very slow take-up rate, after which the Government publicised the allowances in order to increase the take-up. I shall be pressing very hard to ensure that the Government publicise the new allowances so that the problem of backdating does not arise. It is obvious that the Government are not prepared to accept our arguments. I do not, however, intend to divide the House on the issue. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 7, line 24, at end insert ("or treated as made").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 and 32. In Committee I confirmed that the Government had willingly decided to adopt the very sensible suggestion made by the Disability Alliance for dealing with claims for DLA.
The amendments to Clause I provide the power to treat claims for DLA as having been made from the date the department receives a simple tear-off slip. I believe that I mentioned that fact in Committee. Disabled people will send in the tear-off slip and then take the time they need to complete their self-assessment statement and to marshal evidence about the effect that their disability has on their lives. Amendment No. 32 is a consequential amendment to Schedule 2. It will allow the same system to be introduced for attendance allowance. These are entirely beneficial amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 7, line 30, after ("made") insert ("or treated as made").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Management of disability living allowance and attendance allowance]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 19, line 10, at end insert:
(" . In section 98 of the 1975 Act, after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(4) Where a claim for disability living allowance or attendance allowance is submitted, by or on behalf of a person, and the adjudication officer is unable to ascertain entitlement, he shall direct that the claimant be interviewed by an advisory visiting officer.
(4A) The role of such visiting officers shall be to advise claimants on the criteria for entitlement, elicit the relevant information and assist claimants in presenting relevant particulars in furtherance of their claim.
(4B) Such an adviser shall be specially trained in the circumstances and needs of people with disabilities; in the conditions of entitlement for these benefits; and in interviewing skills.
(4C) The Secretary of State shall ensure the adequate resourcing, and monitoring of the work of such advisers and shall report annually to Parliament on their activities, performance and standards." ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that claimants will be provided with the necessary information. As I am sure everyone appreciates, the current system of social security benefits is extremely complicated. For example, I find great difficulty in unravelling all the provisions and have to make frequent reference to the appropriate manuals to find out the true meaning.
The system has become complicated for many reasons. That has emerged in a piecemeal fashion over the years, stemming from the original Beveridge blueprint. Successive governments have added to it and, indeed, have sometimes taken away parts of it. Moreover, there has been a new Social Security Act for at least each of the past four years. Many of those Acts provide for benefits to be amended or altered by way of regulation, rather than in primary legislation. Further, some benefits are paid only as a result of means testing. As we know, this Government have specifically espoused targeting, which of course is means testing, as a way, as they see it, of putting resources in the direction of those whom they believe to be the most needy.
We heard in Committee about the types of form which now have to he completed; indeed, great reference was made on that occasion to the notorious AG1 form. We were told that it often takes a skilled professional over half an hour to complete it. Moreover, the names of the benefits are confusing. For example, even the DLA is confusing as it bears no relationship to the cost of living of a disabled person—though a disabled person may think from the title that it does. In particular, older people have doubts about the benefit system, especially where means testing is involved. That is one of the reasons for the much lower take-up of means-tested benefits.
For all those reasons there are grounds for doing something to remedy the situation and the introduction of benefits said to be new seems to us an appropriate occasion. At present, the department has no responsibility to provide information on social security benefits. Indeed, when a person discovers that he should have been receiving a benefit for a past period, he may be denied that backdating if the only reason for it is that he did not know about his entitlement.
Welfare rights organisations have taken on the task of informing claimants, as have CABs of course, but they are squeezed for funds. Furthermore, many disabled people may not have the funds or means of transport to travel to such centres if they are some way from where they live. It is our view that the department should be responsible for ensuring that prospective claimants are aware of their entitlements.
The amendment makes the point that an adviser of the type envisaged should have special training in the circumstances and needs of disabled people and of course in conditions for entitlement. Adequate resourcing of the service should be provided by the department and monitored by the Secretary of State. We believe that that provision is reasonable and

889
sensible and a way of ensuring that disabled people are not merely aware of their rights but are given help with their enforcement. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I support the amendment, especially that part of it which deals with the need for people to have proper training to do this type of work. It is all too often assumed—we see this in the way that the services are administered—that it is easy for a person who has just read through the regulations to give the advice necessary. It is a skilled job if the advice is not just to be given but is to be heard and understood by the person to whom it is given. That will not happen unless a real effort is made to give proper training to the people who are to do the job. We often forget how important is the role of the people who have face-to-face contact with the claimants. Often the people with the better qualifications are far removed from the people who have to apply for benefit. It is the people who have face-to-face contact who need to be of good quality and well trained.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I too support the amendment. We must remember that many disabled people, especially those who have been severely disabled from birth, do not have the same level of education as others. I always believed naively that they did. The organisation for which I work, which looks after disabled people and trains them for independence, finds it surprising that some of them need to be taught to read and write before it can go on with the rest of their training. We must also remember that coupled with physical disabilities there is often a degree of mental disability. At the same time, their relatives may not he well educated and may not understand the forms that have to be filled in. They can often be frightened of the forms and of officialdom.
It is right, as the noble Baroness proposes in the amendment, that the advisers should be specially trained not just in the nitty-gritty and the details of the law and regulations, but in the needs and problems of disabled people and how to explain to disabled claimants the best way of tackling the problem.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that what I have to say will make clear our commitment to making the best possible use of ways of collecting evidence and advising disabled people. I do not rule out the possibility of visiting officers being used in relation to DLA and AA. I am aware that as a result of the debate in another place the benefits agency which will shortly come into operation is considering with the office of the Chief Adjudication Officer what instructions and/or guidance on the subject can be provided.
There is no need to legislate for the use of visiting officers along the lines of the amendment, which appears prescriptive. Let me reassure the noble Baroness and the House that we do not see the administrative arrangements that we are proposing to introduce from 1992 as the final word on the matter. It is our intention closely to monitor the operation of the new system for assessing disability benefits. We shall not stand still if we find there is a need to make
890
further changes. It is too premature to make precise judgments now about whether and to what extent we might need to turn to visiting officers as set out in the amendment.
I appreciate that the sentiments behind the amendment go further than the process after a person has claimed. There is the claiming process itself and the advice which may be needed about possible entitlements. Here we feel that we have an excellent track record not just in terms of the general take-up of benefits—which in itself must say something about the effectiveness of our advice and publicity work—but in the introduction of innovative methods such as the Benefit Enquiry Line (BEL). That freeline system, specifically for people with disabilities, provides advice on social security benefits and related matters. In addition, and this is perhaps the most important and innovative feature, the BEL operators can take claim details over the telephone and then send a completed claim form to the claimant for him to check the details, sign and return.
The BEL has operated successfully in a pilot scheme in the South of England and we hope that a nationwide service will be available by the summer. While there is much preparatory work to do before we know exactly how far BEL operators can go in taking claim and self-assessment details for DLA and AA, the potential is clearly enormous.
But the BEL itself is just part of the story. The creation of the benefits agency, with customer care as one of its core values, provides the impetus for further developments to meet the needs of all claimants. Annual national customer surveys will give the agency important feedback on whether improvements are needed to administration. Clearly at the heart of all this is the claim form itself. It is crucial that we get the design of this form right. To that end we are presently testing drafts on disabled people and their carers. Initial reactions have been extremely encouraging and I hope before too long that we shall be in a position to consult more widely among disability organisations.
I hope that I have responded helpfully to the noble Baroness and that she will not feel the need to press the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of what is being done. I am glad to note that some innovative steps are being taken, especially with regard to the telephone service. It must be appreciated that if one is dealing with elderly disabled people it is important to have personal visits and contact. Many older people feel inhibited about dealing with matters over the telephone.
I hope that the whole system will, as the Minister explained, continue to be monitored, because it is important to understand that in some instances we are dealing with people who are somewhat loath to explain precisely their circumstances unless they have a sympathetic and trained listener. The idea of the visiting officer is that such a person would be trained and would be able to visit people and assist them.

891
I am glad to note that the intention is to consult the organisations catering for the disabled. The amendment is one which we tabled as a result of discussions with them. They feel, as we do, that it is important to have a sympathetic approach. However it is not my intention to divide the House. We shall note carefully what the Minister has said, as will the organisations looking after the disabled. I note that there is an intention to consult them over monitoring and ensuring that the service operates compassionately, reasonably and sensibly. I do not believe that we can be proud of the take-up of targeted or means-tested benefits. It is in that area that we have some anxiety. However, as I said, it is not my intention to divide the House. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 20, line 1, at end insert ("or

(e) the decision was to make an award for a period wholly or partly after the date on which the claim was made or treated as made but subject to a condition being fulfilled and that condition has not been fulfilled,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 26 I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 27 and 54. These amendments draw directly into the new adjudication arrangements for DLA and AA the existing powers of review relating to cases where benefit is awarded before the claimant has satisfied all the conditions of entitlement, such as the qualifying period. They are purely consequential amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 24, line 23, at end insert ("or

(e) the decision was to make an award for a period wholly or partly after the date on which the claim was made or treated as made but subject to a condition being fulfilled and that condition has not been fulfilled,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 25, line 21, leave out first ("section") and insert ("sections").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 28 I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 29 and 50. The House will be aware that the Bill contains provisions for important new adjudication arrangements for disability living allowance, attendance allowance and disability working allowance. Among the most widely applauded are the provisions for an independent right of appeal to a new form of tribunal—a disability appeal tribunal.
However, some concern has been voiced about the role of the medical practitioner on the DAT. Much of this concern stems from the medical examinations and walking tests which are currently conducted by medical appeal tribunals. There is a perception that too much depends on how the disabled performs on the day. There is also anecdotal evidence to suggest that some people find the experience very distressing.
In Committee I said that I would look at whether I could bring forward amendments which would prevent routine medical examinations and walking tests at DAT hearings while at the same time preventing any inconvenience to the claimant through unnecessary adjournments and administrative delays if further evidence were required by the tribunal. I am glad, therefore, to be able to commend these amendments. They provide that, except in prescribed circumstances, physical examinations will not be conducted by tribunal members and that the tribunal will not be able to subject claimants to physical tests to demonstrate that they are unable or virtually unable to walk. Instead the new Section 115D(1) will allow a chairman of a DAT to identify the cases which are most likely to require an examination and refer them for a report.
I would like to reassure the House about the words "except in prescribed circumstances" in new Section 115D(2). We do not intend to make regulations which reintroduce widespread examinations at hearings. But we do consider it sensible to retain some flexibility to cater for the possibility, which may emerge through our monitoring of the new system, that in particular categories of cases it might be in the claimant's best interests for an examination to be conducted.
I believe that these amendments demonstrate yet again the Government's willingness to listen and respond to representations made for genuine improvements in the administration of benefits for disabled people. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I did not understand the Minister correctly. Was there any significance in the fact that he gave the example of prescribed conditions under subsection (2) but not of prescribed conditions under subsection (1)? Are they the same, or can the Minister give an example of the prescribed conditions under subsection (1)? If he does not have the answer but will write to me, that is acceptable.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not know whether or not my noble friend has the answer. I wish very much to congratulate him on coming up with at least an amelioration, at best a cure for the problem of medical examinations for people who are virtually or totally unable to walk. There have been complaints about it for many a long year. I am pleased that the Government have taken the opportunity to deal with it as best they may. I hope that my noble friend will continue to listen to the views of the organisations for the disabled and will keep the matter under review. I have a nasty, sneaking suspicion every now and again that the Government have not yet heard the end of the matter.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I welcome the amendments most warmly. I was grateful to the Minister for meeting myself and some members of disabled organisations at Richmond House to discuss the amendments on DATs. I confirm that facilities there are accessible. I am particularly grateful to him

893
for allowing me to see the amendments since my post did not arrive on Saturday. That was enormously helpful.
The amendments are welcome. They avoid too much reliance on snap-shot examinations. The Minister said in Committee that,
"the emphasis must be put on the evidence supplied by the claimant and those best placed to know the continuing effect that his condition has upon his life".—[Official Report, 7/3/91; col. 1595.]
The amendments represent a down-to-earth, practical approach which is most welcome.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful to know that the noble Baroness welcomes the amendments. It was delightful to see her at Richmond House last week. I apologise for the post having failed to reach her; I am not sure that it is for me to do so, but it seems to have been my lot on various occasions with social security Bills to have to apologise for amendments failing to reach noble Lords.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. We need to ensure that appeals are not delayed unnecessarily because of these new provisions. The proposed new Section 115D(1) would enable a chairman of a DAT to call for an examiner's report in circumstances where one would clearly be helpful. Such situations are likely to include cases where there is a conflict of medical opinion or where the claimant disputes a medical report, or, indeed, where the claimant specifically requests that an examination be arranged before the hearing.
The important point is that in these cases the tribunal members will not conduct the examination. Instead, they will look objectively at the report of a medical examiner, together with all the other evidence. In addition, I stress that there is no intention that these examinations will in any way be routine. With that assurance, I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 26, line 23, at end insert:
("Medical examination etc. in relation to appeals to disability appeal tribunals.
115D.—(1) Where an appeal has been brought under section 100D(1) (a) above, a person who may be nominated as chairman of a disability appeal tribunal may, if prescribed conditions are satisfied, refer the claimant to a medical practitioner for such examination and report as appears to him to be necessary for the purpose of providing a disability appeal tribunal with information for use in determining the appeal.
(2) At a hearing before a disability appeal tribunal, except in prescribed circumstances, the tribunal—

(a) may not carry out a physical examination of the claimant; and

(b) may not require the claimant to undergo any physical test for the purpose of determining whether he satisfies the condition mentioned in section 37ZC(l) (a) above.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 27, line 31, after ("shall") insert ("ensure that at least one of the members of the tribunal has an understanding of the needs of disabled persons and shall").
The noble Baroness said The noble Baroness said: My Lords, ever optimistic. I hope that the Minister will feel that
894
Amendment No. 30 also has a practical approach, similar to that in his amendment which has just been accepted. I was not holding him responsible for the post; the documents came from the Printed Paper Office. However, I was most grateful to him for giving me the amendment at Richmond House.
In Committee I moved and spoke to a group of amendments designed to ensure that members of the tribunal were experienced in dealing with the needs of disabled people. The Minister said that as drafted the amendments were too prescriptive. I feel that his amendment is helpful as regards medical decisions. I welcome his statement in Committee at col. 1594 of Hansard of 7th March 1991 regarding the important role that physios and occupational therapists will have to play on DATs. That is all reassuring and I accept that the schedule refers three times to membership of disabled people.
I am not totally convinced that it is not practicable to ensure that one member of the tribunal has a disability, but I am prepared to let that matter pass. However, we must sort out one other point. It is still possible as the Bill stands to have a chairman who knows nothing about disability, a medical practitioner who knows nothing of the day-to-day effects of a disability, and a member from the lay panel who has no experience of dealing with the needs of disabled people. This amendment would ensure that at least one member of the tribunal has an understanding of the needs of disabled people. That must be a minimum requirement. As the Bill is drafted, in most cases the tribunal should end up with two people with such an understanding, one of them being disabled. It is important to have this safety net to safeguard the minimum. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to the amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it. As the noble Baroness said in moving it, the aim is simple: it is to guarantee that at least one member of the new tribunal body is familiar with the needs, the lives and the issues of people with disabilities. Some experience and understanding of the practical problems of disability involve such questions as whether a person requires help with dressing three times a day, whether they fall about in the home and whether they are in danger when crossing the road. Some may also have behavioural difficulties. Many problems could be dramatically resolved by appointing people with personal experience of disability.
People with disabilities will at the very least understand the practical difficulties resulting from care needs or mobility limitations. That is not to say that one would expect across the board that those who have a disability would automatically understand the situation of a person with a different disability. However, there is a greater chance such people will understand the consequences of the disabling condition and its effects on the functional activities of daily living, simply through their own personal experience. It is that element of insight and willingness to understand which has to some extent been missing from the adjudication of attendance allowance and mobility allowance. However, we have welcomed all the Government's moves on self-assessment in this

895
regard. We feel that the appointment of people with disabilities should be guaranteed rather than be considered either as a luxury or as a requirement to be easily circumvented by an explanation that it is not practicable. I hope the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment.
6 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords I too wish to support this amendment strongly. There is a lurking feeling in many quarters that this is all a matter of common sense and that the people on the tribunal will have the common sense to apply this measure. Leaving on one side the fact that common sense is an extremely uncommon attribute - that is well known—it is easy for people with normal intelligence and good will, and even those with medical experience, not to appreciate many of the detailed complications of living which are not directly medical factors but are a consequence of a medical situation. It is easy for those factors not to be taken adequately into account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), is not now insisting that one of the people on the tribunal should be a disabled person, but only that the person should have,
"an understanding of the needs of disabled persons."
That surely is not too much to ask. One cannot rely on the certainty that any three sensible people put together will have the insight that is needed to make proper decisions.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, most of what needs to be said as regards this provision has already been said. I added my name to a similar amendment in Committee. I had intended to add my name to this amendment but, through idleness I suspect, I never got round to doing so. I merely wish noble Lords to note that I support the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I cannot see how the Minister can refuse to accept the amendment. Information on each disability could be given to the people on the tribunal. Those people must be responsible people if they have been selected to serve on the tribunal. This provision is easy to administer. I cannot see how the Minister can refuse to accept it.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, the points that were originally made are correct. It is impossible for a person who, like myself, has a visual disability to discuss the needs of people in wheelchairs. However, the people on the tribunal must understand the difficulties of disability. Therefore I feel that a person who is trained to help disabled people must be represented on the tribunal and, if possible, someone who is disabled should also be represented on the tribunal. I thoroughly support the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, on an earlier amendment the Minister said he had some good things in store for us. I had earmarked this amendment as one such provision. I still have hopes in that regard. I have not added my name to this amendment, but it appears to be such a widely drawn
896
provision that it does not attract the objections which the Minister adduced in Committee. For that reason I wish to support the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, how on earth can I resist the amendment after those contributions? Nevertheless I shall resist it. However, I hope that I shall do so in such a manner that the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
As I explained to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), when she came to see me last week, I have very considerable sympathy with the sentiments behind the amendment which is designed to ensure that appeals from disabled people are dealt with in an informed and understanding manner. That was clearly our objective also in providing in the Bill that one member of the DAT must be drawn from a panel which is as far as is practicable made up of people who have experience of dealing with the needs of disabled people either in a voluntary or professional capacity or as a disabled person.
As I understand it, the amendment seeks to ensure that every DAT has at least one member who has an understanding of the needs of disabled people. But I am not convinced that the amendment, as it stands, does much to achieve this wholly desirable outcome. First, I must remind your Lordships that every tribunal will include a doctor, who by definition will be knowledgeable about the medical side of the needs of disabled people.
Secondly, each tribunal will have a member drawn from a panel of people who will be expressly chosen, so far as practicable, for their knowledge of the non-medical side of the needs of disabled people. I am extremely sympathetic with the sentiments behind this amendment. I recognise the concern that some tribunals might not have a member, other than the doctor, with experience of dealing with the needs of disabled people. That is something which concerns me also.
I cannot support the amendment as it stands. However, I hope to persuade the noble Baroness not to press her amendment as I am willing to consider the matter further between now and Third Reading, which will occur some time after Easter, with a view to tabling a government amendment which will, I hope, allay concerns in this regard. Given that commitment, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. Many other noble Lords expressed the wish to add their support to the amendment and add their names to it. However, an amendment can be tabled only in a maximum of four names. I repeat that I am only resisting the amendment because the Government are aware of the concerns that have been expressed and we shall try to allay those concerns by tabling a provision at a later stage.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I wish to thank all those who have supported the amendment. There has been overwhelming support for it and I am glad that the Minister was overwhelmed by the support also. I appreciate what the Minister said about doctors on the medical panel and the fact that they would be expected to have medical knowledge of

897
disability, but the stumbling block may arise with the lay panel. However, on the understanding that the Minister has given a commitment to bring forward a provision on Third Reading which would achieve the desired effect, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment. I believe the Third Reading will take place on the first day after the Recess. I hope the Minister will discuss the matter with me before then just in case the post from the Printed Paper Office fails again.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my understanding is that the post is somewhat more reliable over Easter than it is over Christmas. I am sure the noble Baroness will have no difficulty in getting in touch with me. I believe there is a total of three weeks between now and Third Reading. That includes this week and the two weeks of the Easter Recess. I am sure we can come to some arrangement between now and then.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I take it that is an offer to get in touch with the Minister. In this case I find his resistance irresistible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 27, line 42, leave out (":37ZE(3)") and insert ("37ZB(5) or 37ZC(8)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is merely a technical amendment to correct an inaccurate cross-reference. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Disability living allowance and attendance allowance: amendments]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 28, line 37, at end insert:
("( ) The words "or is treated as making" shall be inserted after the word "makes" in subsections (4) and (4A).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 21. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 28, line 38, at beginning insert:
("(1) In section 37(1) of that Act (invalid care allowance) after the words "severely disabled person" shall be added the words "or persons" and after the words "that person" shall be added the words "or persons".
(2)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I understand from the groupings list that in moving this amendment I should speak also to Amendment No. 33A. However, there does not appear to be an Amendment No. 33A on the Marshalled List.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may help the noble Baroness if I point out that the next amendment on the Marshalled List is Amendment No. 33A.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I understand that Amendment No. 33A is the next amendment on the Marshalled List although it is not numbered.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the next amendment should be numbered Amendment No. 33A.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that is what I have said. Up until now we have been talking, quite properly, about the issues of the disabled person. However, the whole issue of disabled living is not confined to the disabled person. As your Lordships are aware, there are no fewer than 6 million informal carers in this country looking after people with varying degrees of disability. With the increased emphasis on community care and with the in many ways welcome reduction in the number of people in institutions, there can be no doubt that the burden on informal carers, such as members of the Family, close friends and others, will certainly not diminish and will probably increase. The amendments concern the position of the people who do the caring. They are an essential part of the whole issue of disabled living.
There is and has been for some considerable time an invalid care allowance which is paid to the person who does the caring. It is the one resource of that person. Caring for the disabled can be an extremely lonely job and one which leaves the carer poverty stricken. Many carers at first try to continue working and then they cut down from working full-time work to working part time. At the end of the day, or sometimes long before the end of the day, they have to give up work altogether.
When people have to give so much of their time to the job of caring they are immensely dependent on the invalid care allowance, small though it is, for money of their own; otherwise they have to rely on what the person for whom they are caring is prepared to give them. Although many of the people who need care are sweet, kind and gentle old things, some are not. Some carers have an extremely rough ride, not to put too fine a point on it, in looking after people. The one power that remains to the person who is disabled or very frail and housebound is power over the person who is caring for him or her and in the same house. There is a temptation for that power to be exploited, and not infrequently it is exploited to a serious degree.
In the two amendments I plead that no restrictions should be placed on payment of the invalid care allowance such as those in the Bill. The first restriction, referred to in Amendment No. 33, applies where the person being cared for has a lower level of need and receives the lower level of the allowance. It is not the extent of the disability of the person being cared for that affects the carer but the amount of the carer's time that is taken up. In asking that the invalid care allowance should be made available to people in the lower category I remind your Lordships that that will apply only if the carer is providing care for more than 35 hours a week and is earning less than the agreed limit.
The 35 hours a week is the important point, not the degree of disability of the person being tended. If it requires 35 hours a week, that represents an enormous chunk out of the daily life of the person doing the caring. That is why carers need the financial resources just as much as if they spend the same amount of time looking after someone who is more seriously disabled.

899
The second amendment concerns the curious requirement in the Bill that one can only receive invalid care allowance if one spends 35 hours a week looking after one person. Increasingly there are couples—elderly parents—who have to be looked after. Neither of them may individually need 35 hours of care, but together they require a great deal more than 35 hours of care. As the Bill now stands, because neither of them needs 35 hours of care the unfortunate carer, who still has to do the work which will take her—it is usually a woman but it may be a man, and perhaps more often than your Lordships realize—far more than 35 hours, will receive no invalid care allowance.
I repeat that it is the amount of time that the carer has to give and the inevitable loss of earnings which should qualify the carer for invalid care allowance and not the condition of the person being cared for or the number of people being cared for. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to the amendment. When we discussed the matter in Committee we did not receive a satisfactory answer from the Minister and I am delighted that the noble Baroness has returned to the point.
I should like to put the matter in context. In 1985 a general household survey estimated that there are about 6 million carers of whom 1.4 million provide care for a disabled person for at least 20 hours a week. However, only 130,000 people receive invalid care allowance.
Amendment No. 33 would allow a carer to qualify for invalid care allowance if the carer is caring for more than one seriously disabled person in receipt of the higher or middle rate care component for a total of 35 hours a week even if, as the noble Baroness said, the carer is not caring for one person for 35 hours. As a result of the strict rules which are being applied only 130,000 carers receive invalid care allowance. That means that 98 per cent. of carers do not receive it.
We believe that the Government should accept the amendment in respect of the carer providing care to more than one person on the lower £10 rate of DLA where the care provided to each is less than 35 hours a week. If a carer is caring for two people who each require 35 hours of care the carer will still receive only one payment of ICA as the Bill is presently drafted. Under those proposals a carer looking after a disabled person who receives the disability living allowance will be denied ICA regardless of the number of hours spent providing care each week if the person being cared for receives only the lowest rate of DLA—the £10 rate. It ignores the fact that the person on the £10 rate of DLA could easily require 35 hours of care a week. It denies the benefit to carers who are out of work because of their full-time caring commitment.
People on the lowest £10 rate will not be treated as being severely disabled for the purposes of invalid care allowance, regardless of their circumstances, the amount of care they need and receive and the criteria for the £10 rate. We feel that that is inconsistent. Under Section 37ZB(1) the £10 rate of DLA is payable
900
only to people who are severely disabled, physically or mentally. In order to receive the £10 lowest rate of the care component a person must be severely disabled, but once the carer attempts to claim ICA in respect of that person he or she no longer counts as being severely disabled. That is a contradiction which confounds both logic and legal interpretation. We should be grateful if the Minister would explain the inconsistency.
At present only 2 per cent. of the country's 6 million carers receive ICA. If that proportion persists after 1992, which is likely in the absence of other major changes, it seems that 1,450 carers who are caring for someone receiving the £10 care component will receive ICA. That would represent a minor increase both in the number of ICA recipients and in the costs. It is estimated that overall the cost would be £2 million per annum compared with total expenditure on ICA of £300 million.
If a carer spends 36 hours a week caring for a person who receives the lowest care component of DLA why should that in itself debar the carer from receiving the invalid care allowance? The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the substantial care requirement of the severely disabled person who receives the lowest rate of DLA helps the carer to qualify for ICA if 35 hours or more of care are provided a week. We feel that carers who otherwise satisfy all the rules of entitlement to ICA, including the rule that they must provide substantial care—35 hours a week—to a severely disabled person should not be unfairly denied their benefit entitlement.
Finally, I refer to a number of remarks which the Minister made at Committee when we discussed a similar amendment. He said on 7th March, at col. 1601 of Hansard:
"This amendment would bring people for whom caring is a more informal occupation into entitlement"
I do not know know what type of care of disabled people is a "more informal occupation". He seemed to devalue the work of those who care for people on the lowest rate. He said:
"Generally speaking, caring for people receiving the lowest rate, for however many hours a week, will be a much less onerous task than looking after a very severely disabled person".
I refer the Minister to the fact that the requirements for receipt of the lowest rate of the care component relate to a severely disabled person. He continued:
"It is likely to involve lighter tasks, such as helping a person in or out of bed".
I do not whether the noble Lord regards that as a light task. Helping with bathing is not a light task. One is also talking about helping with a course of medicine and the abstract test of preparing a meal.
In regard to the question of a carer receiving invalid care allowance if he or she is caring for more than two people, I will not repeat all that the noble Lord said in Committee, but he undertook to look at the problem. I think the Government recognise that the present situation makes no sense. He recognised there was a genuine point and undertook to see if anything could be done to resolve the difficulty. I hope that at least on that amendment the Minister will have some good news for us.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I would like to support the amendments warmly but very briefly. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has put the case so compellingly and clearly that there is nothing I can add to it. Speaking from the other side of the fence, as it were, though I am lucky enough at present not to need a carer, I should like to say how important these amendments are.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure I can take the House much further than we got in Committee. There are two questions here. The first question is why invalid care allowance is payable where one person requires 35 or more hours of care but is not payable where two people need care and that amounts in aggregate to more than 35 hours. The second question is why invalid care allowance should not be payable where the severely disabled person is on the lower rate of DLA care. I have explained that we recognise that there is a need to look further at the first question. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Miss Widdecombe, said in another place that we would look at it again. I repeated that commitment in Committee and I do so again this evening. However, I do not think I can take the matter any further.
The point I should like to emphasise is that the 35-hour rule is closely bound up with the requirement for the person cared for to be getting attendance allowance. Anyone on attendance allowance will necessarily he in need of virtually full-time care, so his or her carer would have no difficulty in showing that he or she spent 35 hours a week in caring for that disabled person. That would not be true if we extended invalid care allowance to people caring for someone on the new lower rate of DLA care. That brings us to the second question: whether or not it should be extended where the severely disabled person is on the new lower rate. No one on the new lower rate of DLA care should need looking after for more than 35 hours a week. If the disabled person needed that amount of care he or she would most likely be getting the middle or higher rate, not the lower rate.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that even people on the lower rate were severely disabled. But the point about the new lower rate of DLA that the noble Lord misses is that it is provided expressly for severely disabled people who have lesser care needs, perhaps only an hour a day. I refer to the examples which I gave in Committee. Thus, the essential point in answer to both questions raised by the amendments is that the lower rate of DLA care will not in a single case give rise to the level of care needs that warrants payment of invalid care allowance to the carer.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if I may ask a question for information, is the Minister saying that if anybody requires more than 35 hours a week of care he or she will automatically qualify for the two higher rates?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it would be wrong to say that the person would qualify automatically. If someone required that amount of care it is almost
902
certain, or very likely, that he or she would be entitled to the middle or higher rate of the care component of DLA.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I must challenge the Minister on what he has said. We are referring to a person,
"so severely disabled physically or mentally that … he requires in connection with his bodily functions attention from another person for a significant portion of the day (whether during a single period or a number of periods); or … he cannot prepare a cooked main meal for himself if he has the ingredients",
etc. Surely, that can easily add up to 35 hours a week.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept what the noble Baroness is saying. At an earlier stage we discussed the abstract test for a meal, and so on. What I am saying is that if they were in need of more than 35 hours a week they would almost certainly be beyond the test that is imposed for the new lower rate and therefore would be entitled to the higher rate.
We accept that it may be possible for two or more people on the lower rate to require in aggregate 35 hours or more of care. That is precisely the point my honourable friend has agreed we will look into, and I repeat that assurance. But I have to say to the noble Baroness that we are no further on from the point we had reached at the previous stage.
It is always very difficult to deal with two issues of this kind when they are interconnected in this way. I hope I have provided an explanation of our views and that, given the commitment to look into the point about multiple carees, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment on this occasion.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, to get the position absolutely clear, if a carer is caring for one disabled person who requires 35 hours of care or more per week, he or she will receive DLA. However, if he or she is caring for two disabled people, one receiving 18 hours of care and the other only 17 hours of care, making 35 hours of care in all, the carer does not receive ICA. Is that right?
Lord Henley: My Lord, I think the noble Lord should have listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. That is the point of the amendment, and that is the problem. I accept that there is a problem, in that, where somebody is looking after two carees but in aggregate for less than the full 35 hours a week (I suspect it would not happen all that often), the position would not be covered. However, I and my honourable friend have given an assurance that it is something we shall look into. I have to tell the noble Baroness that we have not got any further than the point we had reached at Committee stage.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, since these amendments should be Amendments Nos. 33 and 33A, I should like them to be called separately. They are two separate amendments, although the numbering is not properly indicated. If that is acceptable, I shall move them separately.
I find it extraordinarily difficult to accept that if in your home there are two people in the lower category, both of whom in the definition given in Section 37ZB require,

903
"in connection with [their] bodily functions attention from another person for a signficant portion of the day",
and they have to have that seven days a week, it will not take more than 35 hours. I cannot see how it can possibly add up to anything less. I would have thought that the argument that on the basis of two people the provision could be justified, even at the lower level, would be extraordinarily difficult to answer. However, as the noble Lord has said that the Government are still looking at Amendment No. 33, which relates to two persons, I shall beg leave to withdraw that amendment at this time. On the other hand, I would not wish to withdraw Amendment No. 33A, which relates to the lower rate, and on that I should like to test the opinion of the House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 33A:
Page 28, line 40, leave out ("at the highest or middle rate.").
6.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 33A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 76.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

McNair, L.

Ardwick, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Blease, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bradford, Bp.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Carter, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Nathan, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Craigavon, V.

Parry, L.

Cross, V.

Richard, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Russell, E.

David, B.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Walston, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Lawrence, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Arran, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Astor, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Bessborough, E.

Coleraine, L.

Blatch, B.

Colwyn, L.

Boardman, L.

Craigavon, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Brigstocke, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Caithness, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Faithfull, B.

Carnock, L.

Flather, B.

904

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Norrie, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orkney, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Greenway, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Henley, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hesketh, L.

Prior, L.

Hooper, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Reay, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Renton, L.

Kimball, L.

Renwick, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Liverpool, E.

Sudeley, L.

Long, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Margadale, L.

Tryon, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Milverton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Montgomery of Alamein. V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wise, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Munster, E.

Wynford, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Young, B.

Nelson, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.37 p.m.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Regulations supplementary to ss. 1 to 4]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 10, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) Notwithstanding provisions made under subsection (2) above a review of entitlement of either the care or mobility component shall not result in a reduction of benefit or period of award unless there has been a relevant change of circumstances, or the original decision was made in error or ignorance as to a material fact.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as it stands Clause 5 gives the Secretary of State almost unlimited powers for the transition of current attendance and mobility allowances to the DLA. However, the aim of this amendment is to make sure that no recipient will be worse off as a result of the changeover either by total withdrawal or by a reduction in the rate or period of entitlement unless there has been a change of circumstances or the original decision was made in error or ignorance as to a material fact.
We are anxious to ensure that shifting people on to what is, after all, a renaming of their existing benefit should not result in their being worse off than they would have been. The intention of the amendment is to limit reviews only to where there has been the change of circumstances to which I referred—for example, where a person's need for attention or supervision or walking limitations have substantially changed. In such circumstances the adjudication officer under the amendment is given powers to review the claimant's entitlement and perhaps change or remove the award.
Without an amendment of this kind the onus is placed on the claimant to appeal against the withdrawal and to prove entitlement. We should like this amendment to be accepted. It would show simply and clearly on the face of the Bill that claimants will be protected unless there has been a significant change in their care or mobility circumstances and that change warrants a change in the award. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support this amendment. Surely it gives an incentive to people to work. Perhaps the noble Baroness could tell me whether I am correct in saying that, if her amendment is accepted, it would not be necessary to move the later amendment to which I have added my name, Amendment No. 51.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Baroness. I believe that Amendment No. 51 is on a somewhat different subject from that of Amendment No. 35. I am afraid, therefore, that she will have to wait until we reach Amendment No. 51.
I understand the concerns that have led the noble Baroness to table this amendment. I am sorry that she feels it necessary to do so in the light of the explanation of our intentions that I gave in Committee. Let me re-state why I think the solution that we have adopted is much the better of the two principal alternatives on offer. Briefly, with a two-component benefit one could decide to treat entitlement to each of the separate components as entirely separate decisions. That is basically what this amendment would have us do. As an aside, I would be interested to know how this would work if there were some 10 different components, as was at times suggested in Committee.
The other approach is to align the award periods, so that the benefits of having a single claim, a single adjudication process and, at most, a single medical examination, are repeated when someone applies for a review or makes a renewal claim. That is the route we have gone down in this Bill, although—and I must stress this—the vast majority of claimants who have awards of both components in practice have a life award of one or the other, and so are completely unaffected by the alignment. Life awards are not shortened by this Bill. And our experience—sadly, I must say—of very many of the people who have fixed period awards of both existing benefits suggests that when they make renewal claims they will often at that stage be given life awards.
I appreciate that the noble Baroness approaches this from another angle and is saying that it will come as unwelcome news to the few people who are on different fixed period awards of both the existing benefits to find that one of these awards has been reduced in length. But I stand by the judgment that we took that it was better if we kept to a minimum the number of times the beneficiary was "put through the hoops" of applying for benefit. If we adopt the proposal in this amendment, we have the genuine fear that many of the advantages to claimants of the new assessment process will be compromised or at least severely diminished.
The noble Baroness's greater concern was that some claimants would find that when their entitlement does come up for an early review, they then had their benefit reduced despite having experienced no change of circumstances. I hope it offers some reassurance to the noble Baroness to say that that is certainly not what we would want to see. If the claimant's circumstances have not changed since the original decision was made, there is clearly no intention that they should end up receiving a lower rate of benefit.
906
So I hope at least that our differences are narrowed down to the issue of whether to align award periods. I hope that what I have said persuades the noble Baroness that our judgment is the right one. I do not see this as primarily a matter of administrative convenience—indeed, the balance of advantage might be the other way—but rather as a matter of paying attention to the interests of the claimants. I hope that on the basis of these assurances the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the noble Minister. I welcome his assurance that he is not concerned with administrative convenience but with paying attention to the interests of the claimants themselves. We were concerned lest people would feel that their circumstances had not changed but that they were having their award changed. It was to cope with that situation that we put down the amendment in the first place. I welcome the Minister's assurance that there was no intention that if there had been no change in circumstance there would be any change in award.
The problem, as the disablement organisations see it, is that sometimes adjudicators do not always follow what is expected of them. If that happens then the claimant has no alternative—the onus is upon the claimant, as I said in my opening statement—but to appeal against the withdrawal and then to proceed to prove entitlement. It was to try to avoid that that we put down the amendment. However, I note that the Minister does not feel disposed to accept the amendment for the reasons he has given. In the circumstances it is not my intention to press the amendment. We are all going to have to see how this works out in practice. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Introduction of disability working allowance]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 11, leave out lines 13 to 16 and insert:
("(iv) income support, housing benefit or community charge benefit;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 36 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41. These are drafting changes to clarify the circumstances in which someone with the income-related benefit, including the disability premium, satisfies the qualifying benefit test. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 11, line 39, at end insert:
("(d) when a claim for disability working allowance is made or is treated as made, he has a disability which puts him at a disadvantage in getting or retaining a job.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I moved a rather similar amendment in Committee. I said then that the idea was to make provision for entitlement to DWA alone rather than through passporting benefits.

907
It is hardly surprising that, given the rules in relation to entitlement, relatively few people are likely to qualify for DWA.
As I said in Committee, if the Bill remained unamended the result would be that some disabled people would qualify for benefit, the DWA, whereas others, perhaps equally disabled, would not. This is divisive and unfortunate. There are a number of people who would not qualify: those on unemployment benefit or other benefits which are not listed in the Bill as qualifying benefits; those who perhaps have been given incorrect advice, as happens; those who initially fail to qualify for DWA on income grounds but whose earnings have dropped; and those already in work who acquire disability, and so on. I made reference to these when the issue was discussed in Committee. The amendment moved in Committee aimed to allow such people to have a functional test so that they could qualify on grounds of disability alone. That was voted upon and rejected by the Committee; so I cannot proceed with exactly the same amendment. The wording therefore is slightly different.
The Minister claimed that if the amendment then before the Committee was successful it would cost about £200 million. That is a lot of money. But unless something is done the anomalous position will arise of people with the same disabilities being treated differently. In some cases the result will be quite harsh and quite unacceptable.
Take the case, for example, of a man in a well-paid job who becomes ill with cerebral palsy. He has to give up his job. Not realising that he would be eligible for invalidity benefit he claims unemployment benefit for a year, after which he receives income support but no disability premium. He eventually finds a lower paid job and is advised to claim DWA, but because he has not had the passporting benefits of the DWA he does not qualify.
We have thought about the whole matter again since Committee. We still feel this to be unsatisfactory. Therefore, we have come back with slightly different wording because it is our belief on this side of the House that the whole matter requires reconsideration. Incidentally, if there are functional tests for people without passporting benefits, I cannot see that the cost is likely to be as much as the £200 million indicated by the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. I had intended to add my name to the amendment, but somehow it has not got there. Once again the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has argued the case most compellingly and cogently. I am still concerned at the failure of the DWA to help people with, for example, a progressive disability who are actually in work and not claiming DLA. There is no way that they can remain in work and get DWA without coming off first to qualify.
In its note on disability working allowance the Department of Social Security in November 1990 acknowledged the assistance of a number of detailed papers, including Disability Employment Credit—General Principles, by the Disablement Income Group, DIG. I do not think that much attention was
908
paid to it, although the principles were acknowledged, because in paragraph 1 DIG's paper outlined that the DWA, then called disability employment credit, should be in the following terms:
"The credit should be available both to help people back into work and to help people remain in work. The credit should thus be available to help people whose disabilities have taken them (temporarily) from the work force but who could return to work full time, albeit at a reduced rate and therefore for reduced earnings. It should also be available to help those whose disability is progressing and making it increasingly difficult for them to continue working at 'full' capacity".
In paragraph 2 DIG expressly stated:
"The credit should not be limited to disabled people in receipt of particular benefits that might be used as passport benefits. It should, for example. he available to deaf people and partially sighted people who are not in receipt of any disability benefit".
In opposing these amendments is the Minister really saying that DWA is a benefit to encourage people back to work, to get them off invalidity benefit or income support, and not a benefit to help disabled people to remain at work? Is he saying that DWA is a two-way allowance or a one-way allowance? Is he saying that he will help a disabled person back to work but will not help an identically disabled person with the same qualifications and experience to remain in work.
It appears that that may be so because in Committee the Minister said:
"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".—[Official Report, 11/3/91; col. 28.]
Does the Minister agree that if people are not helped to remain in work they retire prematurely and add to the numbers receiving invalidity benefit and income support? At page 23 of The Way Ahead the Government said that they would target help:
"specifically on people who are only partially rather than wholly incapable of work".
I believe that the amendment will ensure more effective targeting.
Lord Henley: My Lords, Amendment No. 37 is virtually identical to Amendment No. 60 which was debated in Committee. The noble Baroness may say that it is merely similar but in my view it is virtually identical. That amendment was rejected in a Division. However, if the noble Baroness wishes to table the amendment again we shall have another chat about it. In Committee I gave two reasons why I could not accept the amendment.
Disability working allowance is a very important step forward. It introduces a new opportunity for disabled people and takes nothing away from anyone. A number of your Lordships have commented on the value of the benefit to disabled people and some of your Lordships have pointed out ways in which it could be made better—I stress, at a price. It is easy to criticise the benefit for what it will not do but we must remember the positive value of DWA to disabled people.
As has been suggested, if resources were available DWA could be extended to more people. But, as I said when the Committee debated this point, we estimate that the cost of accepting this amendment will be of the order of £200 million net of savings elsewhere in

909
the benefit system. This is a very significant sum of money, although I appreciate that the noble Baroness believes that it is only quite a lot of money.
However, as I pointed out to the Committee, there is a positive side. Disability working allowance is intended to provide support for people making the difficult transition from incapacity to work. In particular, because the qualifying benefit test ensures that all claimants satisfy or have recently satisfied a medical test for a long-term disability or incapacity benefit, we can use this as supporting evidence instead of devising an additional medical test.
It has been pointed out that we are developing a test of functional disability to be used in the minority of repeat claims where the evidence from the qualifying benefit test is no longer sufficient. It has been suggested that this test could be used for all claims, including initial claims from people who do not have a qualifying benefit.
This test of functional disability will be in the form of a questionnaire asking claimants about things that they can and cannot do. The form will include questions about mobility, reaching and stretching, seeing, hearing and speaking, consciousness, fatigue, pain and so on. The questionnaire was devised on the assumption that all claimants who took the test would have been in receipt of a qualifying benefit at some stage. Therefore, there is an established history of long-term illness or disability. The test will therefore provide evidence to confirm that there is a continuing, significant disability. This test would not be suitable for use in cases where the claimant had not satisfied the qualifying benefit test at the start of his or her DWA claim.
I believe that DWA will provide a valuable opportunity for 50,000 disabled people at any one time to work when they might well not be able to do so without it. It could be extended to others but only at considerable cost—what the noble Baroness referred to as quite a lot of money. We have devised a benefit which makes very good use of the evidence that the department already has of claimants' disabilities. In this way we shall meet the needs of the people DWA is specifically intended for; that is, those who are trying to make the difficult transition from incapacity into work. Amendment No. 37 would require the Government to devise and pay for a very different benefit. I hope that on this occasion the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I have read the amendment that I moved in Committee and it is not the same as that before the House tonight. The wording of the amendment was:
"when the claim for a disability working allowance is made or is treated as made, he has a physical or mental disability".
We have substituted that wording for the wording in Amendment No. 37 which reads:
"he has a disability which puts him at a disadvantage in getting or retaining a job".
That is not the same as the original wording.
The intention was to ensure that more people would qualify for DWA. I make no apology for that because DWA is intended to provide an incentive for people who are disabled and who would otherwise be
910
isolated and confined to their homes to join the workforce. If the incentive is successful ultimately such people may not be dependent on benefits. After entering the workforce disabled people may find themselves able to do more and more work, which will be to their benefit and that of the community. We should regard DWA as an investment in society because disabled people will be able to make a contribution.
I believe that 50,000 is a relatively small number of people. Most organisations for the disabled state that approximately 285,000 disabled people would be quite capable of carrying out some work. Provisions in regard to DWA have been so drafted that it will be difficult for more than 50,000 people to qualify. That was the object of the original amendment tabled in Committee, which admittedly was lost on a Division. I make no apology that the amendment now before the House is intended to extend DWA to benefit a larger number of people. The fact remains that some disabled people will qualify while others will not simply because they do not have the passporting benefits. That is not acceptable. If the provision remains in the Act, as is likely, I believe that whichever Government are in power must examine it. It is not my intention to press the amendment to a Division and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 40 and 41:
Page 11, line 49, leave out ("with an amount included such as is mentioned in that sub-paragraph").
Page 12, line 3, leave out ("if he also satisfies such additional conditions as may be prescribed") and insert ("in prescribed circumstances").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when speaking to Amendment No. 36. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 12, line 41, after ("percentage") insert ("which shall not exceed 40 per cent.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I introduced a similar amendment in Committee but withdrew it because I wanted to study the Minister's response. I have had the opportunity of doing so but remain unconvinced by his arguments. I said in Committee that, as the Bill stands, a poverty trap will be created because once a disabled person starts earning there will be large corresponding reductions in his or her DWA. Therefore, such people must consider the options very carefully and weigh up whether or not they will be better off working than simply continuing to be dependent entirely on social benefits.
As we have said repeatedly, the object of the DWA is to provide an incentive to disabled people to join the labour market and become part of the workforce and the community. We all regard that as important. We believe passionately that disabled people should be encouraged to do whatever work they can because that ends the isolation which is often an unacceptable and tragic part of the condition of disability.
Unless the Bill is amended I question whether that objective will be achieved for more than a relatively small minority. The intention is to provide for a 70 per cent. taper. That means that a disabled person will lose a substantial amount in the pound of every extra pound earned above a specified income threshold.
In Committee the Minister claimed that the priority was to help people with disabilities who are on the lowest incomes. He opposed my amendment on the grounds that reducing the taper would help only those who are better off and that that was probably not the best use of money. The implication is that any lowering of the taper will reduce the help available to those on the lowest incomes thus making them less of a priority.
It is true that the Minister corrected me when I said that the Government's case was that the lowest paid would be worse off. He said:
"I suggested that 40 per cent. would not particularly benefit the worse off, it would benefit the slightly better off"—[Official Report, 11/3/91; col. 35.]
The taper does not affect people who earn so little that they are automatically entitled to a maximum DWA in any case.
However, I argue that it is essential that disabled people should be able to see that if their earnings rise a little, their DWA will not be reduced by a 70 per cent. taper. We are not speaking of large amounts of earnings. If a 40 per cent. taper were to be introduced the maximum net earnings for a single person claiming DWA would have to be less than £127.60 per week and for a couple £186.97. Those are the ceilings. The nearer are the amount of earnings to the ceiling, the less people will receive on DWA.
In the long term the Government are expecting to make savings as people come off benefits and onto DWA. I am not satisfied with the reasons given in Committee for opposing the amendment and I did not call a division on it at that time. Therefore, I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, on this occasion I assure the noble Baroness that her amendment this evening is not similar to her previous amendment but is identical to it. The noble Baroness used the word "similar" and I thought I should take her up on that.
I understand the argument of the noble Baroness but I do not believe that I can take the matter much further than it was taken in Committee. I understand the anxiety about the combined effect of the tapers in disability working allowance, the housing benefit and community charge benefit. Of course, this combined effect will probably affect less than half of DWA recipients.
However, disability working allowance does not create a poverty trap as has been suggested. Recipients will almost always be better off working and claiming DWA than they would be if they did not. It is also the case that, as their earnings rise, recipients will virtually always keep a proportion of their extra earnings and so will be better off. I repeat, DWA does not create a poverty trap.
912
We have said that DWA offers a new opportunity for disabled people with only limited capacity to work if they wish. DWA provides this opportunity by largely removing the risk that a disabled person giving up an incapacity benefit might fall below income support level because he has decided to take a job. That is a very significant point which has not been fully recognised by the noble Baroness and noble Lords opposite.
We must be very careful about the effect DWA has on behaviour. None of us would want disabled people to feel pressurised to work if they are not fit enough. Nor would we want those who cannot work to feel that they are being discriminated against, because resources are being spent on incentives to encourage those who can work to do so. I believe that a balance must be struck and that resources must be divided fairly among all who need benefits.
As I said, DWA has been designed to give as much help as possible to people with the lowest earnings. This ensures that they are not made worse off by deciding to take a job. However, as I said in Committee—the noble Baroness quoted my words—reducing the taper would give little or nothing to them. A shallow taper would give most help to people who are already better off. It would make little or no difference to claimants with earnings at or little above the applicable amount.
I repeat the final point I made in Committee. High combined deduction rates are unavoidable if one has comparatively generous income related benefits which provide significant help to the least well off in society.
For all these reasons I cannot recommend this identical amendment to the House and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the Minister has made a speech similar to that which he made in Committee.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Identical!
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, it is not identical but it is similar. He said in Committee and has now said again, that if the amendment is accepted it would benefit the better off and do nothing at all for those on the lowest rate. As I said earlier, the taper does not affect those earning so little that they are automatically entitled to maximum DWA.
I am not satisfied with the Minister's response but I do not intend to press the amendment at this stage. There is another amendment in my name later which deals with the levels of DWA. Perhaps we may advance similar arguments about incentives and general levels at that stage. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned and I suggest that the Report stage begin again at ten minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Finance (Publicity for Auditors' Reports) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Motor Vehicles (Safety Equipment for Children) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Gaming (Bingo) Bill [H.L.]
7.8 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I suggest that this Bill comes completely within the limits which justify the use of the Private Bill procedure. It in no way compromises the main features of the parent statute; namely, the Gaming Act 1968.
The Bill is very modest in its aims and the circumstances which justify it have been discussed in detail in a friendly way between the Gaming Board and the Home Office. Those discussions have gone on and on. I hope that my noble friend will not suggest that we should not proceed with the enactment of this legislation because discussions may continue. I can say with complete sincerity that following the discussions which have taken place over a long period the point of view which has been put by both the Gaming Board and the Home Office has been taken fully into account in framing the Bill as it now stands.
I should perhaps place on record that for 18 years I was chairman of a national company which controlled many bingo clubs. That perhaps gives me an insight into the problems, authenticity and practice of the arguments that I and other noble Lords will present. I have not had that connection for the past four years and to that extent I am able to look at the matter objectively.
Over those years I was always puzzled by the way the regulations arising from the Gaming Act continued to lump both casinos and bingo clubs together. One has always recognised the necessity of constraining the advertising of casinos where large sums of money are staked and all types of hard gaming are available; but that is a million miles away from the friendly social atmosphere of one's local bingo club where games are played for modest stakes. However, the restrictions on their advertising of what is mostly a social gathering are the same as those for casinos.
It is significant that in 1978 a Royal Commission, with all the detailed probing that it carries out, described bingo as a pastime,
"where people, mostly women, often lonely or elderly can meet in a neighbourly way and enjoy an agreeable flutter".
I believe that sums up what bingo is all about. I have a shrewd feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Mason, when he makes his contribution and with his special knowledge of the mining community and the north of England, will be in a position to produce first class
914
evidence that the Royal Commission accurately described what he found in that part of the country. I certainly found it accurate in the Midlands and other areas where we had interests in past years.
At the moment bingo clubs may advertise their facilities as social clubs. However, the use of the word "bingo" is completely verboten; they cannot use it. That is the "flutter" to which the Royal Commission referred as being what attracted people to spend their leisure time in the clubs. The only place where "bingo" is allowed to appear is on the front of the club itself. When one compares that restriction with newspapers that circulate millions of copies emblazoning on front pages the astronomical wins that can be made from newspaper bingo competitions, only a deep reading of Freud could give any explanation as to why that blatant contradiction exists between those two leisure activities.
The Bill attempts to iron out one small part of those contradictions. That is why I ask your Lordships' House to give "God speed" to what is a practical but modest Bill. From my own point of view and knowledge of the industry I should have liked complete deregulation of advertising restrictions in regard to bingo. That would allow full advertising not only of the address and social benefits, but also of the fact that they play bingo with modest money prizes. However, discussions with the Gaming Board and the Home Office have been going on with all their authority and experience. At this stage I did not want to give the appearance of going hull-headed against their feelings of wanting to resist full deregulation. Therefore, the Bill does not cover that. It only asks that, when advertising, the word "bingo" may be used. I do not even ask that the amount of money involved in this modest level of gambling need be advertised. The Bill is only concerned with the use of the word "bingo".
It is important that that encouragement should be given, particularly in view of the fact that I do not ask for a precedent even in regard to the money. Both Houses agreed a statute not long ago which gave full approval to the advertising of national bingo. As it was agreed in that instance that it would not be damaging, I suggest that the least we can do at this time is to go that extra step further along the same road.
The Bill would allow the clubs to use the word "bingo" when advertising and to show when and where the game is to be played, the cost of the programme, the facilities that are available and how one may become a member. I do not suggest that the period that must elapse between applying for membership and receiving it should be altered. The Bill merely deals with the outlawing of the word "bingo". It is important that this step should be taken if we feel that there is a need to promote this leisure activity as described by the Royal Commission.
In 1974—the year in which I came to your Lordships' House and when I first took an interest in the matte—there were over 1,600 licensed bingo clubs operating. There are now only about 980. The decline is mainly among the smaller operators. They are the ones with which I am mainly concerned and which I

915
have in mind when asking for this Second Reading to be given as a move towards placing upon the statute the freedom that the Bill would give.
Another puzzle which justifies the acceptance of the Bill is that present legislation allows the word "bingo" to be used only on the front of premises and nowhere else; yet the national game, which goes much further for bigger prize money, has already received permission under legislation passed a short time ago for extended advertising.
Perhaps I may remind my noble friend who will be replying from the Front Bench that it was the Minister from the Home Office who is now at Cabinet level who, when commending the approval to which I have just referred, said that legislation should be introduced because of the decline that continued to bedevil the bingo industry. It was a good reason then for wanting to give that bit of freedom, and that reason is now multiplied by 10 if we want to maintain the leisure activity which gives so much pleasure to so many people in areas where leisure activities are not as bright as they are in many town centres.
I said to my noble friend that an easy reply, if one does not want to give full-throated approval at this stage, is to say that the discussions are going on. The discussions have been going on. The relationship between the industry, the Home Office and the Gaming Board is very friendly. This Bill has taken into account the views that they have already expressed. I do not think that Parliament will be doing its duty if the Bill were to be delayed further on the basis of more discussions. Discussions have been taking place, but the time has come when Parliament itself should say "You have discussed this matter and evolution to the next small step should be proceeded with".
If your Lordships' House gives this matter its full approval and the Bill goes to another place that will take a certain amount of time. If during that time further discussions take place and full agreement occurs where the Government have the power to bring in the same regulations as my Bill would introduce, that can be done then. But that is not a good reason why we should not carry out our functions in your Lordships' House and set the Bill on its way in order to ensure that an activity which is now a full part of leisure activities in this country should be allowed to continue. It is with that in mind, modest though the measure is, but important to so many thousands of people, that I ask for this Bill to be given a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
7.21 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. This small but worthwhile Bill certainly meets with my approval. It is a measure that is designed to assist the general social well-being of many elderly people, and especially elderly women, who like to congregate in a warm, friendly, safe atmosphere and play the game of bingo. I think it is quite remarkable how long this
916
game has lasted. At the beginning I regarded it as a short-term craze—a fad—catching on for a while like the hula-hoop or a short-term fashion design. It has really amazed me that so many clubs are still in being nationwide. Obviously it has provided a most welcome source of satisfaction for millions of our citizens.
As the noble Lord has already mentioned, at one time there were 1,600 licensed clubs. There are still nearly 1,000 of them operating today. I gather that at the peak there were 6 million people regularly playing bingo. There are still 2,800,000 people participating today. Of course bingo is gaming or gambling, but it is tightly controlled. Bingo clubs are licensed, membership is necessary, admission is controlled and there are restrictions on prize money. There are not many millionaires from bingo: on the other hand, not many players are gambling themselves into debt and penury.
The Bill should help maintain this national gaming pastime of bingo. Perhaps the Bill may give the game a fillip. I am fully aware of the problems of the anti-gamblers about stimulating demand. It might just hold the figures. The aim is a minor deregulation of advertising for licensed bingo clubs enabling them to advertise where bingo can be played and only bingo, allowing the title "bingo" to be used. That is the real change. The new measure will also give the date of the session, the cost, the facilities available and how one can become a member. Prize money must not be advertised under this measure. I believe that would bring with it a slight smell of the casino. Nor must the measure be linked with either gaming or gambling activities. That is all to the good for the bingo organiser and for the helpful promotion of the game. It may well halt its decline. That is about all that can be said to those concerned about gambling.
What is of special interest to me is the promotion of bingo in working men's clubs, which are conservative, liberal, social, trade and labour clubs. Many of them have bingo nights or the game is played during the intermission of a concert. There are also Sunday morning clubs: all these activities are very popular. Hundreds of men and women attend these bingo sessions raising money for the club members' social well-being as well as enjoying the social atmosphere and the game. The cash raised from these bingo sessions helps the clubs to grant money to local charities. It also helps to sustain the clubs' indoor and outdoor sporting activities. The bingo sessions finance outings for pensioners and children. In the past this game has been known in the clubs as "lotto", "housey-housey", or "tombola", but under all those guises it is bingo.
Bingo is a satisfying gaming activity and all my working men's clubs would support this measure. Bingo is an innocent sporting form of recreation giving pleasure to nearly 3 million of our people and mainly to those who find some happiness in their visits to the bingo sessions in social centres and clubs. Therefore, I hope that the Government will see fit to accept this measure. It will allow bingo to be advertised and give it the fair prominence that it deserves.
7.26 p.m
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I wish to make a very brief contribution to this debate and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, on bringing forward a necessary and long overdue amendment to a measure which has been out of touch and out of date for quite a long time. I congratulate him, too, on introducing it with his usual eloquence. He and the noble Lord, Lord Mason, have treated the subject so thoroughly that it leaves the rest of us with very little to say, but I am going to say it all the same.
I start by declaring a personal interest. I am a director of a group of public companies which, among other things, operates licensed bingo clubs. I am more than mildly surprised that this issue has not been resolved long since. The Gaming Act 1968, as the noble Lord pointed out, sought in some respects to separate bingo playing and hard gaming but not as regards advertising. The separation has been achieved. Licensed bingo clubs have taken pains to foster their own separate social identity. On the whole they have a good atmosphere, as has been observed, where people can play in comfortable, congenial and pretty civilised surroundings. If the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate has any doubts on this score I shall be happy to arrange some familiarisation visits for him.
It is true to say, as both noble Lords have said, that the bingo industry has a pretty responsible attitude to gaming. Contrary to the original aspirations of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I myself am content that the Bill does not now include the advertising of prize money or gaming machines. The ability to advertise the basic information embodied in the Bill cannot conceivably be reckoned to constitute a threat to society as we know it. It merely allows the bingo industry to compete fairly with other leisure activities on, in the cant phrase, "a level playing field".
Moreover, it will induce healthy competition within the bingo industry itself. Is that not consistent with the Government's economic philosophy? Is that not consistent with the Prime Minister's wish to promote a classless society? It is obvious from the figures that the noble Lord gave us that the number of clubs is continuing to fall. I find the decline in the fortunes of the smaller operators particularly worrying. When their small local club closes where will the people who are unable to travel very far play bingo? We shall see a concentration of clubs in the big cities and among the big operators. No one wants to see that, least of all, to judge from what he said, the noble Lord, Lord Mason. Curiously enough, the larger operators do not want that either.
Complementing the Royal Commission's views, adverted to by the noble Lord, and complementing the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, nearly 10 years ago an authoritative study by Rachel Dixey and Margaret Talbot produced conclusions. They were that for many elderly people, particularly women, the local bingo club provides a source of companionship. Indeed, it often affords their only leisure activity. One could claim that in its way it performs a useful social service. Other forms of gaming such as betting on horse racing or
918
participating in the football pools offer no such social benefits yet they are perfectly free to advertise. It is a matter for courteous derision that a bingo club, by contrast, is not able to indicate even such basic information as its address or the times of its sessions.
Surely, so far as advertising goes, it cannot be right to treat bingo, which, I repeat, is a modest form of social recreational wagering, on all fours with the hard gaming that goes on in casinos. As I have reminded your Lordships before, during his tragically short tenure as chairman of the Gaming Board five years ago, the late Sir Anthony Rawlinson said this:
"Were the legislation being rewritten in respect of advertising restrictions, I think the case could be made for distinguishing licensed bingo premises from licensed casino premises".
This Bill provides an opportunity to do some very modest rewriting. I hope that your Lordships' House will grant it a Second Reading.
7.32 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, as is so often the case, my noble friend Lord HarmarNicholls does the House a good service by bringing this modest but important measure before the House. In this case he is extremely well supported by the noble Lords, Lord Mason of Barnsley and Lord Bancroft, both of whom have spoken powerfully in support of the measure. All speakers this evening have said that the bingo industry is declining. There is no cause or call for the Government to support it. However, by the same token there is no reason for its survival to he impeded by unnecessary restrictions. That is really the issue that is before us this evening. The fact is that bingo quite clearly performs a valuable and important social function.
I am glad that in thinking about this Bill I have been able to find a very valuable ally in the shape of David Mellor, now an important Cabinet Minister, but in 1985 an Under-Secretary in another place. At that time, in connection with the debate on the national game, he said
"No one should doubt the importance of bingo in the lives of a good many people, especially women, in the community … For many people, a weekly or twice-weekly visit to a local bingo club provides a priceless form of recreation".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/85; col. 1180.]
That seems to me to be powerful support for the measure before us today. The fact is that this industry is very well regulated, a point brought out by all the speakers in the debate. It does not abuse its position. Indeed, it is very well run. This is a small Bill which gives the industry a little fresh air and long overdue freedom. I hope the Government will support it and that it will find a place on the statute book very quickly indeed.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, this modest and well thought out Bill is to be welcomed. As other noble Lords in various parts of the House have already pointed out, bingo is a perfectly harmless pursuit which gives innocent excitement, together with companionship, to large numbers of mainly middle-aged or elderly and often lonely people. Bingo does not deserve to be lumped legally with big money

919
gambling. The latter opens the door to the possibility of individuals incurring massive personal losses, plus the possibility—not the probability, I concede—of criminal involvement, not least in the fields of money laundering and suchlike.
The record of Conservative governments since May 1979 in resisting the insidious encroachment of the nanny state and in fostering the enlargement of non-economic freedoms leaves much to be desired. Indeed their record in this sphere is decidedly poor. The Government now have an opportunity to atone for this, albeit in a very minor way, by actively assisting this modest measure to pass into law.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, on this matter I do not speak for the Labour Party, as on all Private Bills we are neutral. I am myself, alone. The Duke of Kent, in Act 1, Scene 1, of King Lear, says to the King:
"…in thy best consideration, check this hideous rashness".
No such admonition need be directed towards the Government in this matter. Twenty-three years have passed like an ever rolling stream since the Gaming Act laid down, in Section 42, restrictions on the advertising of gaming, and included bingo in the category of activities so restricted. At that time the cries of outrage from the bingo industry were modestly mute, since bingo was doing rather well. It is only since the decline of the game, which reached its peak of popularity in 1974, that the sense of unjustified discrimination has become apparent and painful to anyone. However, your Lordships may care to note that, while more than 6 million people regularly played bingo in 1968, this number had dropped to 4.7 million by 1980 and to 2.4 million by 1989.
For more than three years the Bingo Association of Great Britain has been in discussion with the Home Office and the Gaming Board about the deregulation of advertising for licensed bingo clubs. Questions about it have been regularly put down and answered in another place. The BAGB made two submissions to the Gaming Board during the summer and autumn of 1990 and the board made its recommendations to the Home Office last November. Since then the Home Office has had the matter "under consideration". Whatever the verdict, whenever it comes, of one thing we may be sure: there will be nothing rash, sudden, impetuous, hasty, unconsidered or precipitate about it.
Why, we may ask, are the Government so slow, so careful, so cautious about this modest little measure? It is unlikely to unleash forces which they are powerless to control, or to bring about a Gadarene gallop back to the bingo halls by those who deserted them in search of headier pastimes. Why are the Government so preternaturally wary about this? May it perhaps be because they have good reason not to accede too readily to the BAGB request? On 17th January 1990 the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State stated in a Written Answer:
920
"Licensed bingo clubs already advertise freely as social clubs, and specific games of bingo and certain prizes in them, are already advertised on the front of club premises".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/1/90; col. 265.]
The Government clearly felt that sufficient opportunity already existed and there was no need for additional and special relaxation of controls in favour of bingo. However, the bingo industry obviously feels that it is a special case. In its briefing for the present occasion it argues that the removal of some of the existing restrictions is justified because of the special nature of bingo clubs, which provide a valuable social function, especially for women and the elderly. It quotes—we heard it—the then Under-Secretary of State, David Mellor, in 1985, when he said:
"No one should doubt the importance of bingo in the lives of a good many people, especially women, in the community.
… For many people, a weekly or twice-weekly visit to a local bingo club provides a priceless form of recreation".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/85; col. 1180.]
But, the same could be said of a weekly or twice-weekly visit to the Dog and Duck. Moreover, an equally valuable social function could be claimed for the local betting shop, or the dog track—which provides a good night out for the family—or even for the neighbourhood launderette.
There is plentiful evidence on the other side of the danger of addiction to bingo clubs. Many people, especially women and the elderly, have gambled money that they could not afford, neglected their work and their families and left children unattended to follow the lure of the bingo caller; that is, the poor person's Pied Piper. I do not claim that the moral fabric of the nation is under imminent threat; but the Government are surely right to be cautious. I say that because, as everyone agrees, bingo is gaming and the dangers of addiction are inherent in all gambling, as are irresponsible behaviour and financial disaster. Moreover, in 1991 the argument that bingo provides, "a valuable social function", seems rather thin in view of the fact that its devotees are deserting it in a steady stream and seeking social solace elsewhere.
However, there is a deeper social concern here, on which it seems that both Government and Opposition share a view. The basic premise which underlies Section 42 of the Gaming Act 1968 is that advertising to stimulate a demand for gambling is undesirable. Gambling is widely felt to be an ineluctable fact of life, but not in itself a moral or social good. In certain cases it is demonstrably disastrous, it has some real dangers and we should not be evidently worse off if it did not exist.
Section 42 of the Act was carefully drawn to ensure that no form of advertising is permitted which stimulates demand for gambling in any form. The present Bill breaches that premise to some extent. For example, by advertising "the facilities available" in subsection (2A), it would be possible to paint a very alluring picture which would both stimulate and entice. That would run clean contrary to the intention of Section 42. But the central illogicality of the Bill seems to me to be exemplified in paragraph 1.7 of the BAGB briefing, which reads:
"The industry accepts that the Government has no obligation to protect any industry when in decline, but feels that partial deregulation of advertising would 'tidy up'

921
provisions in the Gaming Act which are now out of date without constituting a major alteration in the principles of regulation in the gaming sector".
That means that the purpose of the present Bill is to "tidy up" provisions which are now outdated. However, since 1968 the provisions have not changed, though bingo has. It is bingo which is outdated, as is proved by the fact that fewer and fewer people wish to play the game. Thus the BAGB's plea for partial deregulation of advertising can only be to protect, or discriminate in favour of, the bingo industry when in decline.
How often throughout the 1980s did we see this Government set their adamantine face against state intervention in the play of market forces? How often did we hear them pronounce the doom that no lame duck would be reprieved? How often did we watch good companies go bankrupt, and good ideas die unrealised, because the stern dogma of "no intervention" was in cold-eyed control? Will the Government now betray their principles and shamelessly abandon their beliefs by throwing a lifebelt to the drowning bingo industry, hauling it ashore, and giving it the kiss of life?
I cannot believe that the nation is crying out for concessions to be made to bingo. I know of no opinion polls which point to a public demand for the Bill. However, I note that on 19th March 1990 Mr. Waddington, as he then was, stated in a Written Answer that the Government had received,
"102 letters from hon. Members—and one letter from a member of the public, about these controls".—[0fficial Report, Commons, 19/3/90; col. 455.]
That is hardly an army with banners. I conclude that no great harm would come if this Bill did not pass and that, if the Government rejected it, they would save not only their principles but also their face.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, it may be helpful if I indicate the Government's view of the Bill which my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has introduced. But before I comment on the substance, it is important to be clear about the broader context within which the Bill must be seen. I would not begin to dispute that bingo does have a very neighbourly and social tradition. It is by its nature a game which brings people together. It seems to appeal particularly to women and the older members of our community. For them, it performs a useful social function which might not otherwise be available. I accept everything that noble Lords have said in that respect, although I should be delighted to be a beneficiary of a familiarisation visit offered by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. I have no doubt that it would result in my being still better qualified to agree with him. However, having said that, bingo is still a form of gambling. The maximum single prize in the national game can be as high as £50,000. Successive governments have taken the view that gambling, including bingo, should be subject to special regulation which does not apply to all forms of leisure activity.
The question we are being invited to consider today, therefore, is primarily whether the controls on advertising a particular form of gambling should be
922
relaxed. That requires us to look not just at bingo but also at whether any change would be consistent with the controls applied to other forms of gambling. What was conceded to bingo could be demanded by those with an interest in other forms of gambling.
One of the basic features of long-standing government policy in this area is that gambling should not be positively encouraged. It is, of course, a fact of life that gambling exists. It is no part of government policy to prevent people having a flutter if they want to. But it must be properly regulated and the demand for gambling should not be stimulated.
One of the principal methods of encouraging people to take part in certain activities is by advertising. It follows that advertising controls are at the very heart of gambling policy and any proposals for change need very careful consideration. So far as concerns bingo, Section 42 of the Gaming Act 1968 forbids advertisements informing the public about any premises where gaming takes place, or inviting them to take part in such gaming or to apply for information about it. But the statutory framework makes different provisions for different forms of gambling. For example, lotteries are able to advertise quite freely because they are small-scale and are generally for charitable purposes. Bingo clubs can and do advertise as social clubs in the press. On the other hand, betting offices may not advertise their location or the facilities they provide. However, the broadcast advertising of all forms of commercial gambling is prohibited. That is because broadcasting has generally been considered to be the most effective advertising medium of all. It is able to reach a vast number of people of all ages. Therefore, to permit the use of this means of advertising would allow a significant stimulation of demand.
The balance of controls on the various forms of gambling is very difficult to strike. We recognise that casinos provide a harder form of gaming than bingo, and yet both are subject to the same statutory control on advertising, as my noble friend pointed out. On the other hand, any relaxation of the controls for bingo must he justified on their own merits and in relation to the general framework of controls.
The effect of the Bill is to remove all controls on advertising of bingo, subject to various requirements including any additional requirement which the Secretary of State may specify by regulation. The Government have previously said that the complete deregulation of advertising controls is not acceptable. However, Ministers have also indicated that they would be willing to consider some partial relaxation of the advertising controls if a good enough case could be made out, subject to one or two ground rules.
The first ground rule is that the Government are opposed to any amendment of the law which would allow, or lead to, wider advertising of inducements to game; for example, press advertising of prizes available at specific bingo clubs. Secondly, we are in principle opposed to making any exception to the general prohibition on the broadcast advertising of commercial gambling. The case for local radio advertising would have to be judged in that context.

923
For the past twelve months or so, the bingo industry has been in discussion with the Gaming Board for Great Britain about what, if any, partial deregulation of the advertising controls might be justified. We understand that the industry now seeks to be able to advertise in print and on local radio where and when bingo is played, the quality of clubs and their facilities, and the cost of the bingo programme. It also wants print advertisements to include applications for membership. There would be no reference to prizes in such advertisements, but we understand that the industry would still want to be able to issue general advertisements in the press or other printed matter which, as at present, would refer to prizes.
At the end of last year, following its discussions with the bingo industry, the gaming board made its recommendations for some relaxation to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Those recommendations are now under consideration. We asked the Bingo Association of Great Britain for further information which was supplied earlier this month. The Government are still considering whether there is a case for relaxing any of the present controls on the advertising of licensed bingo clubs. For example, it is not at present clear to us whether any new freedom to advertise specific premises should be allowed to operate alongside the continued use of general advertising of bingo in the press, which may include reference to prizes. We are also concerned that heavier advertising of bingo could change its social and neighbourly character, to which I referred earlier, by putting greater emphasis on the opportunity to gamble rather than on its social aspects. If that were to he the consequence of any partial deregulation, it would be harder to resist calls for compensatory deregulation from other sectors of the gambling industry.
Those are all points which the Government will consider in the light of the gaming board's recommendations and in the light of the arguments already put to us by the Bingo Association of Great Britain and of those made in this debate. It may well be necessary to have further meetings with the industry before reaching a decision, but we shall aim to reach a decision as soon as possible.
I shall now turn briefly to the drafting of the Bill. It has a number of weaknesses, no doubt in part reflecting the fact that no agreement has yet been reached on what relaxation, if any, the Government could support. The Bill would remove all controls on advertising of bingo, subject to various requirements, including any additional requirement which the Secretary of State may specify by regulation. There is no indication of the kind of additional requirement that might be specified. If, for example, the Government decided that the long-standing prohibition on broadcast advertising should remain, could the regulations exclude broadcasting from the forms of advertising allowed by the Bill? We have doubts about whether that would be a proper use of the regulatory power, and it is not, in any event, an approach which the Government would favour.
924
There are a number of other unsatisfactory aspects of the Bill where, for example, the meaning of certain terms is unclear. The Government recognise the difficulties of drafting amendments to what is a complex area of the law. The technical weaknesses which we see in the Bill are not in any way criticisms of the bingo industry's case; but we firmly believe that the best way to proceed is to agree upon what changes are justified before providing for them in a Bill.
Your Lordships may have gathered from my remarks that this is not a Bill to which the Government can give an immediate welcome. It may be that there is some scope for relaxing the controls on advertising of bingo. The Government are prepared to continue the process of discussion with the bingo industry, but at this stage it is not clear whether an adequate case can be made or what degree of relaxation, if any, would be sensible. The progress of the Bill through this House is, of course, a matter for your Lordships. The Government will watch its progress with interest.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in a way, that is not an unhelpful reply. I think we can now give the Bill a Second Reading without any problem. My noble friend said that the Government have some doubts about certain points, but they are not included in the Bill. It is true that there have been discussions, and all the points of view put by the Gaming Board for Great Britain and the Home Office have been taken account of. They were the points put by my noble friend, and they are not included in the Bill. If my noble friend feels that the Bill goes further than I explained; for example, that the word "bingo" should be allowed in advertisements which are now allowed, we can table amendments in Committee if we feel it right to have a Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, had my spirits up and down as to how he felt about the Bill. If he does not mind my saying so, I am always a little suspicious when someone opens a speech with a Shakespearian quotation. I always feel that people want to hide behind something. There is nothing to hide behind in this case. The noble Lord made it clear that he was not speaking for the Opposition, but for himself. He delivered his speech in a delightful way, and I understood clearly that he does not like gambling. That should not stand in the way of those of us who do not accept the danger that he hinted at as a reason not to give the Bill a Second Reading.
If, by the time the Bill completes its passage through this House and is sent to another place, the discussions which my noble friend said the Government were prepared to continue are completed, and if agreement is reached on the points raised, there is no reason why the Government should not introduce regulations. The discussions have been going on for a long time. I believe that Parliament is doing its duty when it says, "You have been talking about this matter for long enough, let us do something". My noble friend said that the Government were prepared to recognise that there was a need to give a little more freedom. I can think

925
of nothing more modest and in keeping with that aim than this Bill. It is with confidence that I move that the Bill be given a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.57 to 8.10 p.m.]

Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 6.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 12. line 42, at end insert:
("(3C) 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: My Lords, this amendment concerns mortgage interest repayments. I moved an amendment on the subject in Committee but did not press it because I wished to look more carefully at the Minister's response. I now raise the issue again because I do not believe that adequate reasons for rejecting it were given by the Minister when I first moved it.
The intention of the amendment, as I said in Committee, is to try to ensure that mortgage interest and other housing cost provisions are provided for in the calculation of DWA as they are in the calculation for income support. In Committee the Minister claimed that there would be immense problems in estimating how many people with mortgages might claim DWA. He further said:
"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".—[Official Report, 11/3/91; col. 36.]
While it is true that receipt of SDA does not itself entitle people to have mortgage interest paid, a large number of such people have to receive income support to supplement their income. Thus, many people who at present receive SDA will have their mortgage interest paid.
DWA is surely more likely to attract claimants and thus disabled people into work—which we keep on saying is one of the objectives—if they are assured about their housing costs. Otherwise, many claimants will have no incentive to opt for DWA. Many disabled people will have to consider very carefully indeed whether they may lose out if they were to opt for a job plus DWA. This nullifies the so-called incentive effect. Therefore I wish the whole matter to be reconsidered in this House. For that reason, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have studied the Official Report of our debate on the noble Baroness's amendment in Committee. That amendment was identical—I stress identical, not similar—to the amendment she has just moved. I have to repeat the same arguments. I remain convinced that we were right to follow the model established for other benefits for people in work—family credit and its predecessor, family income supplement.
It will be possible for people with quite reasonable wages to receive some DWA. I quoted an example in Committee, using the illustrative rates we have given in the note on DWA. A couple with two children aged between 11 and 15 could still receive DWA if they were earning £170 a week. On top of that, they would have child benefit and some would have the disability living allowance. If mortgage interest were paid in addition, we would pay an income related benefit to people whose income was around the national average. I feel that would be hard to justify.
The family credit model helps to ensure that the benefit is comparatively simple to understand and to operate. This is of considerable importance to potential claimants. They need to be able to understand the benefit in order to take it into account when deciding whether to take a job. They also need to be confident that their claim can be dealt with quickly and that they will get the money they are entitled to within a matter of days.
From time to time the department's claim forms are criticised for being too long and difficult to complete. Questions about mortgage interest would add to this. Information has also to be checked and taken into account in the benefit calculation. Having to gather and include details of mortgage interest would add to the time taken to process DWA claims and would also add to the potential for errors and disputes.
It is not possible to estimate precisely how many people with mortgages might claim DWA. Probably about 10,000 will claim and will be better off, working and claiming DWA than they would be on income support. We have said that probably a much smaller number with larger mortgages and low earnings will not be better off on DWA. But, as I said in Committee, if they want to work they will be better off with DWA than they would be if the benefit were not introduced.
Most DWA claimants will not have been receiving any benefit which includes an allowance for mortgage interest or other housing costs. As your Lordships know, and as the noble Baroness said, invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance do not include any allowance for mortgage interest. Those who are already in work when DWA is introduced—perhaps 15,000 people, 30 per cent. of the caseload we are expecting to reach—will be getting no help with their mortgage interest other than tax relief.
Since DWA will make them better off even without an allowance for mortgage interest and other housing costs, it is hard to justify the extra cost and the administrative complexity which would result from including such an allowance.
Disability working allowance is a broad brush scheme designed to be as easy as possible to understand and operate. It would be a very big step to

927
allow for mortgage interest and other housing costs. Such a step would be out of keeping with all we have done to streamline the benefit and, on balance, I do not think it would improve the effectiveness of the benefit. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment but will be prepared to withdraw it.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and before the noble Baroness replies, will he explain a little further a remark he made earlier? He attempted to adduce a parallel with the previous benefit, family income supplement, which was the precursor of benefits like this. I believe that he said there was no allowance in it for mortgage interest. There was no allowance in it for anything. It was a benefit given to people who received low wages to enable them to manage. The benefit was not apportioned so that one could spend so much on this, so much on that and so much on the other. I hope that the noble Lord will not deny that an enormous number of families who were in receipt of that family income supplement found it immensely helpful. It enabled them to keep up their mortgage interest payments.
Lord Henley: Yes, my Lords, that is why we introduced family credit, which is a somewhat better benefit than family income supplement. It has had a far higher take-up than family income supplement.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, we have had pretty much the same discussion as we had in Committee. I remain basically unconvinced. It seems to me that the Minister is arguing yet again that people will inevitably be better off with DWA. According to the information that I have received from organisations representing the disabled, that is rather problematical. Some people will be better off, others will gain so little that by the time they have looked at what they are likely to lose as a result of opting for DWA they may well decide not to go down that route at all. That would be a pity. As I said earlier, the intention of everyone in this House is, I am sure, that DWA should be a successful benefit and should encourage many people back into the labour market.
The Minister said that in the other benefits to which I referred people did not receive mortgage relief. That is absolutely true. However, some people would receive income support and perhaps receive mortgage interest relief as a result of getting the benefit.
I am not at all happy with what has been said. The organisations representing the disabled felt strongly enough about this provision to ask us to press it again on Report. As I said earlier, the director of Shelter wrote to me to say she thought this was an important amendment and that if it was accepted it would represent a great benefit to many people who otherwise would have enormous difficulty in opting for DWA. However, I do not intend to press the amendment at this stage of the proceedings. Despite my misgivings about the response we have been given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 12, line 46, at end insert:
("( ) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (6) of section 21 of the 1986 Act—
"(6A) In the case of the disability working allowance the regulations shall provide that—

(a) the maximum rate for a single person shall be the same as the adult rate for family credit with an addition of 20 per cent of that adult rate;

(b) the maximum rate for lone parents and couples shall be the same as the adult rate for family credit with an addition of 45 per cent of that adult rate;

(c) the rate for couples where both are disabled shall be the same as the adult rate for family credit with an addition of 65 per cent of that adult rate; and

(d) the rates for children shall be the same as those prescribed for children in relation to family credit." ").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords. in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 45 as I understand they are grouped together. The object of the amendments is to try to raise the levels of DWA as an incentive to disabled people to opt for employment. All the organisations catering for the disabled are currently concerned that the levels of DWA, particularly in view of the 70 per cent. taper, are such that relatively few people will be tempted to opt for work. As we see it, that would nullify the whole intention of DWA. The provision therefore links the amounts to the family credit rates, but with additions because of disability. The reason for this is that disabled people have special needs. We have often referred to those needs during debates on the Bill. When they work, they incur working expenses. such as travel expenses, even taking account of help that is available under the fares to work scheme. They also incur clothing expenses and expenses for food, in particular for food that must be purchased at midday.
The Spastics Society has provided me with examples of such expenses. Some of the examples are detailed, but it becomes fairly clear that for a person coming off incapacity benefits and income support, the benefits of working would sometimes hardly be worth while. If such a person earns £36 a week, for example, from working, plus £36.22 DWA top-up, he could end up, after working 16 hours a week, only £1.92 per week better off. Then he or she would lose entitlement to health benefits which are passported under income support. Reducing the taper would have helped. However, as we know, the Minister has not been prepared to accept that. This is another attempt to try to provide a genuine incentive for disabled people to take paid employment.
As the illustration I have mentioned indicates—I have many detailed examples that I could provide—a benefit of ultimately around £1.92 a week is hardly an incentive for someone who is prepared to work 16 hours a week, particularly when health care benefits are also lost. Noble Lords will know that we attempted to remedy that position in Committee but we were not successful.
I have given an example that relates to a single person. The amendment I am moving now also seeks

929
to cover the position of lone parents and couples where both partners are disabled. Again we emphasise that being disabled involves extra costs that those of us who are lucky enough not to be disabled can hardly imagine. There are the costs of medicines and sometimes costs for special equipment and clothing which may be specialised or different from normal clothing. Those costs are incurred in addition to the normal costs of working which involve, as I have already indicated, travel costs and the costs of meals taken away from home. For those reasons I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, there are various technical objections to these amendments. For example, they fix the benefit rates in such a way that if the Government decided on a more generous uprating for DWA this would have to be done by primary legislation. I appreciate that the noble Baroness has tabled the amendments in order to debate the generosity or otherwise of the level at which DWA is to be introduced. Therefore, I do not propose to dwell on the technical objections save to make one point.
By tradition the Government have set benefit rates by regulation. This ensures that the rates are given appropriate parliamentary scrutiny but also allows the Government flexibility to tune the rates. In this way it is possible to give a little extra to particular groups where appropriate—for example, last year we increased both the adult and the children's disability premiums by more than inflation, at a cost of £26 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, it also allows the Government to make judgments between wider competing priorities. Resources are always limited and the Government must decide how to apportion them. It must be right that governments can do this without constant recourse to primary legislation.
For that reason the Government propose to set the DWA rates by regulation. We intend to do this in the autumn. The rates will be set after considering all the views expressed during the Bill's passage through Parliament and in the light of wider decisions about the resources which are available.
I now turn to Amendment No. 44. We set out illustrative rates for DWA in the note we published last November. In two respects the rates we proposed then are the same as or similar to those this amendment would require. As suggested by this amendment, we propose to set the rates for children at the same level as they are set from time to time for family credit. The illustrative rate we have given for couples and single parents is only 95p. less than the level it would be if the formula in this amendment was applied. The important differences are in the rates for single people and for couples where both partners are disabled.
At present benefit rates the formula would give single claimants £6.40 more than the illustrative rates. We arrived at our illustrative rates by setting the rate for single people at 60 per cent. of the rate for couples. This is roughly the ratio used in other social security benefits and seems to us to be reasonable. We considered giving a special higher rate of DWA where both partners are disabled but decided against that
930
because of the practical problems of identifying whether the partner is disabled. Short of devising a disability test for partners, I am not sure how we could make the suggested formula work in such cases.
Amendment No. 45 would set the applicable amount for all DWA recipients at the same level and would set this level 20 per cent. higher than the family credit applicable amount. I am not clear why this particular ratio was selected, but if it proved too high or low it would require primary legislation to refine it. There is the question of whether it is right to adopt the same applicable amount for single childless people as for couples. I think it is reasonable to acknowledge in the benefit structure the fact that two people's needs are greater than those of one person.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendments and giving us the opportunity to discuss the rate at which DWA should be introduced. We shall take note of what she has said. This is in fact the first debate on the subject during the Bill's passage through Parliament.
There are very important issues. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that it is more appropriate to set the benefit rates by regulation and that the Government must decide the level nearer the time taking into account the resources which are available. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that not unsympathetic response to the amendment. I appreciate that he said that note would be taken of my comments in speaking to the amendments. Clearly, as I emphasised in my opening remarks, we wished DWA to be set at a generous enough rate to encourage people who otherwise might not do so to opt for DWA and join the labour market. That is the whole objective of this exercise. We were concerned—this is also a concern of the organisations involved with the disabled—that the rates set would simply not provide the appropriate incentive.
I note what the Minister said about the flexibility involved in setting rates by regulation rather than in primary legislation. I suppose that there is something to be said for that approach if account is taken of what Members of this House and of another place have to say about those rates when they are made known. Certainly, unless the rates are reasonably generous they will not provide the appropriate incentive.
However, it is not my intention to press the amendments tonight. As the Minister said, this is the first time we have debated the rates themselves during the course of the passage of the Bill through this House. I am very glad that note is being taken of what is being said, because what I am saying to your Lordships tonight does not come out of the air. They are points that have been put to me by organisations which represent the disabled and which have been so active in lobbying on the Bill and which do so much work on behalf of people who are disabled who, we all hope, will ultimately benefit from the provisions of the Bill.
Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 12, line 46, 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: My Lords, I moved an amendment to this effect at Committee stage. I believe that it was the same amendment—or similar. As it was getting late I did not press it to a Division. Nevertheless, this is a matter which we are justified in asking to be reconsidered.
Under the Bill as it stands, if one member of a couple claims DWA the partner's income will be taken into account when assessing entitlement and calculating the amount of benefit payable. It will be seen immediately that numbers of disabled people—mostly women-are likely to be disadvantaged by that requirement. Yet if the intention is, as we have said, to try to ensure that people with disabilities join the workforce at levels of work that they can manage that must surely be a major disincentive.
The argument has been that disabled people should be encouraged to be independent and, where possible, look after themselves. However, unless an attempt is made to individualise the benefit that simply will not happen.
In replying to the debate on the amendment in Committee, the Minister said that DWA:
"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".—[Official Report, 11/3/91; cols. 47 and 48.]
He further said:
"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".
He also said:
"The question of incentives was one we considered very carefully when designing DWA".
Organisations representing the disabled believe that approximately half the disabled people living as couples would fail to qualify for even the minimum level of DWA. I think it particularly important that women who are disabled should have the opportunity of earning in the wider community and should have the incentive to do so. As we have said, we support the whole concept because we believe that undertaking suitable work, perhaps with reduced hours, breaks down the isolation felt by many disabled people. However, if a partner's income is to be taken into account the whole notion of independence breaks down.
I know that once again the question of cost will be raised, as it was in Committee. However, I believe that helping disabled people to independence will ultimately cost less, rather than more, as well as being emphatically the right thing to do.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note what the noble Baroness said about her amendments not coming out
932
of the air. In addition, I can assist the noble Baroness by telling her that the amendment is exactly the same as, rather than similar to, the amendment she tabled in Committee. I should also comment, as I believe I did at Committee stage, that while I appreciate the figures will be speculative the cost of the amendment could be about £10 million—a not inconsiderable sum.
There are two issues to be considered. The first is whether an income-related benefit should, as a matter of principle, be paid to someone whose partner has sufficient earnings or capital to take the family above the general income-related benefit level. The second is the extent to which DWA should be expected to offer an incentive to disabled people to work.
On the first, the answer is very clear. The rules governing income-related benefits should reflect the pooling of resources which takes place in the majority of families. Income-related benefits are paid for by taxpayers, some of whom themselves have quite low earnings. The principle which applies and has always applied to income-related benefits is that the financial resources of both partners should be taken into account in calculating the benefit paid for the family. It would be inequitable to do otherwise.
As for the second issue, again the answer is very clear. The indications are that, by and large, disabled people want to work and be fully integrated into the community. They say that the benefit system obstructs them in their attempts to work, and we have done a great deal to remove the obstacles.
DWA provides an opportunity for disabled people, as I have said on a number of occasions. The opportunity offered is that disabled people on incapacity benefits can take work, even at a very low wage, confident of two points. First, their earnings can be supplemented to ensure they are not taken below income support level as a result. Most will be somewhat better off than this. Secondly, if they take a low paid job with the help of DWA they have two years in which to establish themselves. During that time if their attempt at work fails and they prove incapable of work they can go back to their incapacity benefit without having to wait 28 weeks to requalify.
As I said, I believe that disabled people should decide whether or not to go to work on the basis of a judgment of their capacity to do so. They may well want to work because of the financial and social rewards, but I do not believe that the benefit system should push them to go before they are ready.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendments and accept the fact that disregarding the partner's income and capital would increase the cost of DWA. As I said in Committee, I do not believe that that would necessarily be a good use of public money.
Baroness Turner: My Lords, again I rise to say that I note what the Minister said without necessarily agreeing with it. I was under the impression, and we have been told repeatedly by the Minister during the course of our discussions on the Bill, that DWA is a new and entirely fresh benefit. It is a different and completely new approach. The whole idea is that disabled people should be made more independent, and should be encouraged to become more

933
independent, by joining the workforce. If one intends to encourage independence this part of the Bill is not the right way to go about it.
I am very sorry indeed that it should be regarded as appropriate that in this benefit the same criteria should apply as in relation to the other benefits to which the Minister has referred. I thought that it was a rather different benefit with a different approach.
In particular, I am concerned about the position of women. Surely we would like to encourage more disabled women to become independent and independently to join the labour market. It seems to me that this provision will militate against that. Nevertheless, it is not my intention to divide the House at this stage of the Bill. Having expressed my disagreement with the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 12, line 46, 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: My Lords, I see that Amendment No. 47 has been grouped with Amendment No. 48 but I do not think that they are about the same subject. Therefore, I propose to speak only to Amendment No. 47, which deals with the capital limit which may be prescribed. It is now £8,000 and the amendment proposes that it should he not less than £16,000. I should like to be able to move—but I expect without hope—that there should be no prescribed capital limit.
I should like to say that this amendment is not similar but identical to the amendment I moved in Committee. I move it in order to elicit some kind of response from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who very kindly undertook in Committee to consider the amendment before the next stage.
There was all-round support for the amendment in Committee, and it was noticeable that the support came, almost especially, from the Conservative Benches. First, there was support from the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, secondly, there was support from the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and, thirdly, late in the day there was rather unexpectedly support from the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour—though perhaps that was not her intention. Among other remarks, she said that nowadays £8,000 was not very much capital; nor indeed was £16,000. I can count upon her as a supporter in withdrawing this amendment in the hope of good things to come following discussion between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Henley.
It so happened that I was not well and was extremely ably represented by the noble Baroness in front of me. She and her experts came along and talked to the noble Lord. I am told that they had a very agreeable and promising conversation. I cannot
934
count my chickens before they hatch, and I am just hoping that the good things adumbrated earlier by the noble Lord are about to be vouchsafed.
It is quite clear that good Conservatives like people to acquire nest eggs. That approach is documented particularly in regard to the present amendment to the Bill in paragraph 3.18 of The Way Ahead. The Government identify as a priority for targeting resources those who have not had the,
"opportunity to earn, to build up pension rights and to save".
By imposing an £8,000 capital limit the Government will clearly be running against their own aims. Therefore, we are trying the bring them into line with their aims as set out in The Way Ahead. Disability working allowance should be a very different benefit from family credit. It is designed to enable disabled people to work part-time and to take an active part in society, whereas family credit is designed to assist families on low income.
If the capital limit were removed I believe it would not add significantly to the cost of the disability working allowance. I have authority for saying that, in that when the Government were asked in the House of Commons by Mr. John Hannam (one of their own supporters) about the cost of raising the capital limit for this benefit, the Minister replied that, given the small numbers involved, it was not possible to estimate with confidence the gross or net cost.
I appreciate that it is impossible to do so, but the implication was that it was not very great.
I think I have made the case for the amendment and given the opportunity for the Minister to let us know the result of his conversation with his noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth). I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. At Committee stage in response to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, my noble friend the Minister said that compensation for personal injury held in trust would be disregarded as far as the calculations were concerned. Sometimes it can take a very long time for compensation to be paid following an industrial or other injury. It may well be that by the time compensation is paid the newly disabled person has reached the stage where he is ready to go back to work. What is the position in relation to compensation which is not in trust? Is that also to be disregarded? Some people will have the ability to get legal advice and have compensation put into trust and some will not. Is one to penalise those who do not have their compensation put into trust?
The current figure of £8,000, which the noble Lord by his amendment wishes to raise to £16,000, is very low. The cost of special adaptations required by physically disabled people is peculiar to those people. Disabled people are far more individuals than able bodied people because they need things to be specially designed for them.
In addition, in many cases when people get jobs they need to move. It is not always the case that local housing authority dwellings specially designed for

935
disabled people are available in those areas where such people getting new jobs would require to obtain homes. They may well have to buy. The cost of buying a house and moving can sometimes be horrendous. On top of that is the cost of all the necessary adaptations. Therefore, to encourage disabled people to get work and be prepared to move to get work we need to keep the capital level as high as possible. It has to be borne in mind that a physically disabled person cannot get a home just anywhere. Even if a disabled person's home is within the recommended distance of a quarter of a mile of shops, the situation is hopeless if the house happens to be in the bottom of a valley with the shops at the top of the hill. The disabled person cannot get up the hill in his or her wheelchair.
Even if they do not have to move and they stay in one place, they have to maintain their homes. Most of us maintain our homes on a do-it-yourself basis. We may not do it as well as the professionals, but it is done, But a disabled person in a wheelchair would, for instance, have the greatest difficulty in redecorating a ceiling. They would have to get somebody in to do that. As opposed to paying just a few pounds for equipment, it could cost them several hundreds of pounds. They will not be able to get into the attic to deal with the plumbing or the electrical wiring above the ceiling. There are so many aspects of disability which attract far more expense than one realises. It is essential that a disabled person should have a capital sum upon which he or she can fall back in emergencies. I heartily support the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment and to say that on this side we agree that there is no reason for grouping this amendment with the following one in my name. With the leave of the House, we would be happy to have them debated entirely separately. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that the two amendments raise different issues.
I shall add very little to what has been said. In fact a great deal of it was said in Committee. The £8,000 limit is very low. Arising from disability there are costs which have to be shouldered and which are not imposed upon people who are not disabled. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has already referred to them.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for having raised again the whole question of industrial compensation. I raised the matter in Committee and received from the Minister a response to the effect that if it were compensation in trust it would be disregarded. But as has already been indicated, there may very well be money simply paid in compensation and remaining in a bank account before any decisions had been taken as to what should be done with it. Moreover, advice may not be available as to what should be done with it in any event.
For all those reasons I support the amendment. I suppose that the main reason is that £8,000 is too low in current circumstances. There seemed to be general agreement earlier when we debated this issue that that was the situation. Indeed, the Minister himself said that he would be prepared to take away and look through the first of the amendments, which was the
936
amendment relating to the £8,000 and creating a situation in which the prescribed amount should not be less than £16,000. I await with interest the Minister's response.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, first, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for bringing up this issue. He may remember that last time also I spoke in favour of the amendment. I congratulate the Minister for the steps that he has taken already today to increase the amount of money which will be paid in the form of benefit for those people who congenitally or later on in life are unfortunately mentally affected and disabled.
I should like to ask him whether the figure of £8,000 was considered before the recent Budget when value added tax went up to 17.5 per cent. In fact was it considered in line with the fact that we shall go into the European Community a little bit more integrated physically and in other ways in 1992 or perhaps 1993? Was the £8,000 also considered—I hope that the Minister is listening too—when the tax was increased on fuel? That is a tax which affects heating, travel and the cost of carers for the disabled. What about the new local government taxes which the Minister in another place talked about which will come into effect possibly within three years? Very well, within three years, but does that mean to say that the £8,000 will be reconsidered in 1992? In fact can the people whose cases we are trying to represent this evening make do with £8,000 a year? Can they manage on it? The answer is no.
Can they manage on £16,000? I totally agree with what has been said already this evening by two or three speakers. The amount is paltry. Noble Lords will remember that the last time I spoke on this matter I said that we had the privilege of taking an allowance for meals. I incorrectly calculated it at £24 a day; I understand now that it is £26. If one were to take that sum for 365 days—I hope my mathematics are correct—it would come to £9,490. That would mean that out of the £16,000 the disabled person would have left £6,510 for the remainder of what he or she had to manage with for that year in order to live. I do not call that generous. I do not think that enough thought has been put into this issue. I can assure the Minister that, as a partially disabled person—I know there are others present in the House who come into the same category—I am fortunate not to earn only £16,000 per annum.
I should be grateful if the Minister would consider £16,000 as the lowest rate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for again bringing up this point. I thoroughly support the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thought that the two amendments, Amendments Nos. 47 and 48, were grouped together. However, if the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, want them to be "ungrouped" then that is fine by me.
As we have said, the disability working allowance is an income-related benefit. Resources are limited and must be used first to help those who are relatively less well off. The proposal reflects that aim by giving most

937
help to people with less than £3,000 capital and tapering off that help as their capital rises to the appropriate limit, at which point no benefit is payable.
Perhaps I may say a word or two about our record on increasing capital limits in the past. In 1980 up to £2,000 was disregarded but no supplementary benefit, as it then was, was paid to people with more capital than that. The limit was then increased to £2,582 and £3,000 in 1983. Since 1988 the rule has been that £3,000 is disregarded but—it is a big but—tariff income is assumed on capital above that level. That cut-off point was £6,000 from April 1988. In April last year it was raised to £8,000 for income support and family credit and £16,000 for housing benefit and community charge benefit.
It has been argued that DWA recipients, being disabled, have a particular need to be able to accumulate savings. I accept that, but one must bear in mind forms of capital which are wholly disregarded. For example, compensation for personal injury held in trust will be entirely disregarded.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked about compensation for personal injury which was not held in trust. The problem is that capital held in trust is easy to distinguish from any other capital and so can be disregarded without any difficulty. A payment in compensation which is paid into, say, the ordinary account of a claimant would he difficult to distinguish from any other capital. The compensation payment might have been made some years ago and other capital might have been inherited or have accrued since then. If all that capital were in the same account now, it would be difficult to distinguish one form from the other.
In reply to my noble friend I would recommend anyone to take advice on these matters and make sure that any personal injury money is held in trust. That only involves taking the appropriate legal advice. Other forms of capital will also be disregarded, such as the claimant's home, as I mentioned at Committee stage, and his personal possessions, of which I gave a rather extreme example.
Lord Carter Lord Carter: That was the Rembrandt, my Lords.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it was the Rembrandt, as the noble Lord said. And also of course the surrender value of a life assurance policy and an annuity or an occupational pension.
During the debate on this matter at Committee stage particularly in relation to the upper limit of which we are speaking—the noble Baroness wants to have the amendments ungrouped and they will be ungrouped—I promised to take away this matter and reconsider our proposals in the light of arguments advanced by Members of this House. Since that debate I have discussed the issues further with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). I hoped to be able to discuss them with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, but I regret that he was unable to attend on that occasion. I might be wrong but I understand that he was in Cumbria, which was a perfectly good excuse. The noble Lord shakes his head. He was not in Cumbria. I am sure nonetheless that he had an equally good excuse for not having been there.
938
The noble Baroness made a convincing case for raising the upper capital limit to £16,000. In the light of all the arguments, I have reconsidered these matters, and I accept the contention that has been put forward that there is a special case for setting the capital cut-off point for DWA higher than the £8,000 limit used in income support and family credit. On that basis I can confirm that we will set the upper capital limit for DWA at £16,000.
The noble Lord will understand that this will be done by regulation. I am sure that he will accept my assurance that this will be the case: obviously it cannot be a matter for the Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I must say that that is a handsome reply on what may be recorded for posterity as the Rembrandt amendment, or indeed it could be called the Carnegy of Lour amendment. The noble Baroness, perhaps inadvertently, helped us considerably to this substantial concession. We are grateful to her as well as to the noble Lord for this fine result.
Certainly the goodies that he had laid out for future pleasure have now been consumed with gratitude, and we are grateful. I am sure that all in the disabled world will be grateful too. With those words, and with the promise of amendments by means of regulation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 12, line 46, at end insert:
("( ) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (7) of section 22 of the 1986 Act (calculation)—
"(7A) For the purposes of subsection (7) above, if the person is claiming a disability working allowance the prescribed lower amount shall not be less than £5,000."").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I too should like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the enormous concession made on the previous amendment, although it has nothing to do with this amendment. On this amendment we are looking at the lower end of the scale and at the question of the £3,000, which is the figure at which the taper begins and the figure at which reductions in benefit begin. The Minister has confirmed tonight that this has been in existence since 1983/84. I cannot understand why this figure has never been uprated in line with inflation. If it were uprated it would be nearer the £5,000 that we are suggesting.
The Minister has been good enough to accept the arguments that we put forward from all sides of the House in regard to the £8,000. I wonder therefore why it is not possible for him to move on the £3,000. He indicated in Committee that he did not feel that this figure was something on which he could move. Although it would not tie in with anything else on income-related benefits, neither, as I understand it, would the concession that he has just made in regard to £8,000.
I wonder, therefore, without my having to make a case about it because we have discussed it quite a lot in Committee and the arguments are similar to the ones advanced in relation to the £8,000, is the Minister prepared to make any concession at all in relation to the £3,000? It has remained the figure in family credit for a long time, and, as we have indicated on a number of occasions in discussion on this Bill, DWA is a rather different sort of benefit. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, after a successful appreciation of my previous concession I am not sure that I shall be able to help the noble Baroness here.The £3,000 is the lower capital limit —or it is proposed to be—not just for DWA but for all the other four income-related benefits, and I see no case for giving this one particular income-related benefit a different base limit from the others.
The noble Baroness asked, if that was the case, why we were able to increase DWA to £16,000. The point I made at Committee stage was that there were two income-related benefits with a capital limit of £8,000 and two with £16,000 and that we had decided to attach DWA to the £8,000 limit. In the light of representations made today I have been able to offer an increase in the upper capital limit to £16,000. Therefore, there are now three benefits on £16,000 and two on £8,000.
The noble Baroness tried to make the point that £3,000 has been the fixed lower limit since 1983. That is not quite the case. Three thousand pounds was also the upper capital limit in 1983. What we have done since then is to bring in the tariff income that is assumed on capital above that level. The noble Baroness will know that that tariff income assumes an income of a pound a week for each £250 of extra benefit. Either the noble Baroness, or possibly her noble friend Lord Carter, have argued that these are punitive interest rates and argued that they represent something of the order of 17, 18 or 19 per cent. assumed interest on the extra income. That is not the case. If one looks at an individual with capital of £3,250, the rate of interest, because one has also to take into account the first £3,000, is something quite marginal; some 1 or 2 per cent. It gradually works up from that, and, I admit, reaches to a relatively high figure towards the higher levels of the upper capital limit.
We do not see a case for increasing the lower limit from £3,000 at the moment. I would also say again that we shall continue to review those capital limits, as we have done in the past, and shall continue to ensure that both the lower and upper capital limits are pitched at about the right level. I hope, particularly in the light of the concession on the earlier amendment, which was originally grouped with this amendment, that the noble Baroness may be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble Minister for his explanation, although it seems to me that what we are talking about is an attempt to get everything nice and tidy, with a sort of bureaucratic tidiness where you have everything
940
related to everything else. That is a pity in view of the fact that we are talking about what is a new and quite different benefit.
However, I am grateful for the concession on the previous amendment, as I am sure we all are. I am also grateful for the assurance that it will be the intention to continue to review, when it seems appropriate to do so, not only the upper but the lower capital limit. In the light of those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Disability working allowance—supplementary]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 13, line 17, leave out ("for the purposes of section 20(6A) (b) above") and insert ("that for the purposes of section 20(6A) (b) above he has such a disability (in accordance with regulations under section 20(6C) above)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to correct an error on the Marshalled List. It indicates that this is an amendment to Clause 6; in fact, it is an amendment to Clause 7. It is a drafting amendment to make it clear that the disability test for initial claims will be defined in regulations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Disability working allowance: amendments]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 32, line 7, leave out ("115C") and insert ("115D").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 28. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 51:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Effect on remission of NHS charges of entitlement to DWA
.In the calculation of resources for entitlement to remission of charges under the National Health Service Act 1977 and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 the Secretary of State shall by order prescribe that payments of disability working allowance shall be disregarded.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is not identical to that moved in Committee but is a modification. Its provisions will cost less than those of the amendment moved in Committee. We hope therefore that it will be attractive to the Government. Its purpose is to lessen the incidence of National Health Service charges on those in receipt of DWA. The previous amendment would have passported DWA beneficiaries to immunity from national health charges. This amendment does rather less.
The purpose of DWA is to encourage people who are partially capable of work to return to or take up work by topping up their earnings. A great deal of that incentive is taken away by the Bill as drafted because such people lose the immunity to National Health Service charges that they can claim on family credit. Therefore they may not be encouraged to take up DWA.
It is notable that DWA is modelled on family credit. The prima facie reason for moving the amendment is to bring it more into line with family credit and we hope that the Government will be

941
willing to do that. The alternative proposal that we are putting forward today only partially achieves that aim and we hope that it will be more acceptable to the Government. It will bring DWA into line with attendance allowance and mobility allowance, both of which will be replaced by disability living allowance under Part I of the Bill.
Disregarding DWA from the calculation for help under the low income scheme would at least increase the value of help provided to DWA claimants. The lack of help towards the cost of prescriptions remains serious. The charges will rise in the near future to £3.40 per item. At least the recipients of DWA will be able to claim the season ticket which will be some help. However, I maintain that it is not enough help. The only help with prescription charges available to non-exempt groups is via the season ticket.
We know that the season ticket is of little help to people on low incomes who may be unable to find the cost of the immediate charge, let alone pay in advance of future charges. This time our proposals do not go that far; our amendment asks for much less. We still hope for largesse from the Government. In that spirit, I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to the amendment. It was moved so well by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that I wish to add only two points. The proposal brings the DWA into line with the attendance allowance and mobility allowance which are also disregarded. Therefore, what is the logic for not also disregarding DWA?
In Committee the Minister said:
"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'.—[Official Report, 11/3/91; col. 43.]
That implies that the cost of our amendment would be less than £3.3 million and would direct help to those who would be eligible for help under the NHS low income scheme. I hope that in the light of that explanation the Minister will be able to accept the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support the amendment. Those people receiving unemployment benefit or income support—I am terribly muddled because the names keep changing and just as I learn one name it changes, so I shall call it unemployment benefit —are exempt from prescription charges. As a disabled person may need various prescriptions, it may be a considerable disincentive to take up employment if one has to pay for prescription charges. If people can work, it is so much better for self-esteem and so much better for the family, should there be a family. Unless the amendment is accepted there will be a serious disincentive. It must be remembered that we are speaking of disabled, not able-bodied, people.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will accept the amendment. As my noble friend said, this is very much a bottom line amendment
9.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have a feeling that I have come to the end of my generosity this evening. We are considering an amendment moved in Committee to exempt DWA recipients from NHS charges. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will remember, that was rejected on a Division. I accept that this amendment is not identical and may not even be similar, to use the word of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, but its intention is very similar.
Perhaps I may deal with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. She is correct that a person on income support would be exempt from these charges. That has always been the case. The great majority of DWA recipients will be better off in work than on an incapacity benefit. It follows that they must expect the help given to the least well off by the welfare state to be withdrawn as their income rises above income support level.
Many people are automatically exempt from NHS charges and many more receive help under the low income scheme, which has been referred to. But those who can afford to contribute to the cost of their medication and of their dental and optical treatment should do so.
The NHS low income scheme is designed to protect people with limited resources who are not otherwise exempt from NHS charges. The threshold for exemption is set at about the same level as that used in assessing entitlement to income support, although the NHS scheme also allows for net housing costs to be taken into account. We believe that this is fair and sensible. Many DWA recipients will be eligible for help under this scheme but I can see little justification for a special disregard of DWA which would put them in a rather better position than all others with low incomes.
I now turn to family credit and the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, as to why those on family credit will be exempted from NHS charges while DWA recipients will not be. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also mentioned attendance and mobility allowance.
Exemption from NHS charges has been granted to recipients of family credit and its predecessor benefit family income supplement since its introduction in 1971; and the Government have not subsequently thought it right to reduce the entitlement of this group of beneficiaries. However, it is a central principle of government policy that help should be targeted towards those whose need is greatest. Recipients of DWA will be better off than those on income support (and DWA will be more generous than family credit) and it is not unreasonable that recipients of DWA should lose entitlement to automatic help with NHS charges.
Except for prescription charges, where availability of season tickets minimises the additional costs which can be incurred, DWA recipients will be able to apply for help with NHS charges through the NHS low income scheme, and can expect to receive at least partial help with charges unless their income is

943
substantially above income support level. I believe that this makes the most effective use of the resources available.
Having listened to the arguments, I remain unconvinced. Wherever the line is drawn there will always be people who fall just the wrong side of it. It was decided in Committee that the Government's position is right. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to take issue with one remark made by the Minister. How can a disabled person ever be on equal terms with others on low incomes? The disability is permanent. They cannot be on the same level. That is the argument which we always put forward and we cannot find Ministers who understand it. If a Minister became disabled, then he would understand it, but I hope that that will not happen to this Minister.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hear odd noises from behind. In my response I was attempting to say to the noble Baroness that we feel that recipients of DWA will be in a better position than those on income support. That is the point behind DWA. I then went on to say that DWA payments will be more generous than family credit. To some extent that takes account of the fears expressed by the noble Baroness.
I accept that no matter how far we amend the Bill we would not be able to meet the requirements of the noble Baroness. I appreciate that, happily, I am not in the same position as the noble Baroness and therefore it may be argued that I fail to understand these matters fully. However, the noble Baroness knows that I have listened to her on many occasions and always take note of her arguments. I am sure that the noble Baroness has had ample opportunity to ensure that I understand these matters as well as I ought.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, clearly that response is a disappointment. The tap has been turned off; the fountain no longer runs, and I am athirst.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that this issue was decided in Committee. It was not. Something rather dissimilar was decided in Committee and therefore we remain capable of continuing the argument. I still hope to persuade the Minister and his colleagues of our view.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, the provision remains a powerful disincentive to what are, after all, poor people. One must be poor to qualify for DWA and therefore it is a disincentive. The whole power behind this imaginative scheme will be lost to many families where the breadwinner would be able to elevate his self-esteem within his family and friends. For those reasons we are disappointed by the Minister's reply.
The noble Lord said something with which I can readily agree; that those who can pay for National Health Service charges should do so. But I question whether those on DWA can pay. Those in receipt of DWA are, almost by definition, poor people. I should
944
like to know how many people on DWA the Minister estimates will he eligible for National Health Service prescription cost waiver or disregard. According to the noble Lord quite a number who are in receipt of DWA will be rich enough to pay for their NHS costs. I wonder how many he estimates fall into that favourable category and remain eligible for DWA. I do not know whether the Minister is able to answer that question. I should be interested to hear his reply.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may say that I cannot answer the noble Lord on that matter. However, I shall undertake to write to him after consulting colleagues in the Department of Health. I cannot give a figure off the top of my head.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, on the face of it that would be an interesting figure to have. We are disappointed. We are speaking of a small amount of money—between £3 million and £4 million. Even at this Report stage I hope that the Minister will consider something on the lines of our amendment. However, I reluctantly beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Entitlement to other benefits after termination of entitlement to disability working allowance]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 15, line 11, at end insert:
("( ) In section 17(1) (d) of the 1975 Act, after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted—
"(f) Where a person has been in receipt of disability working allowance, paragraph (d) above shall have effect with the substitution for "8 weeks" of "13 weeks" " ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 52 relates to a subject discussed in Committee and is intended to clarify the issue. The aim is to extend the current linking rule, which applies to incapacity benefit, from eight to 13 weeks, which was the linking period up to 1980. This amendment would restore that linking rule of 13 weeks for ex-DWA claimants.
The House will know that the linking rule allows two periods of incapacity for work or employment to be treated as one continuous period as long as any gap is no longer than eight weeks. The continuation of the original period of interruption of employment—that is to say, PIE—is crucial, otherwise claimants lose the link with their paid national insurance contributions or age additions and so forth.
As drafted, the amendment is a compromise. We simply propose that people who have recently used DWA to try out their capacity for very limited work can later progress to better paid work for a short trial period without putting into jeopardy the invalidity benefit or SDA entitlement for ever. This is a small change but it would make it significantly easier for people with disabilities to surmount a major benefit disincentive which faces them when they attempt to try out their capacity for work. A break in the period of employment—the so-called PIE—for all claimants from eight to 13 weeks was suggested years ago by the Social Security Advisory Committee. For all these

945
reasons I hope that the noble Lord can either accept the amendment or explain the reasoning behind his possible rejection of it. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think I understand what the noble Lord is getting at. His amendment would provide a small extension to the normal eight-week linking rule to anyone who was getting DWA or had received DWA at any time in the past. We are extending the eight weeks to two years as a special reassurance to DWA recipients because they may not be confident that they will be able to continue working. I cannot see any justification for the special 13-week linking rule which the noble Lord has suggested.
The arguments against the amendment are very clear. First, employers would have to operate a different rule for SSP purposes for a small number of their employees. This would add to their SSP administration costs. Noble Lords know this is already a sensitive matter for employers. With the best will in the world, this is bound to make them think of DWA recipients as a nuisance and possibly discourage them from recruiting disabled people. I was trying to give reassurance to employers about that.
There is also the issue of confidentiality. We have been asked repeatedly for reassurances that we will not tell employers that an employee is getting DWA. We are taking some trouble over this. But if the employer is told not to pay SSP to an individual should they become sick within 13 weeks rather than the usual eight weeks, the proverbial cat will be out of the hag. The employer will know that the employee is getting DWA, or, worse still, that at some time in the past he or she received DWA. For ever and a day an employer would be liable to find out that at some stage in the past an employee had been sick or disabled for a protracted period.
Another argument hardly needs mentioning. Your Lordships will appreciate that the amendment would require us to keep quite a large number of records for decades in case a former DWA recipient re-qualified for invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance. Given the complexity of the existing rules and the infrequency with which the special linking rule would apply, there is also a distinct risk that it would be
946
overlooked. I hope that that explanation is sufficient for noble Lords and that at this hour of the night the noble Lord will not feel in the mood to press the amendment to a Division.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am not too sure, but that is an extremely helpful explanation of a rather complicated point. I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 16, line 1, leave out from ("to") to end of line 8 and insert ("that pension or allowance, it was increased in respect of a dependant by virtue of—

(i) regulation 8(6) of the Social Security (Dependency) Regulations 1977;

(ii) regulation 2 of the Social Security (Savings for Existing Beneficiaries) Regulations 1984;

(iii) regulation 3 of the Social Security Benefit (Dependency) Amendment Regulations 1984; or

(iv) regulation 4 of the Social Security Benefit (Dependency and Computation of Earnings) Amendment Regulations 1989,

for the purpose of determining whether his pension or allowance should be increased by virtue of that regulation for any period beginning with the day on which he again becomes entitled to his pension or allowance, the increase in respect of that dependant shall be treated as having been payable to him on each day between the last day on which his pension or allowance was previously payable and the day on which he again becomes entitled to it.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. It completes the provisions necessary to ensure that, if a DWA recipient needs to go back to IVB or SDA using the new long linking rule, his benefit will be calculated in the same way as before in all respects. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 34, line 17, third column, at end insert:
("subsection (4) (b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 26. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at half past nine o'clock.