Lords Sitting of 23 May 1995

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

Armed Forces: Exclusion of Homosexuals
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to permit known homosexuals to become and remain members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence, (Lord Henley): My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that we have no plans to change our policy of excluding homosexuals from the Armed Forces.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. However, does he consider it as being rather revealing—or perhaps rather distressing—that, while government policy has the wholehearted support of the country and particularly of the Armed Forces, nevertheless the shadow spokesman for defence in another palace is reported to have said that the ban would be scrapped within one month of the Labour Party coming into government?
Noble Lords: Rubbish!
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am aware of a number of Labour policy announcements on the subject as reported in the press and as further clarified—if I can call it that—by the honourable gentleman in another place. I have to say that there is some confusion as to what is the Labour Party's policy. If there is a policy, I find it rather odd that this seems to be the only subject upon which the Labour Party has announced any proposals in the defence field.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, has the Minister had the opportunity to read the Official Report of another place on the debate regarding the Royal Air Force on 4th May? In that debate, my honourable friend Mr. David Clark said that if the Labour Party came to power and the problems which are outstanding in the courts still remained, we would set up a commission, which obviously would include the Chiefs of Staff, to study the best practices in other armed forces in the world and find what was the best solution for our own Armed Forces. Does the Minister agree that that is a very reasonable way to set about things? Does he further agree—I have not quoted directly so the noble Viscount the Leader of the House can put down his copy of the Companion; indeed, I put it in indirect speech—that it is wise for noble Lords when tabling Starred Questions to do some research before making party political mischief on what is a serious and delicate matter?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I reject that allegation. I think my noble friend conducted quite the appropriate degree of research. I have to say that I believe the policy
914
set out by the noble Lord's honourable friends in another place is somewhat confusing. I was merely making the point that if they were going to announce a policy there were slightly more important matters in the defence field upon which we would welcome the thoughts of the party opposite.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister understand that memories of yesteryear prove that his statement is completely incorrect? Indeed, there is a question mark over some of our most famous figures in history and their sexual tendencies. Why does the Minister try to hide that now? If the ban had been applied in the past, we may have lost some of our most famous commanders.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord's point takes us any further. I merely announced what our policy is. I announced that our policy is lawful and that we shall continue to defend it robustly.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, is it not a key point that the inclination of gay activists and whether they make good soldiers, sailors or airmen is not the point at issue but rather whether all the other members of the Armed Forces would be prepared to work in harmony and in trust alongside people with those sexual inclinations?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord brings considerable experience to the debate. We greatly welcome his contributions. I believe that the point that the noble and gallant Lord is trying to make—and it is one I should like to underline—is that the nature of service life is very different from civilian life. That point must be borne in mind when making our decisions on the matter.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, irrespective of who is in office, if homosexuals are in Her Majesty's forces there is one problem that confronts them and the officers of their divisions; namely, that they could only operate in very low classification security work?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there are a number of reasons why we believe that it is right to exclude homosexuals from service in the Armed Forces. The noble Lord is right to draw attention to one of those—the security risk. We do not believe that the acceptance of homosexuals into the Armed Forces would necessarily entirely remove that security risk.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that it must be said that many homosexuals in the Armed Forces have performed their duties well without any problems as, indeed, I would suggest, they have done in all other occupations? Fifty years after the war, is it not worth remembering some of the things that happened then? I remember my late father-in-law telling me that one of the most conspicuous acts of gallantry and bravery that he saw in Italy was one performed by a well-known homosexual.
Lord Henley: My Lords, again I am not prepared to discuss what might or might not have been the position in the past. However, I can assure the noble Viscount

915
that in the past homosexuals were excluded from the Armed Forces. Homosexuality was then a criminal offence, and homosexuals were thrown out.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that within the Armed Forces homosexuality causes great offence to others? It undermines military discipline; it damages morale and unit efficiency; and, finally, in some cases it leads to bullying.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend provides further cogent reasons for the belief that our policy is right. If it affects the ability of the Armed Forces to perform their functions it is right to continue that policy.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that should Her Majesty's Government be impleaded before the European Court of Human Rights in this context they will defend the proceedings by exercising their rights of derogation on grounds of national security, or any other grounds? At the same time, will they undertake not to review the Navy, Army and Air Force legislation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the matter is before the courts at the moment. He will also be aware that we have robustly defended our position at recent hearings. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that should we be taken before any other court, whether it be the European Court of Human Rights or any other, we would robustly defend our position.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Lord not go so far as at least to agree that there is a large and growing proportion of jobs in the services where sexual orientation is wholly irrelevant and should be disregarded?
Lord Henley: My Lords, whether in some jobs sexual orientation is irrelevant is itself irrelevant. The fact is that all members of the Armed Forces are expected to be able to do virtually every job which is open to them. It is not right that people should be allowed into the Armed Forces purely to do one job in which, as the noble Lord puts it, sexual orientation does not matter and therefore be excluded from others.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the Government will not consider changes to their present policy with regard to a ban on homosexuals on the basis of practices in other countries? Secondly, if the ban is challenged in the European courts will Her Majesty's Government do their utmost to resist that challenge?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that the practices of other countries are relevant. There are different rules—for instance, conscription—or different domestic employment laws which influence the policies of those countries. As to whether we might change our policy, this is a matter which is still under consideration by the courts. It would not be appropriate for me to comment in advance of a ruling. However, I can say that we have no present plans to change our policy.

National Curriculum
2.46 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the most recent reports from Ofsted, they now feel that the national curriculum in schools might usefully be supplemented by a national curriculum in teacher-training institutions.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the best way to improve standards is to ensure that training is focused on essential teaching competences. The Government have set out those competences and revised them in recent years to reflect national curriculum requirements. We believe that it is unnecessary to be more prescriptive about course content, which is a matter for the provider, in higher education or elsewhere.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. But is it not alarming that in the 12 subject reports just issued by Ofsted there runs a dismal leitmotiv concerning teachers in all of the subjects who are deficient and regarded as incompetent by the inspectors? Is it not particularly alarming that in three of the subjects concerned, arguably the most fundamental for our future—English, maths and science—inspectors found and complained that one teacher in five is either bad at teaching, or bad at the subject that she or he is paid to teach, or both? Is it not the case that if it were one in five of our surgeons or our airline pilots we might be taking more urgent action?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, first, I should like to praise Ofsted for the production of these booklets. If noble Lords have not had a chance to consult them I recommend that they do so. They provide a very thorough and full picture of the state of teaching in our state schools and of what remains to be done to improve it. One thing that clearly remains to be done, as the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, pointed out, is to improve the quality of teaching. I should say that Ofsted reports on the quality of lessons, not the quality of teachers. It could just as well be a case of a good teacher on a bad day as a bad teacher in his or her permanent condition. There is clearly a lot to be done, and the Teacher Training Agency, as it has been set up and as it makes progress, will clearly be a major instrument in putting the matter right.
Baroness David: My Lords, does not the Minister think that it would be very helpful if the inspectors could follow up the inspections and the criticisms that they have made and give active advice and go back to the schools with help, as the LEA inspectors did. They had an advisory as well as an inspectorial role. That seems to me to be what is lacking at the moment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very good point.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I may have misunderstood the Minister but is it not the case that in each of these admirable documents there is a section not on the quality of the pupils but on the quality of teaching?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, I may not have expressed myself well. The reports address the quality of teaching. I agree with the figures that the noble Lord quoted. It is a matter which we are addressing with great seriousness.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, did my noble friend see an article in the Daily Mail a week ago which reported enormous differentials in the cost of similar teacher training courses at different institutions? For instance, is he aware that it was alleged that one course can cost as much as 18 times more than a similar course at another institution?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, I saw that report; and, indeed, I believe that the facts are true. I understand that the Teacher Training Agency has appointed Coopers & Lybrand to look into the reasons which underlie that position. Into each young accountant's life a little joy must fall. Had I been a young accountant at Coopers & Lybrand now, I should have been pushing to get on to that investigation. Such extraordinary differences are rare. They may be common in university accounting, but in the world outside such extraordinary differences create excitement in the heart of every accountant. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, shares that excitement. It would be a wonderful investigation to be on.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, does Her Majesty's Government accept that, in order to improve the subject competence of those teachers in subjects where it is known to be difficult to recruit the most able students to the profession, it is necessary not simply to impose a curriculum but to increase the wages of all teachers?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, no, I do not follow that argument. The route by which to increase the status and remuneration of the teaching profession is to increase its competence and quality.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, since the passing of the education legislation have special inspectors been taken on to deal with the section of the Act relating to special needs children? A number of teachers do not seem to know how to deal with children with special needs.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I cannot answer my noble friend's question, but I shall write to her.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is most important for teacher training institutions to obtain the right balance between the academic study of education and the practical training of teachers? Both factors are important. However, perhaps I may suggest that the Government have got the balance wrong in their most recent legislation. Will the Minister give an assurance that what has been proposed and what is being undertaken is monitored continually to ensure that we achieve the best results?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we monitor what is going on exceptionally closely because we believe that it is the principal area through which we can greatly affect in the near future the quality of what takes place in our schools. However, the initial reports from Ofsted and
918
the Teacher Training Agency indicate that the balance between schools and the higher education institutions is now about right. The balance is now more equal. Higher education institutions used to dictate the terms; it is now much more a partnership. In those cases where the training takes place principally in schools—it is a small proportion of teacher training places—it provides an excellent education in particular for adults coming new to teaching with wide experience of the outside world.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be for the education of the House if acronyms such as Ofsted were printed in full?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I believe that that is a matter for Hansard. However, it is certainly quicker to say "Ofsted" than the "Office for Standards in Education" on every occasion.
Since the noble Lord raises that matter—the subject of quangos is much in the press at present—I ask him to agree that in particular Ofsted and the Teacher Training Agency, being independent from the Department for Education, do a job which could not be undertaken as well or as effectively were they merely a group within the department. Those bodies demonstrate what a valuable organ a quango is when properly set up.

Rwanda: Humanitarian Aid
2.55 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their latest estimate of the humanitarian aid needed in Rwanda, Burundi and adjacent areas of central Africa and what response they are making both bilaterally and multilaterally.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs estimates 1995 humanitarian needs for Rwanda and the sub-region at £500 million. United Nations agencies report that current humanitarian needs are being met. Since April 1994, the UK has provided nearly £91 million of emergency and rehabilitation aid, including our share of EU assistance.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Can she assure the House that there will be no question of refugees from the genocide and its consequences in Rwanda being forced to return to an uncertain and perhaps dangerous future by the denial of food, adequate security in the camps and other support? In that context, does she realise that she and the Government will have the full support of this side of the House in persuading the European Union to continue its support and to reverse its hasty decision to freeze aid?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's supplementary question. We conclude that the emergency phase is now over. We need to concentrate on rehabilitation and to continue efforts to create conditions for the safe voluntary return of the refugees.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, will the Minister say what contribution the UK Government are making to help to stop the spread of the Ebola virus? What precautions are taken about people coming to this country from Zaire?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are providing £75,000 to the International Federation of the Red Cross in response to its appeal. The European Union has provided around £200,000 of emergency aid. We remain in close touch with the World Health Organisation and are monitoring the situation carefully. The UK's assistance will help to strengthen disease control activities, boost existing support to hospitals and continue the Red Cross's public information campaign.
With regard to the noble Lord's second point, appropriate precautions are in place to monitor UK entry points for anyone exposed to the virus. The risks of travellers from Zaire carrying the virus are extremely low. It is not easily passed on to others.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, how are the humanitarian agencies attacking the problem with regard to those who committed genocide and who are located in some of the camps? Some of the aid given by the West is being used to sustain and improve the physical conditions of people who plan to return and restart the genocide.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, humanitarian assistance is the most important factor. It is reaching those in need. The strengthened security measures, the improved relief distributions and the thorough registration exercise have significantly reduced diversion.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in the context of security, do the Government agree that there is a close and growing interrelationship between the instability in Rwanda, Burundi and Zaire and indeed the region as a whole? Will the Government do everything possible to support the early convening of a conference to examine the economic, social and political issues of the region in endeavouring to find a comprehensive solution?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I must make a plug. The UK has responded quickly and generously since the start of the crisis in April 1994. We continue to monitor the situation and are ready to do more. A meeting of the Development Council on 1st June will be attended by my noble friend Lady Chalker.
We have been following the events in Burundi for some time. That is the reason that my noble friend Lady Chalker went there last summer. We continue to monitor the situation and keep in close touch with British NGOs and other bodies.

Schools: Parental Choice
2.59 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that their policy of meeting parental choice in schools is being met.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, our policy is to increase the opportunities for parental choice. As a result of government reforms, parents now have more rights, more information and access to a wider choice of schools than ever before.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at this time of the year thousands of parents have come to realise that choice of schools is a myth? Is he further aware that this is also the time when examinations, tests, assessments and interviews of both pupils and parents have no place in the choice of the school? It is not possible to give parents universal choice. Will the Government be honest and agree that that is the case and that the result of their policy is not what they pretend it to be?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as regards the last part of what the noble Lord said, of course I agree completely that it is not possible to give parents universal choice. What is possible is to try to improve it.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is it not a fact that the official DFE figures given in parliamentary Answers show that appeals against the refusal of school places rose from 20,981 in 1989–90 to 41,927 in 1992–93—the latest date for which figures are available? That is an increase of 99.8 per cent. Is it not proof positive that parental choice is becoming more limited?
Lord Lucas: No, my Lords, I do not think so at all. It is proof that parents are taking a much more active interest in which school their children should attend. I welcome that, as do some members of the party opposite.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, would my noble friend care to join me in congratulating the Benches opposite on their conversion to parental choice and their decided move away from local education authority dictatorship which they used to support so fervently?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it appears that that view is held at least by the leadership of the party opposite. I am not sure that every single Member of the Benches I spend my time looking at would agree with my noble friend.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one area where there has been little parental choice is nursery schools? Perhaps the noble Lord will confirm my belief that before the next election the Government have plans to increase parental choice. Can he elaborate on that?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I very much look forward to elaborating on it but not today.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that between 1974 and 1979 I sat on an appeals committee? In Cambridgeshire we gave parents choice and we had an appeals committee. So it was fair. I hope that the Minister will take back the suggestion that parental choice is a recent invention of the Conservative Party.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am aware that some local authorities encouraged choice well before the Government came into office. However, we have consistently improved and increased it and that we shall continue to do.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, it is interesting that twice in answer to me the Minister said that the Government continually seek to increase parents' choice of schools. I have seen little or no evidence of that in the past two or three years. Will the Minister say what has been done in that respect?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, a great deal has been done. We have grant maintained schools which we never had before; schools are specialising, which they never did before; and the city technology college movement continues. In many different ways, schools are taking on more individuality than they had. We are encouraging parents to look around and choose between their local schools and to take a more active interest about which school their children should attend.
With local authorities, we are pursuing the ways in which they may make it easier for parents. Many of the difficulties which parents experience are because of obstacles put in their way by the structures employed by local authorities. We hope that they will continue to remove them, as has happened in many instances but not all. It is a gradual and difficult process but one which we shall continue to push on with.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the question I put to the Minister. I have been considering what he said in answer to me. Instead of being delighted and pleased at the increasing number of dissatisfied parents shown by the figures I quoted—and those figures are considerable—can the Minister tell us what Her Majesty's Government are doing about the increasing levels of parental dissatisfaction, as evidenced by the number of parents appealing against the schools to which their children are allocated?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we continue to try to increase choice in a whole variety of ways. The fact that that does not keep pace with the expectations and hopes of parents is a matter for regret. Nonetheless it is a condition which we expect to persist from now until doomsday.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, having heard the Minister's reply to my noble friend regarding nursery education, do I understand that he does not wish to reveal the Government's commitments at this stage? Will he give an assurance that the Government's avowed principle of supporting parental choice will be part of the commitment to all parents in all places that they will have choice in access to free nursery education? That is a quite logical and inevitable conclusion of the statements that government Ministers have made.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as has been clear from other answers I have given today, the question is not one of choice. It is of giving parents the right to express a preference. The ability to give first choice to everyone is not within the gift of this Government or anyone else.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, may I press the Minister to say whether parental choice, or preference, that a child should enter nursery education is a logical continuation of the ethos of parental choice?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, put that way, I agree entirely.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister make it absolutely clear in any documents published by the Government that government policy is that parents have the right of preference but not the choice of schools?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I believe that that is what we do.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Astor will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on media ownership.

Business of the House: Debate, 24th May
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lady Saltoun of Abernethy set down for tomorrow shall be limited to 5 hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Jobseekers Bill
3.8 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [The jobseeker's allowance]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert ("but until such tune as a jobseeker's allowance is payable in accordance with the provisions of this Act, nothing in this Act or in any regulations made under it shall reduce the period of payment for unemployment benefit calculated in accordance with section 26 of the Benefits Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at the Report stage the Minister caught us somewhat by surprise when he made an announcement to the House of a change in the Government's policy. He said:
"the Government have decided that the jobseeker's allowance should be introduced in October 1996"——
not, as originally planned, in April 1996. He continued:
"The transitional arrangements for JSA will be such that the duration of an unemployed claimant's entitlement to unemployment benefit will, from April 1996, be the same as it would have been had JSA been introduced on that date".—[Official Report, 16/5/95; col. 418.]

923
That was not a written statement, we did not have the advantage of the words in front of us. It was an announcement made by the Government, perfectly correctly, and inserted into an answer on an entirely different amendment. We were unclear then and remain unclear what will be the full import of the Minister's statement. For that reason we tabled this amendment to seek to understand what the Government have in mind by slip-starting the JSA from the April 1996 original date to October 1996.
None of us, certainly on this side of the House, quarrels with delaying the introduction of this new arrangement. It is right that when two benefits are amalgamated—in this case unemployment benefit and income support, which is what the jobseeker's allowance represents—the process should proceed as smoothly as possible, employment officers should be fully trained, and the computer systems should function smoothly. Frankly, this is such a nasty Bill that any delay is very welcome—except in so far as that may not be quite what we shall get.
The Government have persistently—and I believe honourably—told us that the jobseeker's allowance represents a package of measures. Perhaps I may quote the Minister's words at Second Reading in this House:
"The jobseeker's allowance is part of a much larger package"—
I emphasise the words "package"—
"of incentives announced in the last Budget and social security statement. The package of measures included in jobseeker's allowance legislation underpins the Government's determination to remove barriers to finding work and helping every unemployed person to find a job quickly".—[Official Report, 3/4/95; col. 14.]
Later in the same speech, at col. 15, the Minister talked of,
"a package of measures which will provide an approved means of delivering benefit to unemployed people".
A few days later, in Committee, the Minister stated:
"We are closely monitoring progress towards implementation … to ensure that all the necessary arrangements are put in place … If … there is an unacceptable risk that things might go wrong … one of the alternatives would be to delay the date of introduction. One of the objectives of the jobseeker's allowance is to improve the service we offer to jobseekers. We certainly do not intend to put that at risk".—[Official Report, 20/4/95; col. 590.]
That approach is entirely correct.
The emphasis throughout has been that the Jobseekers Bill offers a package, one that consists of the "carrot" of jobseeker measures such as the jobseeker's agreement, the national insurance holiday for employers and the run of housing benefit and council benefit. Back-to-work benefit was only ever to have been introduced from October. Those were among the incentives to get people back to work. The other side of the package—the "stick"—was the cut in contributory benefit from 12 months to six months. Thereafter people were to go on to means-tested benefit and, in the process, if a person claimed for a dependant or was under 25 he or she would immediately suffer a reduction in benefit.
What does the Minister's announcement mean in this context? What has happened to that package? From the Minister's statement and from, I have to say, an extremely opaque letter I received today, it seems that
924
the carrot part of the package is to be delayed until October but the stick part is to be introduced six months before that—in April. So much for the package. The cuts in benefit start in April, but the so-called goodies that were mentioned in the winding-up speech of the Minister in the other place are not to start for another six months. When it suits the Government, the concept of a package appears to be ripped apart. The Bill is transparently clear in what it seeks to do; namely, to cut benefits first and only as an afterthought seek to encourage people to find work.
What makes matters almost even worse is that this cut is not the result of a new benefit being introduced; namely the jobseeker's allowance. What the Minister appears to be doing is cutting an existing benefit, unemployment benefit. So this measure is as harsh as the new JSA, but without any of the attendant advantages that the Minister claims for JSA.
My reading may be incorrect. I gave the Minister brief notice of the questions that I wanted to ask, but I received the Minister's reply only today and therefore could not give him earlier notice. Will he clarify, for example, what happens if someone becomes unemployed on, let us say, 1st February 1996? Is it the case now, as it was before the Minister made the statement, that such people will receive unemployment benefit up until April 1996 and will thereafter continue to receive unemployment benefit only up to October 1996—in other words, as they would have done under the old unemployment and JSA arrangements? What happens to those who are under 25? The under-25s who are on unemployment benefit receive the same rate of benefit as those who are over 25. Under JSA they receive a lower rate. What happens now? What now happens to adult benefits, to dependants and their benefits—for example, to the spouse who looks after children? Such people were entitled to unemployment benefit as part of contributory benefit. Under JSA, they are not. Will the Minister help us to clarify the situation? On the basis of his explanation we may wish to seek the opinion of the House. But, first, let us ask the Minister whether what we fear is the case; namely, that he is cutting benefit as of April 1996 but introducing the "carrots" only from October 1996 and that therefore all the talk of a package goes out of the window when it suits the Minister's computer system? I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I listened with great attention to all the questions put by the noble Baroness. I wonder if she can help me. Is it the concept of this clause, as I read it, that if unemployment benefit under Section 26 of the benefits Act is currently received, it continues until the jobseeker's allowance is paid but not thereafter? If that is so, I ask the question only because the use of the phrase,
"It shall reduce the period of payment for unemployment benefit calculated",
left matters somewhat open as to whether the intention was that there should be, as it were, a hangover. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for indicating that that is so.

925
What worries me is whether this amendment relates to the essential transitional provisions expressly dealt with in Clause 40(2) of the Bill. I shall not quote the clause at length because that would be to waste time. The clause states:
"Regulations under this section may in particular make provision … for the termination or cancellation of awards of unemployment benefit or income support".
I ask, with respect to the noble Baroness: is this not the part of the Bill under which transitional provisions need to be dealt with, rather than under Clause 1. The amendment relates this matter to Clause 1, which is primarily concerned with entitlement.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, indicated that she simply wished for clarification of the statement I made to the House at the beginning of Report stage on 16th May. At that point I announced that, in the light of our review of the project, we had decided that the implementation of JSA should be deferred until October 1996. Perhaps I may try to answer the questions that she put, which, if my recollection is correct, related to the second paragraph of my statement and the position regarding unemployment benefit.
There is a common misconception that entitlement to unemployment benefit automatically lasts for up to a year. In fact, unemployment benefit is awarded on a daily basis for each day on which the claimant meets the necessary conditions—one of which is that the claimant has not already received the benefit for 312 days in the period of interruption of his employment. Unemployment benefit will continue to be awarded on this basis, subject to its normal rules and conditions, until JSA is introduced.
When the Jobseekers Bill comes into effect in October 1996, the relevant parts of the contributions and benefits Act will be repealed. Furthermore, existing awards of unemployment benefit and income support will be terminated under powers in Clause 40(2) of the Bill. Thus unemployment. benefit will cease to exist and nobody will have any entitlement to it. Instead, all eligible claimants will be able to claim JSA in accordance with the conditions set out in this Bill, including those in Clause 5(1) which limit entitlement to contribution-based benefit to a total of 182 days.
However, Clause 40(2) (b) of the Bill provides powers for those on benefit at the point of change to be subject to transitional provisions which will themselves be set out in regulations. We intend to use these powers, and those in Clause 40(2) (g) and (h), to provide that days of unemployment prior to October 1996 should count towards the 182 days' maximum entitlement to contribution-based jobseeker's allowance.
The noble Baroness will no doubt accuse the Government of cutting unemployment benefit—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is exactly right.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There is nothing new in the Government's proposals. We have always made clear that contribution-based benefit would be limited to six months for people who claimed from April 1996. Therefore, those people will not be any worse off
926
than they would have been if JSA had been implemented as originally planned. They will continue to be eligible for benefit at rates equivalent to unemployment benefit, including adult dependency increases, provided that they have not exceeded the 312-day maximum period without requalifying. We also intend that the current unemployment benefit earnings rules should continue to apply to all those who make their claims before JSA is introduced.
I should emphasise that the duration of benefit for those who claim before April will not be affected. Regulations will also provide that where a person's period of unemployment began before April 1996, he may still qualify for up to 12 months' contributory entitlement. That transitional protection will end in April 1997.
Perhaps I may answer the questions that the noble Baroness indicated that she had given me, which might illustrate what will happen. She asked me first when the clock would start to run for the 182 days. The answer is that it will start to run when JSA starts on 7th October. However, days of unemployment from 8th April will count towards the 182-day entitlement after 7th October.
The noble Baroness asked about the position of under-25s and the position of dependants. Those changes will not come in until October with JSA implementation. She also asked me about what she called the "carrots"—the NICs holiday and the housing benefit run-on. Both are still planned for April. We also still intend, as she rightly said, to start the in-work benefit pilot from October and the back-to-work bonus from October, as was always the intention.
Perhaps I may deal with someone who becomes unemployed on 1st October this year. He will have 12 months' unemployment benefit. Somebody becoming unemployed on 1st February 1996 will have eight months' unemployment benefit followed by, from October, four months of contributory based JSA. It will be transitional. I think it was the noble Baroness who asked me about 1st April. On 1st April it will be six months and six months. In fact, the key date is 8th April. So somebody first of all becoming unemployed on 7th April will have six months and six months. That will not change. But somebody becoming unemployed on 8th April will have, as we always intended, only six months' unemployment benefit. Thereafter, for example, on 31st July, he will have two months' unemployment benefit and then four months on the contribution based JSA. So nothing will be different from what we had originally intended so far as unemployment benefit is concerned.
I have tried to answer the questions asked by the noble Baroness. It may not satisfy her that the Government's policy is right but I hope that it at least explains what will actually happen to people who register on those four or five dates about which she specifically asked me. I am happy to make clear what we intend to do. We shall not be making any changes to legal entitlement prior to October 1996. We shall be laying the regulations that I mentioned before April 1996, so that everybody will be clear, although, as I said, the position will not change until October 1996 so far as concerns the points that I have made.

927
I hope that that will satisfy the noble Baroness, at least as an explanation. I realise that she still does not approve of the policy. If she decides to put it to the test, I hope that my noble friends will support me.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I regret very much that we are at Third Reading. Were we in Committee or at Report stage, I should very much have liked to press the Minister on the implications of some of the details of his answers to me, had the Chamber given me consent. Given that the questions are quite elaborate and the Minister's reply requires some detailed attention, particularly as we both misquoted dates at various stages in our replies, it is not entirely clear what are all the intentions.
What I gather to be the effect is that nonetheless somebody on unemployment benefit will from 7th or 8th April be eligible for only six months' contributory benefit before going on to means tested benefit. So when JSA comes into effect as of October, he will be immediately onto means tested benefit. However, I also understand from the Minister that the situation of dependent spouses will continue as under the unemployment rules between April and October. The under-25s will also continue under unemployment benefit between April and October. The Minister nods his head to confirm that that is the case. So it is in the record.
Nevertheless, perhaps I may first comment on the helpful intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I apologise to the House if I was not clear when introducing the amendment. What he said was indeed the case. The thrust of the amendment is that if the Government are to delay the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance to October, there should be a clean, clear and transparent introduction of that benefit at once, as a package. It is the very package that the Minister, through Second Reading, and Committee and Report stages, has told us that JSA was supposed to produce. It was tougher on benefits but at the same time, so the Minister believes, the jobseeker's agreement and other associated aspects of JSA nonetheless will actively help people back into work. It was a package.
We disagree with the JSA and the principles of it. But my amendment seeks to ensure that if JSA is introduced, it should be introduced cleanly, clearly, comprehensively and comprehensibly to claimants and staff together as an integrated package—that is what the Minister has always led us to believe—as at October. It means therefore that unemployment benefit on the one hand and income support would remain as they are until October. We should not have a splintered package with overlapping benefits, transitional arrangements, some income support, some UB, some under-25s, some over-25s and some dependent spouses—all that utter confusion.
The Minister and those of us on these Benches who have been dealing with the Bill for two months now are still confused and trying to understand it. If we are confused, what do the Government expect the people out there to be? What hope do they have of understanding the intentions? Is it fair? The
928
Government, for their convenience—not as a result of our amendment—have delayed by six months the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. That is not because we asked for it, although we should have liked it, but because it suited the Government so to do.
It seems only fair that if the Government are to delay the introduction until October, they should delay the entire package until October, so that everyone knows where they stand. Unemployment benefit and income support should run through to October and thereafter the new benefit would start cleanly, crisply and clearly for all concerned. We should not have the confusion that exists even today between two overlapping benefits and transitional arrangements.
In all fairness to the claimants, and because the Government at the very last moment have changed their policy in this respect, I ask the House to support us in clearing up the mess and confusion that will otherwise follow. I seek the opinion of the House.
3.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 152.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Annan, L.

Howell, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hughes, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Avebury, L.

Hylton, L.

Bancroft, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Barnett, L.

Jay, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Birk, B.

Jeger, B.

Blackstone, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Judd, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carter, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kintore, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lawrence, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McCarthy, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donoughue, L.

McNair, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Mar, C.

Falkender, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Falkland, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mayhew, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Gallacher, L.

Merrivale, L.

Geraint, L.

Meston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Monkswell, L.

Moms of Castle Morris, L.

Grey, E.

Nelson, E.

Halsbury, E.

Nicol, B.

Hamwee, B.

Ogmore, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Palmer, L.

Haskel, L.

Peston, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

929

Rea, L.

Stallard, L.

Richard, L.

Stedman, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Stokes, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Rochester, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Bp.

Turner of Camden, B.

Walpole, L.

Scanlon, L.

Warnock, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Whaddon, L.

Serota, B.

Wharton, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

White, B.

Shepherd, L.

Wigoder, L.

Simon, V.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stafford, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Addison, V.

Gainford, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Geddes, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Alport, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Ampthill, L.

Goschen, V.

Arran, E.

Granard, E.

Astor, V.

Grantchester, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Balfour, E.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gridley, L.

Blaker, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Blatch, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Blyth, L.

Boardman, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Henley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hertford, M.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Hives, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hogg, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Burnham, L.

Hood, V.

Butterworth, L.

Howe, E.

Cadman, L.

Inglewood, L.

Caithness, E.

Ironside, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kimball, L.

Cawley, L.

Kimberley, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Knollys, V.

Chesham, L.

Knutsford, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cockfield, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Coleridge, L.

Lucas, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lyell, L.

Courtown, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

McConnell, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cross, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Davidson, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Manchester, D.

Dormer, L.

Marlesford, L.

Downshire, M.

Mersey, V.

Dundonald, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Elibank, L.

Milverton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elles, B.

Morris, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mountevans, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Munster, E.

Father, B.

Newall, L.

Foley, L.

Norrie, L.

930

Northesk, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Slim, V.

Orkney, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strange, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Sudeley, L.

Prior, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Quinton, L.

Swinton, E.

Radnor E.

Terrington, L.

Rawlings B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Renton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renwick, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

St. Davids, V.

Vivian, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Salisbury, M.

Wolfson, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Sandys, L.

Wynford, L.

Sharples, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Media Ownership
3.38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.
The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about media ownership.
"Because of the extreme market sensitivity of this issue, I arranged for the substance of the Government's decisions to be announced by my department before the Stock Exchange opened for business this morning. I am making this Statement at the earliest opportunity thereafter. I hope that the House will accept this way of proceeding, for which there are clear precedents, and which discussed last week with the honourable Member for Islington South and Finsbury, as well as the honourable Member for Caithness and Sutherland and the right honourable Member for Manchester Gorton.
"Following the relaxation of some of the restraints on the ownership of ITV companies in December 1993, the Government announced in January 1994 that they were to review the existing rules governing media ownership. I am now in a position to announce the Government's conclusions on this issue. I am today publishing a policy document which sets out our proposals. Copies are available in the Vote Office. In developing these proposals, we have taken account of advice, ideas and comments from a wide variety of sources. I am grateful to all those who wrote to us and participated in the constructive debate on this issue.
"Media ownership policy must balance two key objectives. First, it must underpin the diversity of viewpoint that is necessary in any healthy democracy.

931
The Government believe that this requires additional safeguards on plurality of ownership, beyond those required by competition law alone. Secondly, it must ensure that the media industry is able to respond to the changing demands of the marketplace, and in particular, that it is able to take advantage of the market opportunities which flow from accelerating technological change.
"Technological convergence is not only bringing together functions that have traditionally been separated, but it is also creating an enormous variety of new products and markets. It is inevitably difficult to predict the exact nature and pace of this change. But, as different media sectors converge, media ownership regulation needs to look at the media market as a whole if its core objectives are to be delivered.
"The importance of developing a new approach will be reinforced by the introduction of digital broadcasting over the next few years. This will lead to more channels, more choice for viewers and listeners, and more opportunities for media companies. The Government will be following up my announcement today by publishing their proposals for digital broadcasting later in the summer.
"Against the background of these changes, I am putting forward for consultation a long-term proposal for the future regulation of media ownership which has three main features. First, the media market would be treated as a whole. Secondly, market share thresholds would be established below which media ownership would be regulated only by normal competition law. Thirdly, a regulator would be established who would be empowered to restrict concentration above the thresholds where he or she deemed such concentration to be contrary to the public interest.
"For the purposes of consultation, I propose total media market share thresholds at 10 per cent. of the national media market; 20 per cent. of a regional market; and 20 per cent. of the individual press, radio or television sectors.
"Such a model would provide a flexible and durable framework which would better accommodate the dynamics of the media industry, while continuing to safeguard the public interest in diversity and plurality. I also believe, however, that the substitution of the existing structure by an entirely new framework of rules must be based on full consultation and widespread acceptance that the new structure is fair. I shall therefore welcome views from all interested parties on this proposal.
"In the meantime, action is required now. The Government therefore propose to introduce a package of immediate measures to remove unnecessary restrictions on the growth of media businesses. This will contain two elements.
"First, I am today introducing a package of proposals for change through secondary legislation. I am laying before the House an amendment to the Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) Order 1991, which, subject to the
932
overarching 15 per cent. threshold set by the points system set out in part IV of that order, will raise the number of local radio licences that may be held by a single person from 20 to 35, and relax the subsidiary limits on the holdings of radio licences in urban areas with a population between 1 million and 4.5 million.
"I am also consulting the ITC and BBC with a view to amending the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991. I propose to raise the equity ceiling between independent producers and broadcasters from 15 per cent. to 25 per cent.; and to amend the definition of an independent producer so that the ownership of any broadcasting interests outside the European Union do not disqualify an EU company from independent status within the United Kingdom.
"In addition, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has agreed to amend the newspaper merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act by doubling the threshold for automatic reference to the MMC from a circulation of 25,000 to a circulation of 50,000.
"These changes will allow greater consolidation within the radio industry; encourage greater investment and stability within the independent production sector; and reduce the costs of small mergers within the newspaper industry.
"The remaining short-term changes I am proposing today will require primary legislation, which will be brought forward at the earliest available opportunity.
"Subject to two important safeguards, the Government propose that newspaper companies with under 20 per cent. of national newspaper circulation will be able to control up to 15 per cent. of the television market, including up to two regional ITV licences, or one regional ITV licence and the Channel 5 licence. Newspaper companies with more than 20 per cent. of circulation share will be free to expand in satellite and cable up to 15 per cent. of the total television market, but regulation will continue to prevent them from owning more than 20 per cent. of any terrestrial ITV or Channel 5 licence.
"The new rules will also apply reciprocally, allowing television companies to acquire interests in newspapers on the same basis.
"Proposals for cross-control between television and newspaper companies will be subject to two safeguards. First, any such investment will require the consent of the Independent Television Commission, which will have power to restrict transactions which they deem to be contrary to the public interest. Secondly, no cross-control will be allowed between newspaper and television companies where the newspaper company's regional titles account for more than 30 per cent. of regional newspaper circulation in the relevant ITV region.
"The Government also propose that these arrangements to liberalise cross-investment between newspaper and television companies should be replicated for cross-investment in the radio sector. In addition, the Government will take the opportunity to remove the numerical limits on the holding of local

933
radio licences, but retain the overall 15 per cent. limit on the number of points in the radio ownership system.
"The Government will also abolish the rules which limit ownership between terrestrial television, satellite and cable. Terrestrial broadcasters will therefore be allowed to have controlling interests in satellite and cable companies, provided their total interests do not exceed 15 per cent. of the total television market. Satellite and cable companies will also be able to have outright ownership of ITV or Channel 5 licences, subject to the 15 per cent. market limit and the two licence limit.
"These principles will apply subject to one condition. The current rules for ownership of non-domestic satellite broadcasters and cable operators have already allowed for a much higher level of investment by newspapers in those sectors than in terrestrial television. The Government therefore propose that those satellite and cable companies which are more than 20 per cent. owned by a newspaper group with a national circulation share of more than 20 per cent. should continue to be restricted to a 20 per cent. holding in one ITV or Channel 5 licence, and 5 per cent. in any further ITV or Channel 5 licence.
"Finally, as part of the review, the Government have looked again at the ownership arrangements for ITN. We have decided that the principles underpinning the Broadcasting Act remain sound and that the 20 per cent. limit on individual stakes in ITN should remain. However, in order to give more ITV companies the opportunity to invest in ITN, we shall remove the 50 per cent. limit on total ITV holdings.
"Madam Speaker, our media industry is on the threshold of a new era. We cannot pretend that the changes in technology, and their impact upon the marketplace, are not taking place. We have an obligation to create the legislative framework which allows the industry to respond to these changes. At the same time, we must protect the diversity of our media, which is an essential element of our democracy.
"The approach which I have outlined today does two things. First, it suggests a fundamental long-term reform of media ownership in Britain, and allows time for the implications of this proposal to be properly considered. Secondly, it proposes some more immediate changes which balance more liberal ownership regulation with the introduction of a new provision for public interest scrutiny of the growth of media businesses. I commend it to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the production of this White Paper after long and almost elephantine gestation, and especially for the earlier than usual chance to read it. That was a great courtesy and very welcome. We as an opposition cautiously welcome it—which I believe in political code means that we think it rather good. We like the long-term approach; we
934
approve of the broad points system of treating the media market as a whole while retaining separate assessments for each market sector; and we congratulate the Minister on the suggestion of a maximum 10 per cent. ceiling share for the whole media market. The Secretary of State clearly defeated those free market jungle predators who wanted to allow a free rein for the media mogul monopolists. We congratulate the Minister on that.
In general, we welcome the retention of a system of modest regulation. The reality and the irony to economists is that an unregulated market in the media would actually promote monopoly, or certainly dominance. Regulation is therefore not state censorship, but is a means of ensuring pluralism, diversity and choice in the media market. The Government always have a duty to promote plurality of ownership in order to protect plurality of sources of information and comment, and a duty to prevent the emergence and dominance by over-mighty companies who could exercise excessive and unaccountable influence on the political process.
I must state categorically that to me the media is not just another market: it is crucial to the workings of democracy, and its power has significantly increased in recent years. It is perhaps now the First rather than the Fourth Estate. So ownership of the media operates centrally in both a political and also in a cultural context and is quite different from any other industry.
Of course, we accept the need for change, which is well set out in this paper. Technological change makes regulatory change inevitable. The advent of cable and satellite TV, the development of digital technology, meaning no longer a spectrum scarcity, and the convergence of the various media sectors, means that we have a multi-channel environment without the traditional sector boundaries. That means that we must revise how and what we regulate. But full technological revolution will not happen overnight, so it is correct that this regulatory adjustment should be gradual. The technological convergence which is taking place means a potential convergence of control of the common carriers of information and comment. So the questions of media dominance and media access—and indeed of individual privacy—become more and not less important.
Looking at the suggested points system, we must assess whether it does deal with that critical issue of monopoly or market dominance. What is suggested is sophisticated and complex, but it has the advantages of flexibility and future modification. I do not wish today to get involved in a discussion of the micro-mechanics of the points system although we are sympathetic to the broad approach. We particularly welcome the 20 per cent. newspaper circulation ceiling on TV ownership, which appears to prevent the existing giants from expanding further into television. We are also pleased that the proposals seem—I should like the Minister's help on this—to be based on an audience percentage, since if it were based on the share of the advertising market we would have to question that, since that is not in any way central to the burgeoning satellite broadcasting where subscription and not advertising provides up to 80 per cent. of revenue.

935
The central point in these new proposals is the suggestion of a regulator with powers to govern media ownership. That is a very interesting and critical suggestion. The White Paper appears open-minded on whether that person is a new creation or whether, say, the existing Director-General of Fair Trading is used. We shall look at that. But we must avoid the danger of using a normal industry regulator who might view the media as a normal industry, which it is certainly not. The definition of public interest criteria will also be very important and not easy. The regulator will have great power. We shall need to know who appoints him; from where; and to whom he or she is accountable. We must make sure that such a regulator understands the special characteristics of this industry. He must be full time and of great authority.
As regards the relationship between newspapers and television, I ask the Minister to confirm whether any national newspaper, except the top two groups, can buy any two regional TV stations—not London stations. Our worry is that that might erode the regional character so valuable in the smaller ITV franchises. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. Perhaps he will also say something about foreign ownership. I did not spot that. Of course, at present Disney owns 25 per cent. of GM-TV, and predatory Europeans could own 100 per cent; but no British company is allowed to do so. Does the Minister have any comment on foreign ownership?
On the important question of the satellite encryption decoding system, the Minister will know that our concerns are that at present the encryption decoding system, which is the gateway to satellite distribution on Astra, is controlled by a body which is also the major programme supplier to that satellite television. It can therefore price the entry—and indeed presumably refuse the entry—to competitors offering competing programme channels. Has the Minister any proposals to ensure the freedom of entry there? I was not sure what the White Paper was saying. Do the Government incline towards a statutory code guaranteeing equal access?
As regards ITN, we accept that the combined ITV holdings can go above 50 per cent. and we welcome the re-statement of the 20 per cent. limit on individual stakes in ITN. We welcome the suggestion in relation to independent producers. We have been very concerned to maintain a British TV programme production industry. We do not wish to see it abandoned like the film industry. So the proposal for greater investment in individual producers seems to us immediately a sensible one. Has the Minister any more assurances on protection for British TV production? Has he any comment on the European proposals, quotas or guaranteed minimum UK content?
On this side of the House we approach this very important media ownership issue with certain basic principles, objectives and priorities in mind. We firmly believe in the desirability of plurality of ownership, and we oppose the concentration of ownership which threatens to produce dominance in any media. We believe in the need to protect and promote diversity in the sources of programming and writing. We believe in the prime importance of quality and also in the importance of regional strength.
936
This White Paper addresses those issues. It is interesting and challenging. Our final and measured response will depend on how far we ultimately believe that it satisfies those criteria and priorities. My first instinctive response is that it is encouraging.
4 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in thanking the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement made in another place and particularly for the courtesy of giving us an advance copy of the paper which he has produced. That was immensely helpful.
The Department of National Heritage has been knocked a little over recent months as being the "Department of Nothing Happening". I am bound to say that it has lived down that reputation with this White Paper with its complex proposals for dealing with media monopoly.
The Statement is rightly based on the premise that the landscape of the media has changed out of all recognition over recent years. Within the nation state of the United Kingdom the old traditional frontiers between the print media and the broadcast media have been fast disappearing, as have the international boundaries. We are in a global marketplace. The Statement and the document that lies behind it are complex and will require more detailed study before we can come to a considered conclusion. Basically, however, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said.
The Government have been grappling in a serious and constructive way with some difficult problems. I should like to address one or two aspects of those problems and seek some response from the noble Viscount. I turn first to the question of regional monopoly, particularly in the areas of television and commercial radio. The regional aspect is of critical importance. As I understand the document, it suggests that if a regional newspaper owner has 30 per cent. of the newspaper circulation in his area, he would be entitled to move on to 100 per cent. ownership of a regional television station in the same area and to 100 per cent. ownership of local radio stations. The question of regional monopoly needs the most rigorous consideration. I know from my own experience how damaging regional monopoly could be to the interests of the viewers, listeners and readers. It could also damage the interests of the advertising industry in that area.
That point underlines the great importance of the arrangements with regard to regulation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, about the importance of the regulator who will emerge from the second stage of the Government's proposals. However, I am not at all clear about who the current regulator is. I was happy to note that the Independent Television Commission will have a regulatory role in determining whether cross-ownership between television and the press is in the public interest, but I should be grateful for further amplification on that point.
I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that what lies at the heart of this is the fact that the media industry is a very special industry. It has tremendous economic importance and is now of some

937
international importance to us as an export industry. However, it is much more than that. The raw materials of the media industry are not only physical, but encompass the culture and climate of opinion in our society. Therefore, its regulation requires particularly careful handling.
I should like to mention two other matters in passing. I very much welcome the proposals about Independent Television News. We fought a long and hard battle in this House—I believe that the same thing happened in another place—to persuade the Government of the wisdom of allowing the ITV companies to have a majority shareholding. There was the most stubborn resistance to that, so I warmly welcome the Government's repentance on the matter.
The problem of encryption of satellite and subscription broadcasting is also important. However, I do not see any mention of it in the papers that I have had the opportunity to read. Did the Minister notice that the chief executive of the Independent Television Commission, Mr. David Glencross, said the other day that the situation was now so serious that the voluntary arrangements were patently failing? He called explicitly for some statutory provision to ensure that the gatekeepers of the new subscription services should not at the same time be the programme providers and therefore in a dominating position where they could interfere with the reasonable prospects of new entrants to the industry.
I should also like to know about the arrangements in your Lordships' House for dealing with these matters. Many of the immediate proposals are to be the subject of secondary legislation. Can the Minister say something about the form of that? Will such legislation take the form of an order that requires affirmative resolution? Will we have an opportunity to scrutinise some of those arrangements? Is there the possibility of a general debate on these very important proposals?
Finally, I should like to say a word about the legislation which the Minister has promised for the autumn, I presume. Perhaps I may reiterate an earlier plea. Not only is the new charter for the BBC on the stocks, but we now have major new proposals for cross-media ownership. I think that that presents the opportunity for a really comprehensive piece of legislation which can deal with some of the major flaws in the present Broadcasting Act at the same time.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that has been given to the White Paper by the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Thomson of Monifieth. In welcoming it, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that it was rather good. I am grateful for that. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that the department is known as the "Department of Nothing Happening". The noble Lord now knows what we have been up to for the past few months.
Both noble Lords asked a number of questions with which I shall try to deal. I turn first to the importance of the regulator. Obviously, that is an extremely important point. In the short term, the regulators will remain the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority. However, the document makes clear that we
938
shall consider whether we need an ITC or something more similar to the regulator for the competition authorities. We shall look at that point in the future, but in the short term that role will be fulfilled by the two regulatory authorities that exist at the moment.
Both noble Lords asked about regional policy. Again, that is an extremely important issue. We must not forget the advertisers out there and that they must have a choice. Our proposals are that no newspaper owner whose regional titles account for more than 30 per cent. of any regional market would be allowed to buy or control the Channel 3 licence for that region. However, it is important to remember that the ITC's programming requirements for those ITV licences ensures that there is regional programming. It will be up to the ITC to ensure that regional programming still exists.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked about foreign ownership. There is no change to the position on foreign ownership that is set out in the Broadcasting Act 1990. The existing rules will stay. They prohibit non-EU ownership of terrestrial licences whether by an individual or a corporate body. That remains the position.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, asked about encryption. That is an important area. We believe that competition law is the first line of defence and that this is a matter which the competition authorities will consider if they wish to do so. It is extremely important that the markets are operated properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, also asked about ITN. We have had some debates on ITN in your Lordships' House and I am glad to say that the Government listened carefully to all the views that were expressed by noble Lords on all sides of the House, including those on my own Benches. We took those views seriously and have brought forward proposals which I trust that your Lordships will find acceptable.
The noble Lord also asked about the legislation that we are bringing forward. It will be by affirmative resolution and will therefore be brought before your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked about the quotas for independent production. We want to increase investment in independent production and hope that our proposals will achieve that. With regard to EC quotas, obviously that is not part of this review and our work on that is being taken forward separately. I remind your Lordships that we have said in the Statement that this summer we shall be issuing a further document on digital broadcasting.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend say a bit more about the position of the regulator? First, is there to be one regulator covering the whole area or, as he seemed at one stage to be suggesting, different regulatory authorities? Secondly, when is it proposed to appoint the regulator or regulators? Have the Government in mind the desirability of getting, first, the right man for this immensely difficult job; and, secondly, getting him into authority early so that he has time to look at the situation before the whole impact of

939
the matter falls upon him? In other words, will my noble friend expand a good deal on what he said about the position of the regulator or regulators?
I did not follow my noble friend's reference to foreign ownership. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, seemed to think that foreign owners would have certain advantages in certain areas. Is that so? If it is so, what are those advantages? I rather hoped from what he was saying that he was disputing what the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, had said. Perhaps he will make it clear whether foreign owners are in the same position as British owners. Finally, will he say when your Lordships will have an opportunity to debate this matter?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about the regulator in reply to the questions asked by my noble friend. We have two regulatory bodies at the moment—the ITC and the Radio Authority. We intend to use those two bodies.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, both?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, both those bodies. We do not necessarily intend to create a new long-term regulator in the future. We suggest that the existing competition authorities might be given media-specific guidelines from which they can act. That would leave the ITC and the Radio Authority free to concentrate upon broadcasting issues, but that is very much for consultation and we shall be listening carefully to the views of your Lordships, the industry and the two existing regulators.
With regard to foreign ownership, we do not propose any change to the current rules. Under the Broadcasting Act 1990, an individual or a body corporate which is not resident in the EEC cannot be a Channel 3 licence holder. As I am sure my noble friend will know, there have never been ownership restrictions on newspapers in this country, and we have no intention of changing that. We must emphasise that we share the majority view that because of the media's ability to influence opinion and engender political debate, the industry cannot be treated as just any other industry; for example, manufacturing industry. For the foreseeable future, special rules are required to ensure diversity of opinion and plurality of ownership.
My noble friend asked me when we would be able to debate these changes. That is a matter for my noble friend the Chief Whip. When we debate the instruments will depend on how quickly they come from another place.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the Minister help the House about timing? He said that for the purpose of consultation the Government were proposing a 10 per cent. threshold. Does he think that that 10 per cent. will be in force by the time the licence for Channel 5 is granted? If it is not, will they delay the granting of the Channel 5 licence?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Channel 5 licence is being granted according to the existing rules and regulations under the Broadcasting Act 1990. The Channel 5 licence will be granted upon the basis of those rules. That must be the case. We have proposals
940
for the future, but those proposals will not come into force until a Bill goes through both Houses of Parliament and becomes an Act.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, it is a little difficult to absorb everything straightaway, but does this affect the BBC in any way? Will it be limited in joining forces with private enterprise companies—something upon which it has already started? Does this proposal control the BBC? Perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend on saying that flexibility is of considerable importance. The one thing we can be certain about is that ways around the regulations, whatever they are, will be found. It will be difficult, and so we must be flexible and stop some of the rat holes, which will clearly appear, before they damage the whole structure and we find ourselves with a monopoly. Flexibility and some time to think this out are needed. I hope that we shall have a considerable debate in the House because a great deal depends on how we structure all the competition which will exist with the new technologies.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. This is an extremely complicated area. The document we published is long and difficult to take in at first glance. My noble friend asked about the BBC. Of course the BBC is not the subject, as such, of the paper because this is a cross-media ownership paper, and of course ownership of the BBC does not come in to the matter. The ownership of the BBC is based upon its Royal Charter. No one owns it. My noble friend made the important point that where the BBC goes into business or partnership in some form of joint venture with a private or public corporation in the media world, that joint venture would of course be subject to regulations under our cross-media proposals.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I hope the House will forgive me for expressing some anxiety over the Statement. I tend always to be a little anxious when there is complete cross-party agreement on such matters because I have had experience in a different context, upon which I do not propose to enlarge this afternoon, of what at the moment I conceive to be the disastrous results of unanimity in that field.
My difficulty is that the degree of unanimity in your Lordships' House today to some extent corresponds with wide areas of agreement in the political and economic field about which one reads now from day to day between the leaders of my own party and the leaders of other parties. That may be symptomatic of an altogether different relationship between the parties than that to which we in this House have become accustomed over the centuries. We are all agreed on one thing: that the media are very, very powerful indeed, taken as a collective. Therefore, one has to ensure that the arrangements that are apparently in train now will cover eventualities in which the inherent antagonisms within society can be expressed in a less passive form than they are today.
What I am a little troubled about is the existence of a large underclass in our country; the large social differences that exist within our society; and the potential for conflict if the existence of the underclass goes on for a long time or is accentuated in the future.

941
Within the comparatively placid political atmosphere of the times, in which there is such a large measure of agreement, how can we be sure that that will be sufficient to carry us into the future? I have the greatest doubts about that. We should not allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is the occasional dissenting voice not on subjects such as this but on the EU. However, he raised an important point, which is: what do we want the media industry to be? How large do we want it to be? How large should it be? We have looked long and hard at the matter and have put forward the 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. proposals.
If we are to have a strong, independent media—whether broadcasting, newspapers, satellite, radio or cable—it is important that it is a viable industry. It must be able to invest, expand and compete on a European basis and in world markets If we have a viable industry the section about which the noble Lord was concerned will find its voice. It will not find its voice if we have a weak industry that cannot make its voice heard.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most people will wish to know what effect the proposals will have on the independence of broadcasting producers, news editors, programme directors and so forth? Will he assure the House that the independence of such people will be maintained and will not be influenced by those who are investing in the various independent television companies.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. Of course, newspapers and television companies have different policies: historically newspapers have a view and a strong editorial policy but broadcasters do not. According to the regulation of their licence, broadcasters are required not to present the views which newspapers present; they are required to have independence and balance. That is extremely important and it is important that we maintain the position. That is the role of the ITC, and I am sure that it will continue as such.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the exchanges and I do not refer to my noble friend Lord Renton, who has just intervened. However, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I remind them of page 81 of the Companion to the Standing Orders which states:
"Ministerial statements are made for the information of the House, and although brief comments and questions for clarification from all quarters of the House are allowed, such statements should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate".
As always, I am in your Lordships' hands, but I hope that the House will remind itself of the wisdom of what is contained in our red book.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, for several years I worked in the European Parliament on the EU Commission paper dealing with this subject. Luckily, it was not accepted. Therefore, I congratulate the Government on producing these long-awaited and important proposals on such a complex subject. They were so right to have taken their time and not to have
942
rushed into making the proposals. They are so important because today the media have such enormous power and influence in the world.
Here is a fine example of a government legislating for the future—and an exciting future. Will the Minister urge the Secretary of State at the next EU council meeting to make certain that this fine example will be followed and will not be tampered with in any way?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, the EU is at a relatively early stage of its consultations and might not put forward its firm proposals for some time. We believe that it is important for our industry and for British consumers to act now, and that can lead to a wider debate within Europe. We hope that our proposals will be looked at very carefully by the EU and other countries in Europe which have different rules. Some EU countries have a media controlled by significantly large groups. Indeed, those groups are significantly larger than any of the groups which exist or trade in this country.
We believe that the EU proposals are some way off. We wish to be at the forefront of the discussions in order to ensure that the single market operates in the best interests of the commercial and consumer interests of Europe and this country.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, are the Government considering monopoly practices such as using other money or commercial strength to damage the circulation of an opponent's newspaper, as we have seen in the present price war? Is there a clanger of that happening in the other forms of media; and are the Government concerned about that practice?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is for those in the newspaper industry to decide what price to put on their newspapers. If in any instance there are complaints about unfair practices it would be for the competition authority to decide the matter and not the Department of National Heritage.
We must remember that broadcasters are in a slightly different position; television broadcasters are regulated by the ITC and radio broadcasters are regulated by the Radio Authority. Therefore, there is not the similar read-across as is the case with newspapers.
It is extremely important that nationally and regionally concentrations of regional ownership, whether in Scotland or wherever else, do not exist. The consumers will then have the widest choice and the advertisers, who pay the bills and allow commercial radio and television to survive, will have freedom of choice and the ability to advertise their products in a proper and competitive way.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the start of regulatory convergence. Will the Government remember that "multi-media" is considerably wider than just those two regulators and that there are many more to come? Some of us have been looking at those who can affect various parts of the media in the UK and we have counted up to 20. Four are in Brussels and the rest are in the UK. I hope that this is a first stage and the wider aspects of multi-media will engage the Government's attention significantly.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, one of the reasons for the proposal is the wider aspects of the media and the fact that there is a convergence of different media. It is difficult to see where the overlap begins and ends. That is why, for example, we have abolished the restrictions in ownership between terrestrial, satellite and cable broadcasters. All will be subject to the same ownership regulations. There are numerous delivery systems and therefore one cannot have a regulatory system which regulates one system in a different way from another. What matters to the consumer and to the public interest is what comes out and what is available to the public. That is what we should be looking at and that is how we wish to regulate the system in the future. Whatever the new delivery system, it will always fall under our cross-media proposals.

Jobseekers Bill
4.28 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 3 [The income-based conditions]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, leave out lines 10 to 14 and insert:
("(ii) who has reached the age of 16, but not the age of 18, and is registered for training but is not being provided with any training.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 2 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, and 27, which are consequential. Amendment No. 2 is modest to the point of bashfulness. It does not conflict with any of the major items of government policy; with the requirement of compulsory registration for training; or with the requirement that there shall be no benefit for those who do not register for training. In fact it covers only two groups. One of them concerns those who are registered for youth training and are waiting for their first place, who of course have done everything that is required of them by law and still need to eat in the meantime before their place is provided. In 1991, according to Mrs. Shepherd, the average waiting time for a first place was eight weeks. I understand that subsequently the waiting time has considerably improved, in part thanks to Mrs. Shepherd's own efforts, which are appreciated. But it will not necessarily stay that short forever. It is a problem which may recur.
The second group, and I think the rather larger group, to which it applies are people who have registered for a youth training course, have completed it as required and have maybe gained a qualification but have not reached their 18th birthday and therefore are not eligible for JSA.
According to the MORI report commissioned by the Department of Social Security itself, 58 per cent. of youth training courses last three months or less. The likelihood therefore is that in a period of two years somebody will complete a course of youth training before the two-year period is up and before the JSA eligibility comes in; in fact the number might be very considerable indeed. It is in that situation that it often takes longest to find people a new training place, and it is while the Government and the TECs are trying to find
944
such people a new training place that eligibility for JSA, because they have met the condition of registration and no training has as yet been provided, would, I think, be most relevant.
The amendment supersedes the existing severe hardship payments which were a well-intentioned attempt to do what was needed by an extremely cumbrous, ineffective and administratively burdensome route. It supersedes also the "dog licence" of the 1990s, the bridging allowance which, like the dog licence, has been left un-uprated for so long that it has become positively nugatory. The bridging allowance which is supposed to be paid to people between YT placements for eight weeks is £15 a week. That will barely buy you a zone two travelcard in London. It will leave you £1.20 for all other expenses. If there are any people who can eat on £1.20 a week I have not yet met them. I should be interested to talk to them: I might learn something.
The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 27, which preserves the prerogative of mercy, as with the availability rules, of treating people as registered for training when they are not yet registered for training. That is purely a prerogative of mercy. It is strictly under the Secretary of State's control. It just deals with that part of the severe hardship need which is not actually covered by the registration for training. Take, for example, the following case, which comes to me from Barnardos. A young woman of 17 had been in receipt of severe hardship payments and was due to take up a place on a YT scheme; she was properly registered and looking for a place. The week before her training began she was indecently assaulted and, being severely traumatised, did not begin the course. A prerogative of mercy in a case like that is, I think, not unreasonable. That is the kind of situation that Amendment No. 27 is designed to meet.
The Government may say, since they are so certain that their guarantee is working, that this amendment does not apply to anybody at all. I would say that, if so, it is a cheap amendment and will cost the Government nothing. If they say that it is unnecessary, why do they not accept it so as to ensure that it remains unnecessary? It is after all in the nature of a guarantee that you get something back if a situation is not met. But in fact as at December 1994, the first group covered by this amendment included 15,849 people registered for youth training and waiting for a place. Its cost at the lower rate would be £443,000, or £573,000 at the higher living-at-home rate. Half a million pounds for saving 15,000 lives seems to me to be really quite a good buy. In fact I think that there are many more than that. The Nottingham Young People's Benefit Campaign has drawn my attention to the fact that there are large numbers of people in the last few months before their 18th birthday who do not get a training place because they do not have time to complete a course. They have someone at present who has been refused by three trainers and who is not 18 until July 1995. These people have done nothing wrong. They have done everything that is required of them; they have met all the conditions of eligibility. Why should not something be done for them?
The Minister may say that they should live at home. In the MORI report, 65 per cent. of those claiming severe hardship had been thrown out by their parents. In the Centre Point sample of December 1994, 86 per cent. had been thrown out by their parents. Being thrown out by your parents is bad enough but to be deprived of benefit on top of it is a form of double jeopardy. Ten per cent. of those claiming severe hardship were from care and had no homes to go to; 50 per cent. of them had no money at all; 25 per cent. of them admitted that they had begged, stolen or sold drugs to survive. Self-incrimination usually involves an under-statement of the evidence. That 25 per cent. figure, based on self-incrimination, is startlingly high and should give us all cause for concern. This amendment allows YT to continue on a much more stable basis. Indeed, I would be inclined to believe that without this amendment, YT cannot be on a stable basis at all. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for explaining these amendments. We have had a number of debates on the question of 16 and 17 year-olds, as the Bill has moved through its various stages. The noble Earl has returned to this general proposition on a number of occasions. I fear that we will probably not agree on this issue, but I should like to explain once again how we see the treatment of 16 and 17 year-olds.
My noble friend and I have explained before that we believe it is important that young people should get the best possible start on their career path as early as possible through education, training or employment. I do not believe there is much disagreement on that. To that end we guarantee every 16 and 17 year-old who wants one a suitable training place, a training wage or an allowance. In general this means that there is no need for 16 and 17 year-olds to be unemployed and claiming benefit. However, as we have explained on a number of occasions, we recognise that there are exceptions and we provide for them.
First, certain 16 and 17 year-olds, such as disabled young people and lone parents, are able to claim income support without having to be available for employment, actively seeking employment or registering for employment or training. This will continue after the introduction of JSA. Secondly, certain other 16 and 17 year-olds in prescribed groups such as those leaving local authority care and couples with children will be allowed to claim JSA in their own right by virtue of Clause 3, subsection (1) (f) (iii). Thirdly, other 16 and 17 year-olds will be able to claim JSA if they can show that they would otherwise suffer severe hardship.
The first amendment we are dealing with, Amendment No. 2, would restore entitlement to benefit to all 16 and 17 year-olds who were registered for but not receiving training. That would run counter to the policy that I have described. Not being provided with training covers an enormous range of circumstances. The young person might have walked out of a training course or might have refused training. I have repeatedly said that, only exceptionally, should young people be eligible for benefit. The amendment would seriously
946
undermine that and act to encourage benefit dependency at an early age. As I have said on a number of occasions, we do not believe that that would be right.
I have explained our general policy and should now like to say a few words on Amendment No. 3. The amendment would affect 16 and 17 year-olds in the prescribed groups who will be able to claim JSA without having to prove severe hardship—care leavers and lone parents, for example. It would remove the requirement for them to register for training and employment. I cannot see how that would help those young people. The purpose of registration is to ensure that they receive the best possible help and advice from the careers service, especially advice on training opportunities. Registration is not onerous or burdensome. It enables the young person to discuss his career aspirations with a trained counsellor and will help him to make a start on the career ladder. Surely the House will agree that that is preferable to becoming dependent on benefit at an early age.
Most of the young people in this group are entitled to receive JSA only for a relatively short period. By the end of that period, most will be in training or employment. That is the measure of the success of our policy. As I explained, the few young people who are not in a training place, education or employment at the end of that period will be able to claim JSA if they would otherwise be at risk of severe hardship. In order to do so they will have to be registered for employment and training. So it makes good sense that they should have been registered right from the start I hope that I have reassured the noble Earl that there is nothing sinister in the requirement to register for training and employment. It is not a burden; it is a means of helping young people get started in the world of work.
I turn now to Amendment No. 4. I must say that I was not entirely clear about its purpose. However, now that I have heard the noble Earl's explanation, perhaps I may explain our intentions in a little more detail. Our intention is that regulations will prescribe certain groups of 16 and 17 year-olds who will be able to claim JSA by virtue of Clause 3(1) (f) (iii) without having to show severe hardship. We intend that they will be the same groups as are now able to receive income support on similar conditions. They include couples with children, those who are forced to live away from home due to the threat of abuse, and young people leaving care or custody.
The regulations will also prescribe the period for which they are allowed to claim JSA. In most cases the young person will be eligible to claim during the child benefit extension period (CBEP). That is the period for which a parent could claim child benefit for a child who has left school but has not started training, employment or education. That depends on the time of year at which the child leaves school. The period starts on the Monday after the "terminal date", which is the official date for the end of school; for example, for summer school leavers, the date is the first Monday in September. It continues for about three or four months. For summer school leavers, it ends on the first Monday in January.

947
Other 16 and 17 year-olds, such as those who leave local authority care and are forced to live away from home, and discharged young offenders, will be able to claim for up to eight weeks. The purpose of subsection (3) is to make clear on the face of the Bill how the period may be defined. In most cases that will be in terms of the number of weeks, but in a few cases the length of the period will be fixed in some other way. For instance, the period could be from the time of registration until the young person reaches the age of 18. There is no hidden intention in the subsection. It is intended simply to clarify how the prescribed period may be defined. I do not believe that it would be helpful to remove that clarification from the face of the Bill.
I turn now to Amendment No. 27 which is the final amendment in the group. It seeks to divert government policy relating to young people from its current path. I recognise that there are differences between the noble Earl and ourselves on the question of universal access to benefit. But it must surely be right for the Government to help unemployed young people into training or employment rather than to create the conditions in which they can drift into benefit dependency. I must emphasise yet again that the Government guarantee every young person who wants one a suitable youth training place. That is our policy and that is why access to benefit for this group is on an exceptional basis.
We recognise, of course, that there must be exceptions; and we provide for them. I have explained that young people in certain specified groups will continue to have access to income support following the introduction of JSA, and that provision will be made in JSA for those who are currently required to be available for work in order to receive benefit.
The amendment seeks to allow young people access to hardship payments where they are not registered for training. That is not a proposition with which I can agree. JSA is not made available to 16 and 17 year-olds unconditionally. They must show that they are prepared to take steps to help themselves out of benefit and into suitable training or work opportunities. The amendment seeks to bring young people within the ambit of the mainstream JSA provisions, which apply to claimants aged 18 and over. We reject that approach which cuts across our policy that young people in risk of severe hardship obtain benefit on an exceptional basis following a discretionary decision by the Secretary of State.
The noble Earl asked about young persons who complete a training course before their 18th birthday. However, very few young people will actually do so. Most complete training courses that last two years. If someone does complete training before his 18th birthday and has not found work, he should re-register for training at the career service. That person will be covered by the Government's guarantee. He may claim JSA while he waits for training if he would otherwise suffer severe hardship.
The noble Earl mentioned the case of a young girl who was too traumatised to take a place on a training course. As I have said on a number of occasions, it is
948
always difficult to comment on individual cases where the full details are not available regarding the young person. However, we have said before—and I am happy to say again—that a young person in such circumstances would be able to put the "good cause" argument for refusing to take a training place under JSA. But that essentially has to be a matter for the judgment of the officer in the Employment Service looking at the case in front of him and taking into account any problems involved such as those faced by the young woman mentioned by the noble Earl.
I apologise if I have gone on a little regarding this group of amendments. I appreciate that some of your Lordships feel most strongly about the position of 16 and 17 year-olds. We have covered the ground on a number of occasions but I thought it only right on Third Reading to set out as clearly as I possibly can the arrangements that we believe are the right ones for 16 and 17 year-olds. I repeat what underlies our whole view on the issue. We believe that young people should not be given any encouragement to start off on a life of benefit dependency. The education is there—both at school and in the form of further education—training is there, and the possibility of employment is there. We believe that we should take all possible steps to make sure that people are encouraged in every way to take up those opportunities and not depend from the early age of 16 on the benefit system.
I appreciate that the noble Earl feels strongly on the matter. I hope that I have at least put one or two things on the record which will show him that we do take into account those young people who fall into vulnerable groups or those who are subject to severe hardship. Nevertheless, I realise that there is a gulf between us. If the noble Earl decides to press the matter to a vote, I hope that my noble friends will support me.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He is, of course, right to say that there is a gulf between us. However, what he has not altogether taken on board is that that gulf does not relate only to our opinions; it is about facts more than it is about opinions. The noble Lord's response would have been very reassuring if only the central information in it had been true. In saying that, I do not for a moment impugn the Minister's integrity—of course I do not. I am impugning his department's methods of gathering records.
First, I want to take up the most surprising thing that the Minister said, which was that the average YT training course lasted two years. I have previously quoted the MORI figure. My noble kinsman Lord Henley said that he believed that figure to be wrong. I put down a Question for Written Answer asking him what was the mean length of a YT course. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that he did not know. I am extremely surprised to hear this information from the Minister today. I ask him when it became the case, because it argues a fundamental revolution in the way in which youth training is provided.
The Minister again invoked the guarantee. I asked the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, when he was at the Department of Employment, within what time a YT place was guaranteed. That is a vital question if you cannot eat until you get a place. The noble Viscount did

949
not know within what time a place was guaranteed. That is precisely the point of the amendment. While you wait for the place you must eat.
The figure that I gave of 15,849 waiting for a place comes from the careers service which, according to my noble kinsman Lord Henley, is the basic source of the Government's information. If it is the basic source of the Government's information how can they disbelieve it? Do they have any independent source showing that the careers service is misleading them? If the Minister can allege that I shall happily give way to him.
The Minister asked how it might help anyone to be exempted from the provision for compulsory training. I answer that it will help in exactly the same way as it helps some people in particular circumstances to be exempted from the rules relating to availability, as in the case of women in refuges. The Minister spoke very powerfully to that issue, and I accept his reassurances. His arguments belong equally here.
Perhaps I may give him one more example: the case of a 17 year-old who had recently suffered a miscarriage. She had been in care from 14 to 16 after being physically and sexually abused and had spent 10 months of her life in a children's psychiatric unit. She had missed a great deal of schooling. No pre-vocational skills programme was available, and she was without the skills to conduct a YT course without appropriate training. Her case represents one of the "two stools" cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, called our attention. However, she has to remain registered for YT, which she is not capable of undertaking, because otherwise she could not receive severe hardship benefit.
The Minister also suggested that the amendment would help people who refuse training. He may have been out of the Chamber during the consideration of the Bill when his noble friend Lord Inglewood introduced a welcome amendment, which deals with about 10 per cent. of the hardship cases I have here, which provides that you are not penalised if you leave training with good cause. With this amendment we would not help those who leave it without good cause. I believe that the amendment is within the lines of government policy. I believe that if the Government had accurate information they would accept it. In the meantime I ask the opinion of the House.
4.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 159.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Carter, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Chorley, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Avebury, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Blackstone, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

David, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

950

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dubs, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Mayhew, L.

Falkland, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Meston, L.

Fitt, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gallacher, L.

Monkswell, L.

Geraint, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Nicol, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ogmore, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Palmer, L.

Peston, L.

Gregson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grey, E.

Rea, L.

Hamwee, B.

Richard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Haskel, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Rochester, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hughes, L.

Seear, B.

Hylton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Serota, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Shannon, E.

Jay, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Simon, V.

Jeger, B.

Southwark, Bp.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Stallard, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stedman, B.

Judd, L.

Strafford, E.

Kennet, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Kintore, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lawrence, L.

Varley, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Listowel, E.

Whaddon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wharton, B.

Longford, E.

White, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wigoder, L.

McCarthy, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Carnock, L.

Addison, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Ailsa, M.

Cawley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Arran, E.

Chesham, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Astor, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Clinton, L.

Balfour, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Coleridge, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Biddulph, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Blatch, B.

Courtown, E.

Blyth, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Boardman, L.

Borthwick, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Davidson, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Derwent, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Digby, L.

Burnham, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Cadman, L.

Downshire, M.

Caithness, E.

Dundonald, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Elibank, L.

951

Ellenborough, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Elles, B.

Milverton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Finsberg, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Flather, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Foley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Munster, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nelson, E.

Gainford, L.

Newall, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Norrie, L.

Goschen, V.

Northesk, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Gridley, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Orkney, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Peel, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Pender, L.

Harrowby, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Henley, L.

Prior, L.

Hives, L.

Quinton, L.

Hogg, B.

Radnor, E.

Holderness, L.

Rawlings, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Renwick, L.

Hood, V.

Romney, E.

Howe, E.

Roxburghe, D.

St. Davids, V.

Inglewood, L.

Seccombe, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Selborne, E.

Kenilworth, L.

Killearn L.

Sharpies, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Kimball, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Knollys, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Knutsford, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Leigh, L.

Strange, B.

Lindsay, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Liverpool, E.

Sudeley, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Swinton, E.

Lucas, L.

Tebbit, L.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Trumpington, B.

Ullswater, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vinson, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Vivian, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Waterford, M.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Westbury, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wolfson, L.

Mersey, V.

Wynford, L.

Middleton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.2 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Amount payable by way of a jobseeker's allowance]:
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Serious underlying medical condition
.—(1) Regulations made under section 20(4) and under paragraphs 8 and 10 of Schedule 1 shall provide that a vulnerable person shall be entitled to income-based jobseeker's allowance from a prescribed date.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular provide for a person to be treated as vulnerable if they have a serious underlying medical condition.
(3) The following are examples of circumstances where regulations may prescribe that a person be treated as having a serious underlying medical condition—

(a) as a result of an existing physical or mental condition, the person's health is likely to deteriorate if benefit is not paid;

(b) the person's physical or mental health is such that the non-payment of benefit will put the person at risk of excessive physical or mental distress.

(4) Where a person is seeking to demonstrate a serious underlying medical condition, any costs incurred in obtaining medical evidence shall be borne by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to put on the face of the Bill a definition of "serious underlying medical condition" which would enable a hardship payment to be made immediately, and for any cost of verification of such condition to be met out of public funds.
The amendment will put into the Bill some examples of the meaning of "serious underlying medical condition" which builds on one of the categories of "vulnerability" for the purposes of making a hardship payment. Those payments can be made where a person has been unable to show that he satisfies the conditions for claiming jobseeker's allowance or where a doubt has arisen as to his entitlement.
The Government have already accepted the need to define the key conditions of "availability" and "actively seeking work". Yet there is no indication of the circumstances when hardship payments can be made. As someone is at risk of being without any form of benefit, it is crucial that claimants and staff know precisely what is intended.
At Report, the Minister stated:
"We wish to allow the adjudication officers discretion to consider individual circumstances and therefore we do not propose to set out a list of specific conditions which could exclude some claimants and not take account of the severity of the condition".—[Official Report, 16/5/95; col. 463.]
Given that many illnesses and disabilities are hidden, it is not always easy for staff to make quick but comprehensive assessments about a claimant's condition. How will they decide who is vulnerable when faced with the variety of chronic or fluctuating disabilities? Under the current discretionary system, fewer than half of those applying for hardship payments in 1993 received them. Discretion alone may not be enough to protect the most vulnerable, as is indicated by the department's own research reports (Nos. 8 and 9) into the operation of the discretionary social fund which offered little evidence that those given awards had greater needs than those refused.
Ensuring that sick and disabled people are covered in vulnerable groups is important because only vulnerable people will have access to hardship payments immediately, or once an adverse decision has been made. The Minister has indicated two categories of "vulnerable" which concern ill health and disability. The first is entitlement to a disability premium. However, that helps a minority of unemployed sick and disabled people, as the premium is payable only to those registered blind or receiving disability allowance—which itself covers only care and mobility needs. Other

953
needs such as heating, diet and communication are not met. Indeed, the Policy Studies Institute has estimated that fewer than half the people with health-related needs would have been eligible for the disability premium when it was introduced in 1988.
The second category is "serious underlying medical condition" which the Minister has indicated can include people with dietary needs. However, it is important that someone with a condition like diabetes is considered as having a serious condition for hardship purposes. I understand that one unemployed client of a citizens advice bureau with diabetes was unable to follow a fat and sugar free diet as advised by her doctor because of lack of money. That could have meant that her condition would have deteriorated.
With at least 150,000 sick and disabled people having their incapacity benefit withdrawn and having to sign on, there is concern that many of those people could find difficulty in fulfilling the conditions of the jobseeker's allowance and therefore could have the possibility of hardship payments as their only source of income. Many of those people could have conditions which might deteriorate rapidly if subsequently they were unable to receive hardship payments.
Factors such as possible deterioration in condition or risk of distress are obvious matters which should be taken into account when assessing whether a person falls into that category of "vulnerable". Such matters are already in regulations concerning good cause. Stress brought on by money worries can exacerbate conditions such as mental health, digestion or respiratory problems, and can in turn make it far more difficult for the person to cope with financial problems.
It is equally important that any medical or other evidence required in support of the claimant's contention is free of charge to the claimant. When a hardship payment is being considered, the claimant should not be placed in the position of having to borrow or go into debt—or indeed into greater debt—in order to obtain a letter from his doctor. The amendment ensures that any costs relating to the medical evidence arc not borne by the claimant.
During the Committee stage, the Minister stated that discussions between the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security were under way concerning the costs of medical evidence generally. When the Minister replies, will he state whether the discussions have been concluded, and, if so, what was the outcome.
Finally, the Minister has stated that there has to be a balance between claimants' obligations in return for benefit, and protection for the most vulnerable. As hardship payments are reduced by up to 40 per cent. of the basic rate, which currently amounts to only £27.90 for a single person, access to such payments is unlikely to be sufficiently attractive to undermine the conditions of the jobseeker's allowance. I believe the amendment ensures that the Government's own definition truly protects the most vulnerable. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to those on the amendment, and from these Benches we support it. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen,
954
explained its purpose extremely well, so I can be brief. It is to ensure that the term "serious underlying medical condition" is interpreted broadly in order to protect anyone whose state of health is such as would make them vulnerable, were their income to be removed. The amendment would ensure that claimants are not faced with additional financial burdens of paying for the medical evidence they require in support of their claim.
We can all foresee that there could be problems for the Benefits Agency in deciding whether someone is vulnerable because of sickness. Potentially large numbers of people will not be eligible for the disability premium, as the noble Lord said, but will nevertheless be in poor health and will seek to demonstrate a serious underlying medical condition.
The intention is to ensure that when considering whether a person suffers from such a condition the staff at the Benefits Agency take a broad approach. The amendment therefore provides that an indication be given on the face of the Bill as to the circumstances which should fall to be considered, as well as ensuring that claimants who have to provide medical evidence to confirm their health problems are not financially penalised.
It is clear that the provision of medical evidence to support an argument that someone is suffering from a serious underlying medical condition would be necessary. We presume that the Benefits Agency staff will require such evidence. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that when he replies. There could be problems for claimants in obtaining such evidence. There is increasing evidence that GPs are insisting on charging for medical reports which people need in connection with benefit claims. We feel that that adds yet a further problem to the situation in which such people find themselves.
The people in need of hardship payments on the grounds of vulnerability will need to have their claims dealt with by the Benefits Agency swiftly and thoroughly. It is therefore important not only that a claimant is able to provide proof of their circumstances but also that no delay is caused by arguments over the cost of medical evidence. The amendment therefore provides for any cost to be met automatically by the DSS in that situation. That could be easily implemented through the use of a single form for all claimants to fill in and forward to their GP.
It is an important amendment and we hope that the Government will see the strength of the argument. These people need help and we feel that the words should be on the face of the Bill so that this help can be provided swiftly and efficiently.
Earl Russell: My Lords, hardship payments under the Bill are rather like baths under the rule of St. Benedict. According to the rule of St. Benedict, the old may have baths, and the sick, but to the young and especially those in good health they shall be seldom permitted. That is precisely the situation with hardship payments. To the young and especially those in good health, they shall be seldom permitted.
To be eligible for hardship payments, you have to be established as being in a vulnerable group. That is the point of introducing the phrase "serious underlying

955
medical condition". I think I am right in saying that that was the Minister's own phrase, used in the first day of Committee. So he has to take some responsibility for it.
The kind of thing which, as I understand it, should be covered by the amendment is asthma—which is increasing so distressingly fast—hypertension or depression, which is a particularly common illness among those on benefit. All those make people vulnerable. They are all the kind of things which being totally without benefit might cause to worsen, possibly to the detriment of the person's employability for life. It seems sensible to include them.
The amendment also provides assistance with fees for medical certificates for those conditions. This appears, as a result of the market tendencies inside the health service, to be a rapidly growing problem. For example, there is the case reported by a CAB in Suffolk of a single parent whose son suffered from asthma thought to be caused by mites in house dust. She applied for a grant for a vacuum cleaner. The Benefits Agency, reasonably enough, asked for a doctor's confirmation of her son's asthma. The charge for the report from the doctor was £9.50. She could not afford the fee, so she did not get the vacuum cleaner, so the asthma continued. We do not think that that is in the public interest.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Swinfen. The Government's current narrow definition will exclude many people in poor health, particularly those with chronic illness or in a state of poor health. Those are the very people who need our help and support.
I should like to give an example from a citizens advice bureau in the south west. It reported the case of a widower who was receiving medical treatment for depression. He was told by the jobcentre that unless he accepted the offer of a part-time job as a driver, paying £2.30 an hour, with no work during the school holidays, his income support would be stopped. Accepting the job led to a number of problems which worsened his state of mental health. He was earning too little to pay national insurance contributions—a situation which worried him greatly. When he visited the bureau, his housing benefit had been withdrawn—it was subsequently reinstated, due to his low income—and he feared that he would be made homeless as a result. He told the adviser that he was contemplating committing suicide by throwing himself into the river.
We should all think long and carefully before rejecting my noble friend's amendment because, if your Lordships reject it, a large number of people who are not severely disabled enough to qualify for incapacity benefit but who nevertheless are in poor health are in danger of failing to meet the jobseeker's test as a result of being deprived of even a minimum income.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, there is an additional point to be made here, following what my noble friend has just said, and it is perhaps a slightly more cynical one. If the amendment is not passed, cases will be brought up by the tabloids in a way that will be highly damaging to Her
956
Majesty's Government. Therefore, serious consideration ought to be given to the matter before the amendment is rejected.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the amendment deals with the definitions of the vulnerable groups which will have access to hardship payments following the imposition of a sanction under Clause 19, or failure to meet the availability or actively seeking work conditions for receipt of JSA, or who have not agreed a satisfactory jobseeker's agreement. I think it is helpful to be clear at the outset about something perhaps not made entirely clear during the course of the debate: that is, the groups we are dealing with and the fact that the claimants involved have either failed to meet the necessary conditions for benefit or have made themselves unemployed or failed to pursue an opportunity to take themselves out of unemployment.
I have made clear on many occasions that we accept that there is a need to provide in these circumstances for claimants whose circumstances mean that they, or others for whom they have responsibility, are particularly vulnerable to hardship. We have set out the basic groups who will have access to payments if they demonstrate they would otherwise suffer hardship. I have also said, and must say again, that we do not accept that claimants should automatically have access to benefit at all times irrespective of their actions and choices. In the case of single, healthy claimants, we believe they must meet the basic conditions of entitlement if they wish to receive JSA.
That is the Government's basic approach to these issues. We intend to set out in regulations the detailed definitions of the vulnerable groups, and the factors which an adjudication officer will have to take into account in reaching a decision on whether hardship will arise. These are sensitive matters which may need fine-tuning in the future. They are therefore best dealt with through secondary legislation.
Turning now to the amendment, I should like to deal first with the issue of vulnerability on medical grounds, which is the subject of Amendment No. 7 and which is also covered in Amendment No. 8. We have already made clear that claimants who have a serious underlying medical condition that means that the removal of benefit would make them particularly vulnerable to hardship will have access to payments.
We will wish to look carefully at how to define that condition in the regulations. Taking physical conditions first, we have made clear that we do not believe it right to list specific medical conditions in regulations. It is important that the adjudication officer should be able to use his discretion to consider the claimant's individual circumstances as a whole, and the severity and effects of the illness in his particular case. Claimants applying for a hardship payment will be asked to give details of any serous illness from which they or a family member suffer and to explain how this affects them. In particular, they would be expected to give details of any essential costs associated with the condition—for example the costs of treatment and dietary or other needs. The basic test will be whether the illness is such as to make the claimant vulnerable to hardship, and the adjudication officer will be free to take into account any factors which he feels are

957
relevant to this decision. We will be giving careful thought to how far we can or indeed should go in guiding adjudication officers to look at particular factors here, given the complex nature of the judgments involved. We believe that the number of cases will be extremely small, given that many serious conditions are controllable through medication, which is provided free of charge, and people on low incomes can receive free prescriptions which will ensure that they can maintain their normal level of treatment. We also believe it is right that any factors that we list should be circumstances which must be taken into account and not circumstances in which a claimant must be treated as in hardship in order to allow for the necessary flexibility to cope with each individual case. I should emphasise again that the presence of a medical condition will not of itself automatically provide access to benefit; the adjudication officer must decide that there is a clear risk of hardship arising.
We have also considered carefully whether the provisions should apply to mental disorders. I have to say that at this stage I am not convinced that they should. The new incapacity test should ensure that no one with a serious mental health problem has to claim JSA. Indeed, they will be exempt from the "all-work" test. Where a claimant's mental illness is mild or moderate the test will be applied but if it is clear from the questionnaire and medical evidence from the claimant's GP that he is not capable of work, then again he will not be required to attend a medical interview and incapacity benefit will be awarded. If the test is applied fully and the claimant does not reach the necessary points score, it is still open to the Benefits Agency medical officer to consider whether, despite the scores, the nature of the clamant's disorder is such that there would be a substantial risk to the physical or mental health of the person if he were found capable of work. Those arrangements—and in particular that final provision, which looks specifically at the risk to the health of the claimant whatever his score—represents a substantial safeguard to claimants with mental health disorders. Any claimant who scores on the mental health aspects but is still found capable of work has been judged capable of undertaking work in the normal labour market. I am not convinced that JSA will be dealing with claimants whose mental condition means that they are significantly more vulnerable to hardship than the average claimant, although I am happy to consider any arguments that have been made in that regard.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned in particular medical evidence. Amendment No. 7 deals with the provision of medical evidence required by the adjudication officer to support the application. In many of the cases concerned we do not believe that special medical evidence will be required. As I explained, the claimant will be asked to provide details of his condition and of how it affects him or, as the case may be, his partner. If the claimant has taken the incapacity benefit "all-work" test, evidence from that test will be available to the adjudication officer, as I mentioned before, provided the claimant has given his consent. In a small number of cases the adjudication officer may wish to seek additional factual medical evidence before reaching a view. We are still considering how that evidence might best be provided, but I can
958
provide an assurance that the claimant—if, for instance, factual evidence was requested from a GP—would not be required to meet the costs.
I listened to the examples quoted, and in fact read them myself this morning in the briefing. I should say that there is no compulsion on a doctor to make a charge for such letters. If the doctor wishes to give a letter to his patient free of charge, then he is free to do so.
I have spoken at some length on these issues, even though we addressed them on a number of occasions at previous stages of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will agree that their importance merits a detailed reply. Since two of my noble friends have entered the debate for the first time, I hope that they will accept that I have explained carefully and in detail how we intend to deal with the particular problems. I believe that they can be dealt with satisfactorily. Having given my assurances once again to my noble friend, I hope that he will be able to withdraw his amendment. However, if he does not see fit to withdraw it, I hope that my other noble friends will support me in the Lobby.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that he does not think that any cost will be incurred in obtaining medical evidence. However, I have a feeling that occasionally that may be the case. It may not always be the intention, but I am sure that some doctors will charge. It may not be very many, but some will do so.
The noble Lord emphasised that under the Bill medical evidence would cover only those who failed to make a jobseeker's agreement or who made themselves unemployed. That may well have come about purely as a result of their disability; it may not have been intentional. He also said that the question of vulnerability would be covered by regulations. All that this amendment seeks to do is indicate the kind of regulations that should be made. The noble Lord also said that people with severe mental disability or mental health problems should not reach the jobseeker's agreement stage because they would be covered by incapacity benefit. However, there is always the possibility of a slip and of things not going as they should. My amendment would cover that position and act as a check.
It is worth emphasising that my amendment is very modest. It proposes hardship payments only for those whose existing medical condition is likely to deteriorate if benefit is not paid, and whose health is such that non-payment would put them at risk of excessive physical or mental distress. I do not believe that it would prove very costly. Despite what my noble friend said, I still consider the amendment to be important. I should like to seek the opinion of the House. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
5.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 115; Not-Contents, 152.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Airedale, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kirkhill, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Listowel, E.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lockwood, B.

Avebury, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bancroft, L.

McCarthy, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L.

Brain, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Chorley, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Croham, L.

Moyne, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nathan, L.

David, B.

Nelson, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Ogmore, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Dubs, L.

Richard, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkland, V.

Rix, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Foot, L.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Geraint, L.

Russell, E.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Bp.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gregson, L.

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Halsbury, E.

Serota, B.

Hamwee, B.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Simon, V.

Harrowby, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Haskel, L.

Stedman, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Strafford, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Swinfen, L. [Teller.]

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hughes, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hylton, L.

Tope, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Waverley, V.

Jay, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wharton, B.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Judd, L.

Wise, L.

Kennet, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Birdwood, L.

Aberdare, L.

Blaker, L.

Addison, V.

Blatch, B.

Ailsa, M.

Boardman, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Borthwick, L.

Astor, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Balfour, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Biddulph, L.

Burnham, L.

960

Cadman, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Caithness, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lucas, L.

Carnock, L.

Lyell, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cawley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chesham, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Marlesford, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Clinton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Mersey, V.

Colwyn, L.

Middleton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Courtown, E.

Milverton, L.

Cox, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Munster, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Newall, L.

Davidson, V.

Northesk, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Derwent, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Digby, L.

Orkney, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Downshire, M.

Oxfuird, V.

Dundonald, E.

Peel, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pender, L.

Elibank, L.

Perth, E.

Elles, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Quinton, L.

Elton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Finsberg, L.

Reay, L.

Flather, B.

Renton, L.

Foley, L.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Gibson-Watt, L.

St. Davids, V.

Goschen, V.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gridley, L.

Selborne, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sharples, B.

Hanson, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Henley, L.

Strange, B.

Hesketh, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hives, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hogg, B.

Sudeley, L.

Holderness, L.

Swansea, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Swinton, E.

Hood, V.

Tebbit, L.

Hooper, B.

Teviot, L.

Howe, E.

Teynham, L.

Inglewood, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Torphichen, L.

Killearn, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kimball, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Vinson, L.

Knutsford, V.

Vivian, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Waterford, M.

Leigh, L.

Wynford, L.

Lindsay, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Hardship
.—(1) Regulations made under section 20(4) and under paragraphs 8 and 10 of Schedule 1 shall provide that a person shall be entitled to an income-based jobseeker's allowance from a prescribed date if he can demonstrate that he is at risk of hardship if payment is not made.
(2) The following are examples of circumstances where regulations may prescribe that a person be treated as at risk of hardship—

(a) the person is at risk of being denied some or all of the essentials of life such as food, water, necessary clothing, heating and cooking facilities or shelter;

(b) the person is at risk of suffering a deterioration in their physical or mental health;

(c) the person is at risk of being unable to meet the essential cost of any disability or health problem;

(d) the person will be put into debt for essential services or their debts for such services are likely to increase;

(e) the person will be prevented through lack of resources from actively seeking work.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to put on the face of the Bill a definition of hardship to enable reduced-rate payments to be made when someone fails to meet the conditions for jobseeker's allowance.
Currently, the definition of hardship is left to the discretion of adjudication officers, with guidance referring to situations in which the claimant or family could be denied some or all of the essentials of life, such as food, clothing, heating or shelter. This amendment seeks to place on the face of the Bill a definition of hardship which builds on the current definition by including reference to a risk of deterioration or of falling into debt if benefit is removed. It also includes reference to people who may not be able to meet the costs of their disability.
My noble friend the Minister has given few clues as to what "hardship" will mean, apart from a reference to alternative access to funds and capital. During the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, stated that:
"We consider that it is right in JSA, which aims to set out a clearer sanctions regime, that criteria should be made more explicit in regulations".—[Official Report, 25/4/95; col. 877.]
If criteria are to be made more explicit, why are the relevant matters not on the face of the Bill? A list of examples would not preclude other circumstances being taken into account. Indeed, that is the approach taken by the Government in their own redrafting of clauses concerning availability for work and actively seeking work.
People on low incomes are particularly vulnerable to debt and deprivation, when families may be going without an essential item. Studies suggest that a third of households with incomes below £100 a week have debts and one in five parents have gone hungry because they did not have enough money to buy food. Researchers at Bradford University and the family service units found that over two-thirds of the families that were surveyed had health problems and that fluctuating health problems could be badly affected by a financial crisis—for example, bronchitis and asthma worsen under stress and cold temperatures.
Sick and disabled people are also particularly vulnerable to debt. The Disablement Income Group found that 20 per cent. of single, disabled adults
962
describe themselves as "permanently" in debt, with another 15 per cent. getting into difficulties and 40 per cent. currently behind with payments. Asked how they would spend an extra £10 per week, 27 per cent. replied "on food"; and 37 per cent. would spend a windfall of £200 on paying off debts. Recent research by Sheffield CAB and Debt Support Unit found that for disabled people with long-term low incomes, even a small change in income could trigger debt problems. "Hardship" therefore should include a full assessment of any risk of greater stress or indebtedness if no hardship payment is made.
People with ill-health or disability can often be faced with financial difficulties because of extra disability-related costs. The OPCS surveys found that over 50 per cent. of disabled people incurred additional heating costs as a result of their disability. People with poor circulation or limited mobility need constant warmth; others will need hot water for extra baths or laundry.
Disability costs do not only arise for people with the most severe disabilities. Both the Policy Studies Institute and the Disablement Income Group found that even in lower severity categories, sick and disabled people could incur costs of up to £22 a week. Such costs can include fuel and heating, transport, wear and tear on clothing, laundry and chemists' items.
Of particular concern is the position of the thousands of sick and disabled people who may have their incapacity benefit removed and therefore have to sign on. Such people may not be the most severely disabled but could nonetheless incur additional costs because of their disability. For instance, someone who loses control of his bladder once a month and loses control of his bowels only occasionally would score only 12 points, which is below the incapacity threshold of 15. Yet such a person could incur extra costs in laundry, hot water for bathing and incontinence aids. Such problems could possibly worsen under the stress of being without any form of income. Where someone would be at risk of being unable to meet disability costs, their health should be considered to be at risk and a hardship payment made.
Amendment No. 8 would also offer important recognition that jobseekers need some form of income in order to be able to seek work. Jobseekers with a health problem or disability may incur additional costs when looking for work, yet they may not be covered by the Employment Service. Some deaf people have found that interpreters have not been available even for interviews with disability employment advisers. It is important that those costs are recognised for hardship purposes and that the person is not prevented from looking for work through lack of financial support. The amendment would place a definition of "hardship" in the Bill which develops current rules and ensures that the Government's objective of protecting those in hardship is met. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have some difficulty with this amendment. First, as I understand it, subsection (1) is automatic in its operation. In other words, one is entitled to an allowance if one is at risk of hardship. Then, under subsection (2), types of

963
hardship are cited. The only one that seems to me to be relevant to a jobseeker's allowance is (e), being prevented from actively seeking work.
Then one comes to the question of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). Surely other sources of benefit within the social benefits system will deal with those. Why therefore should they be saddled onto the jobseeker's entitlement? I do not understand that. Also, when one seeks to serialize and give examples, one tends to exclude. It may be all water under the bridge now, but an amendment was tabled in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, dealing with family consideration hardship. We would have moved that amendment had not a government amendment been put forward.
What happens about family consideration hardship? I have come to the conclusion that, like many of these matters, it merges in the "good cause" test and that the more one seeks to define, in a sense, the more one seeks to exclude. I am a bit foxed as to how the amendment will achieve a constructive purpose. I am not trying to knock the spirit of it. I do not in any sense question the sincerity that moves the amendment. But, with respect, I do not think it will work.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment so well moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. With the indulgence of the House, perhaps I may comment briefly on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. In a strict sense he is quite right to say that only paragraph (e) relates to a jobseeker's allowance. But that is because of the change in terminology introduced by the Government in which, if one is unemployed, one is no longer classed as "unemployed" but as a "jobseeker". If instead, throughout our debates, we talked about the "unemployed", then I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, would agree that not just paragraph (e) but also paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) would apply as hardship—that is, if one is unemployed and therefore has no other income coming from work.
The second point made by the noble Lord was that such people who may be in hardship would be eligible for other benefits and should not be carried by JSA. I wish the noble Lord was right. The amendments that many of us on these Benches—and indeed some on the Conservative Benches—have tabled are precisely to that effect. But JSA has integrated two benefits—the old unemployment benefit of which the noble Lord was, in a sense, speaking and also income support. Therefore most groups of people who, in the past, would qualify for income support are no longer eligible for it; it is JSA or nothing. It is the coming together of those two benefits.
The only other benefit available, except in special circumstances like being a lone parent, is incapacity benefit which replaces invalidity benefit. Therefore one receives incapacity benefit if one is so severely disabled or has such a severe medical condition that one is judged to be incapable of work. But, as we discussed in our
964
debates on previous amendments, one may be suffering from such severe depression that one prefers to be isolated; one may not understand a simple communication or message; one may need supervision or exhibit violent behaviour, yet one may not be eligible for incapacity benefit. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, rightly said, many people who in the past would have received invalidity benefit, will not now receive it even though their condition will deteriorate if they do not receive a hardship payment.
A second benefit available is income support. It is only available for a limited number of people such as lone parents. Everybody else within the employable age must turn to JSA. In other words, jobseeker's allowance is carrying a benefit delivery which in my view it should not do. It should be confined to those seeking work. It is being asked to carry payments to all those who are unable to work but nonetheless fail to qualify for incapacity benefit or income support. Our concern is that many people will not, for good cause, qualify for incapacity benefit or for income support; they may fail some of the JSA tests and also fail a test of hardship.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, tabled the amendment for three reasons. First, the Bill remains too much of a framework Bill—and many noble Lords have expressed that anxiety—which contains four pivotal sets of phrases: "available for work"; "actively seeking work"; "vulnerable" and "hardship". As a result of your Lordships' efforts, quite rightly, "available for work" and "actively seeking work"—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, played an important part in this— are now on the face of the Bill. But when there are doubts as to whether one is meeting the conditions so that "actively seeking work" applies, the two important and pivotal words of "vulnerable" and "hardship" are not so defined. Therefore, the amendment that has just been lost and this amendment seek to bring back into the framework of the Bill a pivotal concept on the basis of which people will or will not be entitled to benefit.
The second reason for wanting the definition on the face of the Bill is not just that otherwise it is still too much a framework Bill but that the Government are tightening up eligibility for benefit, they are tightening up the number of referrals that will be made and they are tightening up the making of hardship payments so that more and more will be left to the discretion not only of the Secretary of State but of the employment officer. Because so much will be left otherwise to discretion, we feel it is pivotal that the definition be on the face of the Bill.
The previous amendment was important. It would have safeguarded the position of people for the first fortnight of benefit. But with this amendment we are trying to safeguard the position of people for up to 26 weeks at a time. If in the judgment of an employment officer someone is not actively seeking work and he fails the hardship test—it may be that he has a mild mental health condition or a moderate learning disability or English may not be his first language: he is inadequate, he is incompetent, he is not significantly manipulative to get by in the system—that person will be without any income at all for 26 weeks—six months.

965
He will have no money whatever. What will he live on except, as we fear, scrounging, stealing, begging, thieving, shoplifting, and the like?
Clearly, those who do not seek work when they should and could, will come within the framework of sanction and penalty. We do not challenge that. But what we are seeking to do here is to ensure that the conditions described by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, are set out on the face of the Bill. I am referring to people who without JSA and hardship payment would go without food, clothing, heating, or a home; or, equally, people who without a hardship payment would see their physical or mental health deteriorate because they are not sick enough to qualify for a new, tough incapacity benefit; people who have a mild disability problem or a health problem which produces additional costs which they cannot meet so their condition will otherwise worsen; or people who are likely to go into debt and therefore suffer disconnection from water or fuel, or eviction; or people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, cannot even re-enter the search for a job because they have no money to pay for fares. We say that all such people surely should be recognised as being in hardship.
The Minister may tell us that this will be done by regulation. We had that argument and your Lordships gave a verdict on it when we discussed availability for work and actively seeking work. If your Lordships were minded to pass this amendment we would turn a framework Bill into less of a framework Bill and place more on the face of the Bill, so people would know where they stood. Secondly, we would be ensuring that people who are in hardship, as so defined, would have some income and would not therefore have a right to break windows and a right to steal. Thirdly, we would be producing some measure of protection for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I support what the noble Baroness has just said. I shall not go into any more detail about the amendment except to make two points. When the noble Baroness said that certain people could be left for 26 weeks without any money, the Minister shook his head. Can the noble Lord make it absolutely clear when he comes to reply that it is not possible for anyone to be left for 26 weeks without any means of feeding himself? My second reason for supporting the amendment very strongly is the fact that this is a framework Bill and we are deeply opposed to the extent to which so many things of importance are being left to regulation. We have fought that all the way through and we shall continue to fight it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask her what I would have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, if she had not already sat down. I should have liked to thank her for her presentation and to have congratulated her on her art of presentation. I should have liked to ask her, before she sat down, how she proposes that the adjudication under paragraphs (a) to (d) in practice would be made, first, by the employment officer, and, then, by the adjudication officer. How in practice does she envisage that that would happen?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I assume that my noble friend will not receive an answer to his question. I support every word that he said in his first speech but I should like to add perhaps an elaboration on my noble friend's second point. Paragraphs (a) to (d) are all totally subjective. I do not think it is good to pass legislation of a subjective character. Where there are examples of things actually happening, my noble friend will, I hope, be able to explain how they are being dealt with. I hope that in terms of medical equipment it will be on the health budget and not on the social security budget.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I accept, as I am sure all your Lordships do, that the amendment is very well intentioned. But I fear that though the intentions may be admirable the effect, if we include it in the Bill, will be unfortunate. As your Lordships may know, I have some experience of social security legislation. This is a difficult and complex subject. It will be made much more difficult if one puts into the Bill, as subsection (2) of the amendment seeks to do:
"The following are examples of circumstances where regulations may prescribe that a person be treated as at risk of hardship".
I say that for two reasons. First, to say in legislation that one is giving examples will open up every kind of confusion and every kind of argument as to whether something is consistent with the example or different from it. Secondly, one is putting into the law simply a discretion for the Minister:
"The following are examples of circumstances where regulations may prescribe".
If the Minister does not prescribe, the whole thing flops.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I shall give way to the noble Lord if he asks in a moment. But I am not going to be shouted down by him. I am saying that the amendment—perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to listen—states that the regulations may prescribe. As far as I know there is nothing to compel the Minister to make the regulations. I shall now give way to the noble Lord.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, but I can assure him that I was not shouting at him. I never said a word. I wanted to draw his attention, since he does not like the idea of the examples in paragraphs (a) to (d), to the fact that the wording was taken from Clause 6(3) of the Government's own Bill:
"The following are examples of restrictions for which provision may be made by the regulations".
The subsection then goes on to set out (a), (b), (c) and (d). Surely what is good enough for the Government is good enough for us.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord has such admiration for the Government's drafting that he finds it necessary to quote it in favour of the amendment. It is very gratifying, but perhaps there is a touch of simplicity about it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has made an interesting point. I do not know whether he was in the House on Report when we debated Amendment No. 26A, which was moved by the

967
noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The noble Lord may remember that both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to both of whom I listen very carefully indeed on drafting matters, argued for the proposition, to which the Renton Report gave support, of the use of examples as a way of giving greater precision to a general clause. It is one way of getting at the intention of the legislator, which is of course what the courts must do.
If one accepts the suggestion which the noble and learned Lord then made of construing this by the rule ejusdem generis—I hope that he will correct me if my pronunciation of Latin is not sufficiently legal—we are approaching clarity. So there is a contrary view to that which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has expressed which deserves a hearing.
6 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, this debate has been very interesting and the arguments have been persuasively put on both sides. One has received material about this matter and read it. With some of my noble friends on this side of the House there are doubts. Where are we going to end in defining hardship? If one is to continue defining the word, one is not going to help those who are in hardship. Surely we must place trust and reliance in those who are administering the provisions. I shall not vote against the Government. The only thing I do at any time is abstain.
I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Swinfen, and even the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who speaks so well and so persuasively, have convinced me by their arguments. I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will convince me that I am right. From what I have understood of the Bill and what has been said about it in all its stages in this House, I believe that reasonable and proper measures have been taken. For the life of me I cannot believe that this country would allow to happen some of the things which have been suggested. I cannot believe it. There must be trust and reliance shown. I would not vote against the Government. Others would have to put an even stronger case for me to abstain from voting.
I feel sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to show me that what I feel is right. That does not mean that I have no feeling for people suffering hardship. As a minister one sees hardship in a way which perhaps otherwise one would not. It is not that I am hard or unfeeling, because I know what it can be like. Even some clergy families know what it is like to face hardship. So it is not as though the clergy were unaware and not in the real world. Most clergy have their feet in the world and know what is happening.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this debate overlaps the debate which we had on the last amendment. I do not wish to go over that ground again unless I am severely tempted to do so. As it was such a short time ago, I presume that most noble Lords will not wish me to go over the ground again. We have also had coming into the edges of this debate the other debates we had on incapacity benefit. I have listened to this
968
issue coming into the debates on a number of occasions. One could be left with the view, if one had not been present at the debates on incapacity benefit, that the benefit introduced in April would virtually exclude every possible person from the new benefit. That is simply not true.
About 1.5 million people will still be entitled to incapacity benefit. That figure has doubled over the past 10 years and expenditure has gone up even more. As I have said on a number of occasions when discussing this matter, I find it quite hard to square that with the fact that our population is becoming healthier. The Government took the view that we had to take steps to deal with the explosion in incapacity benefit payments and make sure that the people getting it were entitled to it and required it and that everyone who failed the tests would come within the ambit of the jobseeker's allowance next year.
I turn now to the amendment. It proposes a number of additional circumstances in which a claimant should be treated as being in hardship. Subsection (2) (a) sets out a number of general factors based on the premise that the claimant will be in hardship if he is at risk of being denied some or all of the essentials of life. I have made clear in earlier debates that we shall be listing in regulations factors which the adjudication officer should take into account in deciding whether there is a risk of hardship. Setting aside the exact wording of the amendment, I am happy to say that in principle we intend to include factors of the type set out in subsection (2) (a). However, I say again that the regulations will be drafted in a way which will allow the adjudication officer discretion. A person outside the vulnerable groups will not be eligible for hardship payments if he is not available for or actively seeking work, nor during the first two weeks of the sanction.
I shall consider carefully the remaining points in the amendment, but the issue of borrowing and debt is currently left to the adjudication officer's discretion, and it makes sense for that to continue. I do not accept that it would be right in every case for the benefit system to step in when it is open to the claimant to re-arrange his commitments and re-schedule his payments if he can avoid hardship by doing that.
I am also not convinced of the need to include provisions on the lines of subsection (2) (e) of the amendment. The actively seeking work test requires claimants only to take those steps which are appropriate and reasonable in their own circumstances. That is a subject which we have discussed at some length.
Single, healthy claimants currently have all benefit withdrawn if they are not actively seeking work, so there is nothing new here. It is open to anyone who wishes to start seeking work to take the very basic steps; for example, by applying for jobs which are displayed in the jobcentre which are necessary to satisfy this test. Indeed, there was some confusion in the latter part of the debate between the issues we have discussed. We debated whether someone was actually entitled to the benefit where they were actively seeking work and available for it and where the entitlement was established, but a sanction is being applied because they

969
have taken steps to leave the previous job, and so on. I shall come to that situation in a moment when I reach the question of sanctions.
People who do not seek work lose benefit at once. However, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that they can return to benefit after two weeks by simply starting to look for work and obeying the principal test of the jobseeker's allowance. Nobody is actually left without benefit for 26 weeks if they are undergoing a sanction and would suffer hardship. All claimants, including childless healthy claimants, will have access to payments after the 2 weeks are over. The point about the sanctions, as I mentioned at the beginning of my contribution on the last amendment, is that they run from one to 26 weeks, as determined by the adjudication officer. The suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that every sanction is 26 weeks is quite wrong. That is not the case at all. The great majority of the sanctions are for a great deal less than 26 weeks. The sanctions are for between one and 26 weeks. They are for people who left their employment voluntarily without just cause, who lost their employment through misconduct, who have refused employment without good cause or who have refused to carry out the jobseeker's direction.
As I said at the beginning of my contribution on the previous amendment of my noble friends, we do not accept that claimants should automatically have access to benefit at all times, irrespective of their actions and choices.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the average period of disallowance is 20 weeks, which must mean that quite a lot of people suffer the sanction for 26 weeks?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my recollection—I accept that it is only a recollection—is that the average disallowance is fewer than 20 weeks. I do not have the figures to hand, but my recollection is that the period is more like 13 weeks. As I am not entirely sure that I am right, I shall check because I do not like to be wrong. I believe, however, that the noble Lord vastly overestimates the situation when he refers to 20 weeks. I think that my recollection of 13 weeks is nearer the case.
My point remains that, as I have clearly said, many of the points that my noble friend raises will be placed in regulations. However, I believe that claimants who have either failed to meet the necessary conditions for benefit, who have made themselves unemployed or who have failed to pursue an opportunity to take themselves off benefit should not automatically have access to benefit. People who are able to show that they would suffer hardship will be eligible for the hardship payments. I have made that position clear on a number of occasions and I do so again.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway did not like the drafting of the amendment. I assure him that all parts are relevant to seeking work. The point is that the more restricted incapacity benefit makes less severely disabled people, people in poor health, need even more protection.
970
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did not like to see "examples" in amendments. I suggest that he looks particularly at Clause 6(3) which begins:
"The following are examples of restrictions".
Therefore, I am only following the Government's lead. I am sure that my noble friend would always expect me to follow the Government's lead although there are times when I try to improve the direction in which they are going.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am naturally very impressed by the noble Lord's loyalty to the Government and his indication that if the Government have provided something, it must be right. Personally, I do not accept that.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend. I was only saying that in this amendment I was following the Government's lead. Perhaps they have taken me down a dead end.
I am tempted to seek to divide the House on this amendment, particularly given the fact that if these provisions are not included in the Bill, the only chance now of the Bill being improved or amended would be in the other place. However, bearing in mind what happened on my last amendment, I think that it would be kinder to the House if I was to seek leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 6 [Availability for employment]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 43, at end insert:
("( ) Regulations shall provide that entitlement to a jobseeker's allowance is not lost without the claimant being given reasonable notice in writing of the grounds for such loss and a reasonable opportunity to comment on or challenge those grounds.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to the issue of the warning notice and to the point at which the employment officer suspects—he or she does not know, but merely suspects—that the applicant may not be actively seeking work. Warning notices used to be issued. There is some argument that warning notices may still be out there somewhere. Indeed, we were told during previous debates that there might be two notices or at least two letters, but that sometimes there would be no letters at all. This is an attempt to clarify the situation and to provide that there should be a warning notice.
The amendment states:
"Regulations shall provide that entitlement to a jobseeker's allowance is not lost without the claimant being given reasonable notice in writing of the grounds for such loss and a reasonable opportunity to comment on or challenge those grounds".
It is not exactly the same as the amendment that was moved in Committee on 25th April because the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, did not like the last part of that amendment which referred to "an opportunity to establish". The noble Lord felt that that would give too much strength to the applicant, so we are merely suggesting that there should be
"a reasonable opportunity to comment on or challenge".

971
Therefore, this is a somewhat weaker amendment, the object being to try to take the Government with us.
In that debate, I and other noble Lords both on this side of the House and the other tried to make four points. The first was that, as we understand it, before 1992 it was normal for employment officers to send warning letters to unemployed persons who they had reason to believe, or thought or suspected, were no longer sufficiently available for and seeking work. That used to happen before any reference to the adjudication officer. The first point, therefore, is that that was the tradition.
Our second point is that that appeared to us to be a very successful practice. It was an effective way of checking up on the situation. In 1989–90 28,910 warning letters were sent out. That point was made in the debate and was not contradicted by the Minister. As a result of the sending of those letters, there were 23,000 satisfactory replies—in other words, 23,000 of those who were written to were able to establish that they were actively seeking work. As a result, there were only 6,000 references to adjudication and only 2,000 disallowances. In other words, the success rate was something like 93 per cent.—at least, it was a "success rate" if you are concerned with natural justice and if you believe that an applicant who is suspected of not actively seeking work ought to have an opportunity to justify himself. Claimants were able to do that in 93 per cent. of all cases.
Our third point was that for inexplicable reasons—perhaps I should say for reasons about which the Government had not been sufficiently frank—as far as we can see the number of warning letters began to decline after 1989. There is some debate about the figure to which they declined and to whom those letters were sent. Our figures for 1991–92, which were not denied by the Minister, show that they had declined to 25,000 and that they declined further to 9,000 in 1993–94. Meanwhile, disqualifications rose. According to some figures, they rose from 2,000 to 113,000—an increase of some 5,000 per cent. I do not know whether those figures are accepted by the Government, but what is certain is that the number of disqualifications rose.
Therefore, we thought that there was a case in natural justice for the restoration of the warning letters. Clearly, they are of use and are a way of discovering whether or not the suspicions of the employment officer are justified. I should have thought that issuing such letters was only reasonable and fair on the ground of natural justice. Unfortunately, the Government's answers on that point were inexplicable. Four different grounds were given. I am merely trying to ask the Government which one they want tonight.
In the first place, the Minister went back on an understanding or statement which we thought had been made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. In a debate in this House initiated by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, the Government appeared to us to be saying that, yes, they had abandoned the letter, but that that had not had any disadvantageous consequences in terms of disallowances or disqualifications. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said:
972
"if there were further evidence that these regulations are catching those whom it is not intended to catch and are not dealing with those who consciously and deliberately fail actively to seek work, obviously we would then reconsider".—[Official Report, 1/12192; col. 1332.]
That is why we thought that the Government might say that they were going to reconsider the position, as had been promised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. The first problem was that they did not. They seemed to be saying that the letter had been abandoned but that that was not a bad thing.
Secondly, at col. 848 on 25th April, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, seemed to be saying that the letter was still being sent. He said:
"Let me assure the Committee that under the JSA the jobseeker will receive full information about his or her position. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. Under current practice when a doubt is identified on a claim for unemployment benefit the claimant is notified in writing"—
so it is still there—
"that the claim is being referred to an adjudication officer for a decision. The form explains the adjudication process in general terms. A further leaflet is available containing more details of each of the benefit rules. The claimant is invited to ask at the ES office for help with points not covered in either leaflet. We shall be following similar practices in JSA".
The trouble is that subsequently the noble Lord seemed to take a third position. He then seemed to suggest, to us at least, that they had stopped the letters and that they were justified in stopping the letters, and the stopping of the letters and the effect of our amendment in restoring the letters was a reason for not accepting the amendment. It was not now that it was unnecessary; it was that it was unacceptable. The noble Lord said again:
"We must be careful about the perverse effects of the second part of the amendment. If it is intended to enable a jobseeker to be given a second chance"—
which of course it is—
"to be available or to seek work actively in a given period, that would significantly weaken the incentive effect of the available and actively seeking work condition".
The Minister continued:
"If a jobseeker does not take the necessary steps or has not been available for employment in any week, the employment officer must be able to refer the question on the facts of the case. He should not be hindered by considerations of what the jobseeker might do in the future, before the adjudication decision".
He seems to be saying that the Government believe that people who received the letter suddenly went out and started work—actively seeking, actively looking—and somehow the employment officer and the adjudication officer could not take into account what such people had done in the past. They had to take into account what they were then doing and because of that they were able to obtain their allowance in circumstances in which they were not entitled to it. That is why the Government do not send the letters.
I believe that that is all the following passage can mean, because the Minister seemed then to think that he had not referred to any letter at all. He said halfway through the debate:
"I should have referred to the letter at the outset of my remarks. The letter merely enabled the claimant not actively to seek work until he was warned to do so. Active seeking is a clear condition of

973
benefit. The required steps are made clear to the individual at the start of his claim. Such a written warning in that regard should therefore be unnecessary".
We were—we are still—confused at that point. That was not helped when the noble Lord said:
"There are two separate letters here. We do not send a warning letter to people telling them to start active seeking, but we send a letter to the claimant advising him that the matter is being sent to the adjudication officer".
The result of all that was that the debate in Committee began to be affected by arguments not merely about the letters—whether there was one or two letters—but whether during the period of one or two letters the individual claimant was still receiving his allowance. That is another matter which I should like the Government to clear up, because the Minister seemed to say (col. 850) that during the period of suspension the applicant was still receiving the allowance, whereas he seemed to be saying later that he was not. He said:
"I am afraid that I honestly do not know. Perhaps I may deal with a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about people who might have difficulty in speaking English".
To try to bring the (debate to a close we asked the Minister a number of questions. We have had no answers to any of those questions. So I put them at this late stage on Third Reading: are the letters still being sent? Are there 9,000 or 28,000 of them? Are there some letters or no letters? Are there two letters? If they are not sent to all applicants, on what basis are they sent? Whenever they are sent—if some are sent—when does the benefit stop? What do the Government think they are doing? When all this was put to the Minister he said he did not know the answer to all the questions, but he stated:
"Needless to say, I shall write to the noble Lord having made sure that I am right in my description".—[Official Report, 25/4/95; cols. 848–853.]
I have to say that so far as I know I have received no correspondence from the noble Lord about any of those questions. The questions remain to be answered. There still seems to us to be an overwhelming argument for restoring the warning letter in the way that it operated before the Government cut it down. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment. I have given notice that I intend so to do. The crux of the matter is: is the allowance paid during suspension? If it is, much of the steam goes out of the kettle. If it is not, natural justice demands that the claimant is given notice of grounds for removal of his entitlement under Clause 1 and that he should have a reasonable opportunity to deal with the situation.
I put aside past practice. I am not concerned with these letters; whether they were sent; whether they were not sent; whether they exist; or whatever happened to them. I regard all that as; totally immaterial. I look at the matter as I think any ordinary lawyer would look at it. If one removes an entitlement—there is an entitlement under Clause 1—one has to say why in writing quite simply and give the person adversely affected a chance to make representations. I cannot see that there is anything adverse to the Government in the spirit of that proposal, and I so informed the Government Chief Whip and my noble friend the Minister.
974
Indeed, the proposal would assist the Government, because if he is aggrieved the applicant can seek judicial review. He can say, "They have taken away my entitlement. I want a judicial review of this". If there are no reasons, and one reaches the Divisional Court, the Divisional Court will say, "Well, if there are no reasons given, we are entitled to draw certain inferences". Those inferences will not be drawn against the. claimant. They will be against the Government, if anything.
I do not know enough about this subject without some assistance from my noble friend the Minister and perhaps other noble Lords. In principle, if that allowance is suspended, I cannot see why the Government should not accept the substance of the amendment. The provision does not necessarily have to be on the face of the Bill. It could be set out in regulations against an assurance reported in Hansard that regulations would be introduced. I believe that the provisions are at Clause 9(6) to (9). It would fit in there well. If my noble friend were able to give the assurance that they would bring in the regulations to accord with natural justice, I should be satisfied.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has put his finger on the very heart of the issue. I shall listen, as he will, to the reply that the Minister gives him. I shall not presume to speculate on how the reply on 25th April of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, came into existence. The noble Lord may be interested in some remarks made by one of my former colleagues at Yale. It was at the time when undergraduates were just beginning to use word processors. He remarked that because it was possible to insert a new paragraph into an old text without having to change the old text to fit in with the new paragraph, it became remarkably easy to produce inconsistent documents. I shall not presume to speculate on the relevance of that story; but the noble Lord may be interested in it.
However, I believe that we should clear up the confusion about the letter to which we are referring. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, referred to a letter which informs the claimant that he is being referred to adjudication. I understand that that process continues and that one cannot have adjudication without it. However, the amendment refers to a different letter which is more like the traditional police caution. It is a warning to the claimant that his conduct has given rise to suspicion, which on some occasions is dispelled.
I have two examples of the kind of people who would have benefited from the passing of the amendment. The first was a man who normally looked for work extensively, but in addition to having a heart condition, he happened to be moving house. During the week of the move he did not look for work with his customary zeal. He supposed that that would be understood and acceptable. It turned out that that was not the case and his benefit was suspended. If—and I use the word "if— it is the law that a claimant moving house must look for work as extensively in the week of the move as in every other week, it seems fair to notify him and let him act accordingly, which that person would have done.

975
The second case was reported by a CAB in Cheshire. It involved a woman who wanted to work for about 30 hours a week and who described that as "part-time" work. In ordinary speech one can understand that distinction perfectly well but as a term of art within the Employment Service 30 hours a week is not part-time work. The Employment Service thought that she was prepared to work only 16 hours a week and that she was putting unreasonable restrictions on her availability. Her benefit was stopped. That was a simple, plain misunderstanding. The issuing of a warning letter would have given ample opportunity to clear it up and would have avoided unnecessary hardship.
It illustrates that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was wrong to say at the notorious col. 848:
"The letter merely enabled the claimant not actively to seek work until he was warned to do so".—[Official Report, 25/4/95; col. 848.]
That does not apply to the two cases which I have quoted, nor does it apply to many others.
The noble Lord was also mistaken to insist that the person was not meeting the conditions from the moment any doubt arose about his availability. The noble Lord said:
"the benefit is payable so long as the criteria are satisfied; in other words, so long as the person concerned is in fact actively seeking work. Therefore, that is a matter of fact and not of opinion so far as concerns the point in time".—[Official Report, 25/4/95; col. 850.]
In relation to the cases that I have quoted, that judgment was mistaken.
The point of the warning letter is that it enables us to put the situation right, to clear up the misunderstanding, to ensure compliance with conditions where there is any doubt, to explain the meaning of the conditions and to put things back on an even keel. Surely it is much better to put things right than to go around penalising people because you cannot be bothered to explain the position to them. This is a good amendment and I hope that the Minister will accept it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, twice mentioned the principle of natural justice, as did the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. It is generally accepted that it is a principle of natural justice that anyone adversely affected by a decision should be given the reason for it.
The principle which lies behind that appears clearly in the way in which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, explained the matter. The principle of natural justice is similar to the principle that an adjudicator may not be biased and that reasons should be given for an adverse decision. Perhaps I may mention a third principle; that the other side should be heard. That too is relevant to the amendment.
It may be that the matter is to be dealt with by regulation, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. It may be that it is dealt with by practice, as suggested by a quotation given by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that anyone adversely affected will be apprised of the reason. I hope that unless he can give that assurance he will accept the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I agree with the amendment but I do not believe that the notice required will need to be served often. Under the terms of the jobseeker's agreement, the jobseeker must meet and discuss with the Employment Service officer at regular intervals in order to tell him about the steps that he has taken to obtain employment. Any difficulties should be able to be sorted out verbally at those meetings.
However, there will be occasions when due to language difficulties—that is, translation from one language to another or a genuine misunderstanding because someone is not well educated—the jobseeker does not understand what is required. If the jobseeker has a speech difficulty, the employment officer may not understand what he is proposing to do or the steps that he proposes to take. Furthermore, there may be hearing difficulties.
People may fail to turn up for the meetings as a result of illness and they may have no one who is prepared to, or can, inform the Employment Service. For the most part, there will be little cost to the Government in handing out such letters because it can be done face to face without the cost of postage. Therefore, if cost is a factor, it should not be considered.
It is important that any proposal to remove the allowance should be given in writing so that the person who is to lose the allowance can at least seek advice and make certain that he understands the reasons. If the claimant is willing to do so, he can then take steps to ensure that it is not withdrawn and can continue seeking work in a manner that the employment officer thinks fit.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we have debated the subject of suspension and loss of benefit on a number of occasions throughout the passage of the Bill. It has been clear that on a number of occasions we have been at cross-purposes. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, referred to muddle and letters. I wish to say merely that we have discussed the matter and that it was put extremely clearly by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Rather than muddle the issue further still, I endorse his description of the position. However, there is one point that is most important—
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, so far as I understand it, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that there were two letters and that the second letter was the critical one because it did not just inform them but gave them a chance to reply. What the noble Lord has not said is whether there still are two letters.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it may be a disappointment, but I have hardly started what I am going to say. We have talked about letters, disentitlement and benefits. The point I should like to emphasise at the outset is that we are talking about a new system that is going to replace the existing one. The particular examples that have been drawn from the working of the existing system of unemployment benefit and income support are taken from an entirely different context to that which will be the case when this Bill becomes law.
It has been implied by a number of speakers, not only this afternoon but on previous occasions, that the provisions of the Bill are primarily intended to catch

977
jobseekers out and trick them out of their benefits. I should like to say right at the outset that that is not the case. One of the prime objectives of the new system of JSA is to ensure that all jobseekers understand fully that they have duties and obligations in the receipt of benefits and that they know exactly where they stand. The help of employment officers and the pivotal role of the jobseeker's agreement should ensure that jobseekers take the right steps to get back to work.
At the start of a claim for JSA, the jobseeker will complete the initial claim form and will receive a pack of information setting out details of the conditions for benefit and the rights of jobseekers. Right from the first time when the jobseeker comes into the jobcentre the emphasis will be on informing the individual of what is expected of him and what he can expect from the Employment Service. The jobseeker will book an interview with a skilled employment adviser. At that interview the jobseeker and the employment adviser will discuss the jobseeker's work experience and qualifications, the sort of work he is looking for, his availability, his plans for getting back to work and a range of other issues. Together they will seek to draw up a jobseeker's agreement.
The agreement is therefore crucial in ensuring that jobseekers understand right from the outset the conditions of receiving JSA and how their benefit may be affected if they do not satisfy those conditions. It will contain a statement that the jobseeker understands that he must continue to be available for employment and actively seek it; that he may be asked to give evidence of what he has done and has been advised to keep a record; and that if he does not do enough to meet these conditions, his allowance may be affected and his case will be referred to the adjudication officer, in which case he will be informed. I emphasise that the employment officer must impartially assess the position, and it is only when he believes that there may have been a breach that the matter is referred to the adjudication officer. Perhaps I might echo a comment made by my noble friend Lord Swinfen: there is dialogue between the parties.
The jobseeker will also be told about his right of appeal. No one need be uncertain or ill-informed about what is required. Each fortnight the jobseeker will return to the jobcentre to sign on. If he finds that he is uncertain about whether he should continue to take the steps he agreed in his agreement or if he feels that he wishes to vary his agreement, he has every opportunity to discuss those concerns and to have his agreement altered. Again, this is an example of the ongoing opportunities of the employment officer and the jobseeker to ask questions of each other and to explain where each stands.
I have set this out at length because I wanted to make clear that there is no question of a jobseeker being caught out, of being wrongfooted. In an earlier debate, noble Lords opposite called for a return of the "warning letter". We have already talked about that this afternoon. That letter is the one to which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, referred and which in the early years of the actively seeking employment test used to be sent by employment officers to people whom it was felt were
978
not meeting the actively seeking employment condition. This, of course, was under a different system from the one we are debating this afternoon. The value of such a letter was that it informed claimants of their obligations under the then new condition.
The introduction of the jobseeker's agreement and wide experience of the actively seeking employment condition entirely alter the context. It means that there is now no excuse for any claimants not understanding their responsibilities to seek work actively. And we do not want to see repeated the practice of claimants who regarded the warning letter as some kind of final red telephone bill—the moment when at last they had to start meeting the condition. Jobseekers should be seeking work actively from the start of their claim for JSA and should continue to take steps every week. Otherwise, they should forfeit their right to receive JSA.
The crucial question is whether each week a jobseeker has shown that he has met the condition for benefit which justifies the payment of benefit. Entitlement involves continuing to satisfy the essential criteria, and when, for example, the actively seeking work or the availability tests are no longer satisfied, the entitlement stops. There is also no question of a decision being taken without the claimant being given the opportunity to put his case. Referrals to adjudication officers will generally follow an interview with the jobseeker, when he will have had the opportunity to discuss the steps he was taking to look for work and to comment on any other evidence—for example, from employers—which might be used by the employment officer in making the referral. All claimants then receive a letter if their case is referred to an adjudication officer which makes clear that their award of benefits is under consideration. The letter makes clear that they can at any time write to the adjudication officer with more information or evidence. The claimant has every opportunity to comment on doubts raised about his availability or his job search. I can confirm that we shall be continuing these arrangements.
I should now like to turn to the actual terms of the amendment, which refers to the specific question of—
6.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? Could he deal, please, with the question as to whether the payment is suspended after the employment officer has made a decision? Then could he deal with the problem of Clause 9(6) to which I referred, where it refers to the decision of the adjudication officer? That is the problem I am really concerned with, and not the employment officer. The employment officer would merely give notice and then the matter would go to the adjudication officer. All it says is that the determination of the adjudication officer shall be binding. We want it to be in writing. Would my noble friend comment on this please?
Lord Ingle wood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I am now coming on to the point that he has quite properly raised, which is of crucial importance. So far as his first point is concerned, where the employment officer considers there has been a breach of entitlement

979
and the matter is referred to the adjudication officer, benefit is suspended until the question of entitlement is established by the adjudication officer. If the adjudication officer determines that entitlement still exists, the benefit is paid. However, if entitlement is found not to exist, then benefit is not paid. As a rider, it is important to appreciate that the hardship provisions back this up and apply in appropriate circumstances.
I should now like, if I may, to turn to the point raised by my noble friend, which is another aspect of the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale: decisions about entitlement. I think there is common ground between us that it is very important that claimants should be given full information about any decision which has been taken regarding their entitlement to benefit and their right to appeal against any decision. Under current regulations, all decisions by the adjudication officer on entitlement to unemployment benefit or income support must be notified to the claimant in writing, giving reasons for the decision.
This decision letter explains the effect that the decision will have on their award of benefit and on their national insurance contribution credits and the course of action open to them if they are dissatisfied with the decision and wish to appeal. Once more, I can confirm that this obligation to inform the claimant in writing will continue under JSA.
However, I fear that the effect of the amendment may go further. It may be intended to introduce a period of notice between the notification of the decision and the termination of entitlement during which the claimant could challenge the decision. That would introduce unnecessary and unwelcome delays into the system. We must bear in mind that adjudication officers made well over 1.3 million adverse decisions in unemployment benefit in 1993–4 and that less than 1 per cent. of decisions are appealed against. Of course if on appeal, or on review by an AO on the receipt of new information relevant to the decision, there is a decision in the claimant's favour, benefit will be back dated and paid in full.
To introduce a delay before action was taken on the adjudication officer's decision would, we believe, be very costly, involving needless overpayments of benefit to which claimants were not entitled. That would not be an appropriate use of taxpayers' money. We must ensure that claimants receive full information about decisions affecting their entitlement. We must also act responsibly as the guardians of the taxpayer. We believe that the amendment fails the second test.
The key point about the amendment is that we are in fact talking about cases where someone who is entitled to jobseeker's allowance ceases, by reason of his actions, to be so entitled. For all practical purposes, we are talking about—
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister just said that we are dealing with a case where entitlement ceases. That is not our understanding; we are dealing with a case where entitlement is called into question. The cases are different.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the amendment refers to a "loss" of entitlement. For there to be a loss of entitlement, there must have been an original entitlement.
I return to the point that I was about to make. So far as concerns loss of entitlement, there must be satisfaction of the relevant criteria which includes the existence of a jobseeker's agreement which has been entered into by the person in question. The crucial point about that jobseeker's agreement—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but I have checked the text of the amendment and I do not read it as saying what the Minister mentioned. Indeed, it does not refer to a loss of entitlement. It provides that,
"entitlement to a jobseeker's allowance is not lost",
while there is doubt. There is a crucial difference.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I hear what the noble Earl says. However, that is not my understanding of the way that the amendment has been drafted.
I wish to conclude by stressing that, in order to have a jobseeker's allowance, one must have met the entitlement conditions and have entered into a jobseeker's agreement. It is specified in Clause 9(5) of the Bill that the,
"employment officer shall not enter into a jobseeker's agreement with a claimant unless, in the officer's opinion, the conditions mentioned in section 1(2) (a) and (c)"—
which relate to entitlement and actively seeking work—
"would be satisfied with respect to the claimant if he were to comply with, or be treated as complying with, the proposed agreement".
All that a jobseeker need do to be sure that he is meeting the two criteria is to follow what has been set down in his jobseeker's agreement to which he has put his name. There are other ways of meeting such criteria. It is possible that the jobseeker would prefer to meet those criteria in other ways. The right thing for him to do in those circumstances is not to walk away from it; the right thing to do is to try to negotiate a variation in the jobseeker's agreement or to appeal against it. It seems to us that that is the responsible way for a person to deal with the predicament where he wishes to change his course of action. The mechanics of the system enable him to do so in a manner which would enable him to keep his allowance.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with respect, and before my noble friend the Minister sits down, I must point out that that is not quite the issue that is troubling me. I agree with everything that my noble friend said, but the issue is not quite as he put it. The issue is: on what grounds is the entitlement to be removed? It is not a question of walking away from the situation or of knowing what is in the agreement. The question is: what is the person doing that is contrary to the agreement which constitutes the grounds upon which the entitlement is being removed? I have put it very badly, but that is the issue.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, where there is an agreement, all that a jobseeker need do to ensure that he is meeting the available for work and actively seeking work test is to meet the steps that have been set out in

981
the agreement. There are a myriad of other ways of meeting the test. If a jobseeker wishes to do it in a different manner, it should be a matter of negotiation. In other words, the best way to approach it is by way of negotiation with the employment officer. In the event of the matter being referred to an adjudication officer when such a person does not take the sensible course of action, he is in a position to make inquiries and make representations to the adjudication officer as I described.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I have to tell the noble Lord that he has not clarified the position. We are more confused than we ever were before. No doubt we shall read what the noble Lord said in Hansard with great care. Perhaps, as the noble Lord said, we shall find that it is something to do with a computer. I do not know. However, it is certainly no clearer than it was before.
It seems to me that everyone who has spoken in the debate, except the Minister, has been absolutely clear. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said—and he is absolutely right—that it is a matter of natural justice. It is a matter of whether or not there are reasonable grounds; it is a matter of doubt. It is a matter of what happens under the principles of natural justice if, as it were, a charge, an allegation or a suggestion is made or, indeed, a suspicion advanced. Is the God-forsaken individual to be told what it is and given the opportunity to answer and say, "I don't think that I have broken the agreement"? Is he to be able to do so in some kind of quasi-judicial way?
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that that should be the case. I agree with him. However, I am not convinced that it is still the case. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that it is all about the second letter. I was glad to hear that. I have one piece of clarity: I now know that there are two letters. The first one does not matter, while the second letter does; but I doubt that it exists. I do not believe that the noble Lord understands what that second letter is supposed to do. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, also agreed. He said that we might not often need such a letter. However, the noble Lord went on to say—and I agree with him—that it is as well to put something in writing because otherwise those God-forsaken people will not be quite certain as to the nature of the charges that they have to answer. They must be given some idea.
During his reply, the Minister talked all the time about a new system which is entirely different. I would not like to believe that; indeed, I would not like to believe that helping jobseekers, or unemployed people as they used to be called, is something totally new to the Employment Service and that those concerned have never given jobseekers any information, never told them what is expected of them and never told them what they needed to do to get jobs. I do not believe that. From the inception of the Employment Service, I am sure that that was its objective. It is not anything new, except in the sense that it seems to want to get those people off benefit. That is what is new. That is the basic difference.
I do not believe the statements that the poor job applicant will be informed of his responsibility. All the language that the noble Lord used was about informing the jobseeker of what he or she had to do, not whether he or she had gone beyond what was said to be
982
necessary for actively seeking work or whether that could be evaluated by some quasi-judicial process. Therefore, we assume that the letter does not exist. We believe that it should exist. I intend to divide the House on the issue.
6.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 115.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kennet, L.

Birk, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Longford, E.

Chorley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Craigavon, V.

McNair, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mayhew, L.

Donoughue, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Foot, L.

Nicol, B.

Foot, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Bp.

Hamwee, B.

Seear, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Serota, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hylton, L.

Tonypandy,V

Hylton-Foster, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Carnock, L.

Addison, V.

Chesham, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Astor, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Balfour, E.

Coleridge, L.

Bethell, L.

Colwyn, L.

Biddulph, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Blaker, L.

Courtown, E.

Blatch, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Blyth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Digby, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Downshire, M.

Brookeborough, V.

Dundonald, E.

Burnham, L.

Elibank, L.

Butterfield, L.

Elles, B.

Cadman, L.

Elton, L.

Caithness, E.

Foley, L.

983

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Melville, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Mersey, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Goschen, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Munster, E.

Hanson, L.

Northesk, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Orkney, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Henley, L.

Pender, L.

Hesketh, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Hives, L.

Plumb, L.

Holderness, L.

Rawlings, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Reay, L.

Hothfield, L.

Romney, E.

Howe, E.

Seccombe, B.

Inglewood, L.

Sharples, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Kingsland, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Knutsford, V.

Stockton, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lindsay, E.

Strange, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Sudeley, L.

Lucas, L.

Swinton, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tebbit, L.

Lyell. L.

Teviot, L.

McConnell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Torphichen, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Torrington, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Trumpington, B. [Teller]

Marlesford, L.

Wynford, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.7 p.m.
Clause 7 [Actively seeking employment]:
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Wise Lord Wise moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 26, at end insert:
("( ) The following are examples of reasonable steps for which provision may be made under subsection (2)—

(a) voluntary work which enables the claimant to improve his prospects of gaining employment;

(b) part time study which enables the claimant to improve his prospects of gaining employment.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the main purpose of the amendment is to encourage Employment Service staff to recognise the benefits of voluntary work and part-time study as a means of obtaining a return to work. Many already do, but the amendment will ensure that a consistent approach is adopted in all parts of the country.
It has already been amply demonstrated in previous debates that what unemployed people want more than anything is a paid job. They do not see volunteering or part-time study as a substitute for paid employment. Many see both as a step towards a paid post. Others see volunteering as a constructive way of filling the time not taken up with job seeking and, happily, it often leads to employment. As has been shown in previous debates, often official training schemes and voluntary work
984
enable almost equal percentages of people to return to work. I am sure that the same will be shown to be the case with part-time study.
While voluntary work carried out by unemployed people involves no extra cost to the state, it can be of enormous benefit to the community and lead to jobs in fields not previously considered by the jobless. For example, Shipley Volunteer Bureau recruits more than 50 per cent. of its volunteers from the unemployed with the co-operation of the local employment office. More than 50 per cent. of those have gone on to paid employment, many of them to posts within the field of care in the community. This has been due to the experience they have obtained while working with voluntary schemes.
Another example which the National Association of Volunteer Bureaux gave me—I make no apology for relating such instances—involved a hairdresser in the Spalding area who went to her local volunteer bureau after being unemployed for 18 months. She was at a very low ebb. She helped out in a charity shop and at a day care centre for the elderly, both of which she enjoyed. However, after helping at a local training agency for the disabled for two weeks she had a paid job within days caring for patients with mental health problems. She undertakes this difficult work with energy and enthusiasm and still finds time for occasional voluntary fund-raising as a thank-you to those who helped her when she needed it.
One final example comes from someone in Gwent who was compelled to give up work for four years to care for her mother suffering from Alzheimer's disease. After her mother's death she found it difficult to get back to the work ethos. However, she was encouraged to become a hospital volunteer. When the volunteering co-ordinator gave up her post, this lady obtained it. Understanding the difficulties of the unemployed, she has aimed to encourage her volunteers to take advantage of training courses to increase experience. Among her successes are one who has become an auxiliary nurse and another who has obtained a clerical post. Another volunteer is seeking to obtain the qualifications and experience to become a medical social worker.
It is because of success stories such as these that I hope the amendment will be accepted. Some of the examples I have given come from relatively small organisations. Other noble Lords may give examples of larger organisations offering more structured training. However, both types of organisation offer valid paths back to employment, which I hope that the Minister will appreciate. I must again emphasise that in the examples I have given none of the volunteers saw their voluntary work as a substitute for paid employment and continued their job search while volunteering.
I thank the Minister for his letter, which I received this afternoon, in which he reiterated the Government's recognition of the value of voluntary work and that they would reflect further on this issue. At Committee stage my noble friend stated that he recognised the value and importance of volunteering in the community. There can be no doubt that voluntary work can both help unemployed people to stay in touch with the labour market and provide an opportunity for them to maintain

985
and develop their skills while looking for work. Having heard what he said, I was then at a loss to understand why he could not accept the amendment that voluntary work should count as a positive outcome from a Restart interview. I can only think that it may have been because the claimant remains unemployed and my noble friend feared that it diluted the focus in JSA of helping people back to work as quickly as possible.
The amendment takes account of that objection by suggesting a more constructive way of recognising the legitimacy of voluntary work as a step towards actively seeking work. It is a modest measure which focuses on encouraging unemployed people to take up voluntary work and part-time study, thereby greatly improving their prospects of finding employment. In so doing in no way does it detract from the main purpose in JSA of helping people back to work as speedily as possible. In fact it aids that purpose and, as I said, ensures that a consistent approach is taken in all parts of the country. My examples show what can be achieved with the co-operation of the local employment office.
I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, which I strongly support. As chairman of the National Trust, I must immediately declare an interest.
At the re-committed Committee stage, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was good enough to quote a small example of the use the trust makes of volunteers in its conservation work in the Lake District and our ability to pass our young volunteers on into full-time jobs through our work programmes. I thank her for mentioning it. I have many other equally successful examples—dozens—but, with an eye on the clock, I shall write to the Minister with those details.
The trust now has 30,000 people a year regularly giving a significant amount of their time to our work. In terms of work done, it is worth over £6 million a year to us. The volunteers are of all ages and skills. The long-term volunteers—the people about whom we speak today—often work for three to four days a week for periods of three months or more. Every year there are hundreds of those young people going through our work programmes. That, I submit, is not negligible. They receive training and a curriculum vitae of real work experience. It is real work and it ends in real jobs—two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, during the Committee stage. The great majority of them—some 80 per cent.—end up with a positive outcome. That is our experience: that 80 per cent. obtain a job. I submit that that is not negligible.
I should like briefly to mention the European Social Fund, which has been an important factor in progressing National Trust projects with long-term volunteers. In 1994, ESF funding enabled us at no direct additional cost to the trust or the Government to involve 117 long-term volunteers in structured work experience and training placements which in many cases led to national vocational qualifications and other accreditation. I urge
986
the Government to consider measuring both ESF schemes and volunteering against a set of measured criteria in much the same way as they already do for their own training schemes.
The point has been made to me over and again that those young volunteers are well qualified from school or university but that they have this difficult first step: to get real work experience and practical skills on to their CVs. It is difficult for those of us like myself who entered the job market 40 years ago, when one could walk into almost any job one wanted, to appreciate the difficulty of that first step.
But why put the issue at risk? The noble Lord, Lord Wise, explained some of the problems and why the amendment is necessary. Indeed, it is with some reluctance that I intervene at all. My natural habitat, if I may put it that way, is with heritage and environmental issues. But I felt that I had to respond to the plea of our hard-pressed staff. It is a madness to put this doubly useful activity at risk. I have to say, and I do so with reluctance, that we already find that we are being tripped up by officialdom and red tape. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, put the matter rather more politely. What the Government say may be absolutely fine in theory, but it is what occurs at ground level that matters. We need the amendment to combat red tape.
I read with interest the interchange between the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, at the re-committed Committee stage. The noble Lord stated that the only difference between them was one of emphasis. That to me meant that he rather agreed with our argument. I hope therefore that the new wording of the amendment means that we can secure agreement—if he will forgive the phrase, that we can agree a "positive outcome". It would be a great help.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support the amendment and Amendment No. 21 which is grouped with it.
One of the most useful things that voluntary work can do for an unemployed person is to keep him in the habit of taking part regularly in some form of useful activity and in the disciplines of that activity. When one is unemployed, particularly for a long time, it is very easy to slip out of the self-discipline of getting up in the morning, travelling to one's place of employment and then getting on with the job conscientiously all day.
I work for a voluntary organisation, a charity. It is no use charities or voluntary organisations having volunteers who sit around chatting, drinking cups of tea and doing nothing all day. The type of people they want are those who are prepared to roll up their sleeves, get on with the job and work conscientiously all day. That is also the kind of person an employer wants. If someone can leave a charity with a good report, he or she is far more likely to get a job and stop drawing the jobseeker's allowance.
The second part of the amendment concerns unemployed people or jobseekers who are undertaking part-time study. It is also extremely important that they should be allowed to continue their part-time study course, complete it and obtain qualifications.
Amendment No. 21 deals with those who are undertaking a course of study that is relevant to the prospects of obtaining employment where the claimant

987
has completed at least half and is within six weeks of completing his course. Again, that is extremely important. For a long time the Government and other people have been saying that what the country needs above all else is a trained and skilled workforce. The amendment helps to produce that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I too am happy to support this extremely important amendment. It recognises that the jobseeker's agreement is meant to be an individually tailored programme which not only encourages a claimant to apply for suitable vacancies, but will equip him to become suitable for an even greater range of vacancies.
We all know that perhaps the most eligible people in the labour market at the moment are younger women. One of the reasons why they, compared with other groups in our society, find it easier to get work is that they are flexible. From their background they are able to turn their hands to retailing, hotel work, caring work, shop assistants' work, office work and the like. The reason for that is that they will have learnt typing at school, looked after young children, cared for an elderly grandparent, babysat or done a Saturday job in a shop. They have experience, they are flexible and they are not afraid of change.
However, what about the group that finds it hardest to re-enter the world of work? I am talking of the middle-aged, the man in his 30s, 40s or 50s who comes from a working class background, who has relatively few skills and who has become unemployed. That middle-aged or older man finds it hard to regain work. He may have come off invalidity benefit and therefore be reputed to have a poor health record or he may well have been in one type of job for a long time—perhaps in the building industry. That work is becoming scarce and the man may be unsuitable for it. He does not believe that he can do anything else. Yet either the jobs he would wish to do are those for which he is now physically unsuited because of the invalidity benefit or the jobs do not exist.
We know from many such examples in our private lives that the man is apprehensive, deeply worried that he may never work again, insecure and uncertain. He is both intimidated by the benefits system and at the same time resentful of it. He lacks skills, flexibility, self confidence; he lacks the ability to take the initiative; he lacks the energy to get started and he is often deeply depressed.
What advice would each of us give to such men and sometimes women, as we do in our private lives? The advice that most of us would give is: "You need to become more flexible and regain your confidence. The best way is to broaden your horizons, get out and meet people, build up a portfolio of skills". Those are the skills which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, spoke about. We would say: "Extend your network, take additional training, do part-time study. Above all, do voluntary work". We would tell that person to take every opportunity to widen his or her experience, gain new skills, make new contacts, build up confidence. We would tell them: "Don't be lethargic, don't be depressed".
988
The most suitable way of doing that is to re-enter the world of work, but the world of unwaged work, by doing voluntary work or undertaking the relevant part-time study. We know from our own experience that that is the best way for many people to do what we all want—to have the opportunity to regain waged work.
We could add to the arguments ad infinitum: they have been well expressed at various earlier stages of the Bill. I urge the Minister to support the amendment, even at this late stage of proceedings on Third Reading, and to give his blessing to this amendment which is for many people the most practical and useful way for them to re-network themselves back into society.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, from these Benches we too support this important and sensible amendment. A voluntary organisation with which I am connected at the moment employs half a dozen volunteers. They happen to be members of the ethnic minorities, they are extremely valuable to us and we should, I think, be able to give all of them good references to add to their CVs. That can only be helpful in getting people who would otherwise find it difficult to obtain employment back into the labour market. That is what we and the Government want and it is a simple proposal for the Government to accept.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. I have not yet said one word on the Bill but I know that the Government run a scheme called "Opportunities for Volunteering". Organisations like the National Association of Leagues of Hospital Friends or the Carers National Association can apply for grants. The criterion for obtaining grants is that the organisations should use unemployed people. Having been chairman of the National Association of Leagues of Hospital Friends for over 10 years, I can assure the Minister that it is one of the most successful schemes for getting people back to working in hospitals in various grades.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I too support Amendment No. 11 and I wish to speak to Amendment No. 21, which is grouped with it. At Report stage, a similar amendment was on the Marshalled List and the Minister confirmed that there was no difference between us in your Lordships' House on the amendment's intentions. They were that someone who had taken the opportunity to join a course of study would not be penalised if that course would enhance their prospects of employment.
Unfortunately, the Minister went on to say that, while accepting the intentions of the amendment, he was going to reject it. He said that, after the Bill had been enacted, the Government could, under Clause 28, introduce pilot schemes and conduct research. However, those pilot schemes would not come about until a year or so after the Act had been working. From where I stand, that looked like extreme confidence on the part of the Government and little help to the people who are on courses. I believe that it is highly doubtful that the Government would be in a position to help anyone two years from now, the

989
time we are talking about. It is highly unlikely that they will be in office to carry out the undertaking they gave us at Report stage.
That being said, the Government's attitude will not help for example, the man in Devon. With assistance from his family, he borrowed £250 and went on a course that would assist his prospects for employment. His benefit was stopped, even though he went on that course with the full knowledge of the employment officer. It will not help the man in Hampshire who was unemployed for four months. He was very worried that there were no job opportunities, he discussed it again with his employment officer. It was agreed that he should try to take up part-time training, up to 21 hours a week. He did so, but he also paid £20 towards the course. The course cost £190 but, understandably, the college required people to pay something towards the cost, to try to stop people dropping out. He paid his £20, the employment officer knew that he was going on the course, but he lost his benefit. That cannot be right in anyone's book. I cannot believe that that was ever the intention of this Bill. I accept that the Bill does not introduce that principle; it is in existence now. But the Bill could be used to amend that error, to ensure the policy espoused by the Government from time to time that self-help brings self-improvement and would therefore bring the increased chance of job opportunity.
This clause is not there to enable people to receive benefits by not being available for work but by simply going on a course. If we read the amendment, we see that it provides that the only good cause will be that the claimant's course is halfway through, or that there is only six weeks left to run, and if the course itself will ensure that a claimant's prospects of employment will be enhanced.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I too support Amendments Nos. 11 and 21.I do so because of the importance of recognising that voices from different parts of this House have contributed on the basis of their own experience of the issues that are the subject of this amendment.
The unemployed are not a single group of identical people facing the same circumstances in every part of the country. They are not the same age, or the same sex; they do not face the same difficulties in terms of their personal experience. But there is one common feature in unemployment; namely, a lowering of morale and self-confidence in the individual concerned.
With regard to courses, the whole aim of the Government's policy as they have explained it is to encourage people to upgrade their qualifications, training skills and experience in order to make them more able to get work. We do not ask somebody who is taking a degree course at university to be available for work over three-quarters of the way through the course and to forgo their grant and the qualification that was the aim of their going on the course. Is it fair or reasonable; does it build the self-esteem of somebody who has been unemployed to say to them that we value the training course that they are doing and the education that they are undertaking so little? Is it reasonable to say, within six weeks of the end,
990
over halfway through, that the course does not matter at all, and that they should drop it and leave immediately? The message being given to individuals is that all they are doing is filling their time rather than being of any value.
Secondly—I shall not go over all the arguments—we have to understand that there are many people who need to return to the labour market after periods of time caring, often for elderly relatives who have since died, and who feel not clinically depressed but low. They lack confidence, perhaps having spent many years, for example, caring for someone with Alzheimer's disease. They are now free to return to the labour market but they lack the confidence to do so. All this is important in terms of the way that people present themselves.
I ask noble Lords to consider the term "available for work". Part of being available for work is being able to present yourself to a prospective employer as having the social skills, the self-confidence and the competence to take on the job, do it and complete it. Let us consider the employer faced with a choice between someone who has not had a break in their employment and someone who has. The employer needs someone who will complete what they take on. He needs somebody who will give a reference on the basis of the most recent activity. Voluntary work can provide that reference. That is much more important for somebody aged 45 or 50 than going back to somebody who knew them when they were at school or when they last worked, perhaps five or 10 years ago.
There is also the importance of recognising that many people are deeply ashamed of being unemployed. They ought not to be, but there is a tendency in the media to stereotype. There are many people—I have met some of them in my time as a councillor—who are embarrassed about admitting that they are unemployed and who feel inside that they have failed. That failure is a self-perpetuating cycle. Therefore I ask the Government, at this late stage, to listen to the different experiences and to take into account the different backgrounds from which people have come. Please will they consider at this stage accepting these amendments?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have had yet another full debate on this subject. We have debated it on a number of occasions with regard both to voluntary work and part-time study and the links with what I have to keep repeating is the primary condition for jobseekers; namely, to be actively seeking employment and being available for work.
I do not think there is an argument about the simple fact that voluntary work and part-time study can help unemployed people keep in touch with the labour market. It can develop new skills, and it can maintain existing skills, while at the same time—certainly in the case of voluntary work—helping the community. The question is: should those kinds of steps be listed as steps that meet the "actively seeking employment" condition?
I want to emphasise again that actively seeking employment is a basic labour market condition of JSA. The underlying principle of the condition is that the jobseeker should take steps which give him his best prospects of securing employment. That is the litmus test that we must apply when we are considering any changes to the actively seeking rules.

991
The current regulations include a non-existive list—I apologise, a non-exhaustive list of activities which count as steps—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I had thought that by this time we should be in the dinner interval. Obviously, my little programme has put me slightly out of time. I do not intend to eat my words. I intend to do slightly better than that, although my words are of course excellent food.
At present these are all steps that are closely linked to actual jobsearch, such as job applications and registering with employment agencies. But in the JSA regulations, we propose to expand the list to include steps that may help to improve a jobseeker's employability. We are doing this because we recognise that activities that do not relate directly to jobsearch may, nevertheless, improve a jobseeker's chance of getting back to work.
I should now like to explain the special arrangements that we propose to make in JSA for people undertaking voluntary work and part-time study. First, people claiming JSA will be able to undertake full-time voluntary work provided that they remain available for and actively seeking employment. That is a significant recognition of the important role that voluntary work can play in helping them find paid employment.
Secondly, the availability rule will be relaxed for people who undertake voluntary work. Jobseekers in general, as we have seen, will have to be available for work immediately. People undertaking voluntary work will be allowed 48 hours' notice before having to take up an offer of work or before attending an interview for a job.
Thirdly, the current regulations specifically state that any time during which the jobseeker was doing voluntary work is a circumstance to be taken into account when considering whether he has met the actively seeking employment condition. We have given an undertaking that this will be carried forward into the JSA regulations.
Fourthly, the voluntary sector plays an important role in delivering the Government's programmes for unemployed people, such as Training for Work, Youth Training and Community Action.
Finally, in recognition of the arguments which noble Lords have put forward in the course of our debates, we have agreed to consult the voluntary sector. We will be writing to representatives before the Summer Recess to seek their views. We shall consider the responses carefully before the regulations are drafted.
Turning to part-time study, people will be allowed to study part-time while claiming JSA, so long as they remain available for and actively seeking employment. Indeed, we have announced that we are updating the rules to remove the problems that some people have experienced with the current rules, so that people are clear about what study they can undertake while claiming JSA. In particular, we have addressed the problem caused by further education courses no longer being classified as full or part-time, which has caused uncertainty for jobseekers, colleges and those administering benefits. Also, we have said that after three months of unemployment, the course
992
will not of itself be a reason for finding that someone is unavailable for work, provided he is prepared to take a job.
Secondly, I mentioned a few moments ago that the list of active seeking steps will be extended to include actions which improve employability. For the first time, one of the steps will be attending a full-time job-related course of up to two weeks in a year.
Thirdly, again just as with voluntary work, the current regulations specifically state that vocational study or training is to be taken into account when considering whether a jobseeker has met the actively seeking employment condition. This, too, will be carried forward into the JSA regulations.
Finally, in response to arguments from noble Lords last week, I undertook to reflect on the matter further and to collect new and better information on part-time study arrangements, and perhaps pilot new approaches. This would be intended to provide secure evidence on what kind of arrangements will best enhance jobseekers' prospects of obtaining work.
I believe these special arrangements are extensive and generous. They are a clear indication that we recognise the potential value of undertaking voluntary work and part-time study while claiming JSA. But, as I have said, the specific issue before us is whether to accept an amendment which would put a statement on the face of the Bill that voluntary work and part-time study may count as active seeking steps.
While we all agree that voluntary work and part-time study can in many cases help improve a jobseeker's chances of finding paid employment, there can equally be cases where we must question whether a person's other activities may be acting against their chances of finding employment. We have to strike the right balance in favour of both the jobseeker and the taxpayer.
I believe that we have to weigh up very carefully the questions in Amendment No. 11. In the case of voluntary work we have given a commitment to reflect and consult. In the case of part-time study, we have said that we recognise that it is important to get the balance right; that is why we shall collect new and better information on part-time study arrangements. I am afraid that I cannot go further at this stage. In particular, I cannot agree that it would be appropriate to deal with these matters in primary legislation.
I am sure that the public at least and certainly, I suspect, many of your Lordships would find it most odd if the Jobseekers Bill listed voluntary work and part-time study as examples of steps for which provisions may be made in regulations but not applying for jobs.
Let me turn to Amendment No. 21, which is very similar to an amendment that we addressed at Report stage. Its purpose is to provide that if a jobseeker has completed at least half of a course of study which is relevant to his prospects of obtaining employment and is within six weeks of completing it, that will be good cause for failing to apply for or refusing or neglecting to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of employment.
I explained last week, when replying to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, that although I could not accept her amendment, I understood the principles behind it. I

993
undertook to reflect further on the matter. As I said earlier, we intend to collect some new and, it is to be hoped, better information on part-time study arrangements and perhaps pilot new approaches using the powers in Clause 29 of the Bill. I should like to consider whether an approach based on the noble Baroness's proposals might be tested alongside other ideas.
I feel that it is worth saying that if somebody is studying part-time and takes a job, he will have every opportunity to adapt the way in which he studies in order to study and carry on with the job. Many people undertake further study while they are working. I see no reason to believe that people in the situation portrayed by the Benches opposite will not be able to make the same kind of accommodations as people in work and studying, perhaps to improve their situation, are already doing.
Let me make one other point to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. She mentioned the kind of rule-of-thumb system that the Employment Service operates; namely, that if a person has invested more than £100 in fees for a course, that matter should be referred to the independent adjudication officer. I should like to make clear, as there appears to be some confusion in this matter, that it is a rule of thumb for there to be referral to the adjudication officer; the decision always rests with that officer, who will make his decision according to the usual rules of availability.
I understand that £100 may seem an arbitrary figure. But there must be some point at which one can question whether a person who has made a substantial investment in a course of study is in fact no longer available for work. We have made it clear—I have done so again today—that unemployment benefit is not for people whose first priority is to study. Those people should look elsewhere for financial support.
7.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He mentioned the sum of £100. Is he prepared to index-link it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If, my Lords, the noble Earl will contain his patience for a moment, I shall come to the point that I want to make about the matter. There has to be some distinction made. I reflected on the points made on this issue after Report stage. I feel that there has to be some kind of level. I am prepared—I hope that it will be considered helpful, although I accept that it will not be considered nearly so helpful as accepting the amendment—to write to the chief executive of the Employment Service and suggest that he might review the level at which the employment officer will consider referring to an adjudication officer the question of whether a claimant is available for work. I hope that that will go some way toward reassuring the noble Earl and indeed the noble Baroness.
I am sorry that I have gone on a little, but I wanted to emphasise the point that both part-time study and volunteering are allowed for currently and will be allowed for in the jobseeker's agreement. I am not prepared to go so far as to say that somehow we should set aside the fundamental conditions of availability for work and actively seeking work, which are at the heart of JSA, just
994
because someone is volunteering or doing part-time study. The two can go together. I hope that I have explained how we believe that they will be able to go together to the satisfaction, I hope, of the many organisations which use volunteers, to the satisfaction of the jobseeker himself and to the satisfaction of the taxpayer, whose interests ultimately have to be protected when it comes to spending public money.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I thank all those who have supported the amendment. From the support from all round the Chamber, it is very evident that it has been very worthwhile. Indeed, in many ways I am heartened by my noble friend's remarks. The points that he made on voluntary work are indeed most welcome. I certainly welcome his assurance that the Government will consult with the main representatives of the voluntary sector before the drafting of the JSA regulations. That is indeed a very good thing.
With regard to part-time study, that would be only one way in which a claimant could seek work. Indeed, a claimant would have to show other evidence that he was actively seeking work. So this a modest amendment, primarily designed to promote a positive attitude by employment officers.
Having said that, there is no point in putting this amendment to a Division at this late hour. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should like to make a short business statement. It has been agreed through the usual channels that we should now adjourn proceedings on the Jobseekers Bill until 8.35 p.m. It has also been agreed by all those who have put down their names to speak on the Land Registers (Scotland) Bill, that the Second Reading should be taken during that dinner break. If no noble Lord objects to this proposal, I hope that we can proceed as I have proposed. I beg to move that proceedings after Third Reading of the Jobseekers Bill be now adjourned to 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Land Registers (Scotland) Bill
7.50 p.m.
The Earl of Dundonald: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Perhaps I may say, first, how delighted I am to be speaking to this Bill as I recently joined the Advisory Council to the Scottish Records Office, whose task it is to make representations or submit proposals to the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Lord President of the Court of Session on questions relating to the public records of Scotland and, in particular, to the custody, preservation and cataloguing of

995
those records and to questions of access. Therefore, although not directly related, it is fair to say that I have some small experience with records in Scotland.
The Land Registers (Scotland) Bill has a single purpose; that is, to make prepayment of the appropriate statutory fees a condition of acceptance of writs for recording in the Register of Sasines and of applications for registration in the Land Register of Scotland. The Bill enjoys all-party support in Scotland. It is also supported by the Law Society of Scotland.
The Keeper of the Registers of Scotland is keen to move from post-payment to prepayment of fees for a number of reasons. First, the current system of invoicing customers, who are mainly solicitors, after the work on registration or recording has been completed, is both time-consuming and expensive in pursuing outstanding fees. In recent years the level of outstanding fees has risen significantly. By early 1994 the level of outstanding fees over 30 days old had risen to the equivalent of some 15 per cent. of the annual income of the agency. A determined drive by the agency, supported by the Law Society of Scotland, managed to reduce that figure to about 8.5 per cent. Nevertheless, at the end of April 1995, over £2.8 million of fee income was outstanding for 30 days or more. A move to prepayment of fees is seen as the only long-term solution to this problem.
Secondly, a move to prepayment would bring the agency into line with the position in England and Wales. Finally, it will assist the agency in putting its finances on a firmer footing, something which will become increasingly important for the agency as it moves to trading fund status from April 1996.
A move to prepayment is not possible without existing legislation being amended. Section 6 of the Land Registers (Scotland) Act 1868 provides inter alio that payment of fees for recording writs in the Register of Sasines should take place after recording. There is no similar restriction in the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979, which provides for the successor land registration system in Scotland, but the Keeper would not have the power to reject an application for registration on the Land Register without an amendment to Section 4 of that Act. The Bill therefore provides for the necessary amendments to be made to those two Acts.
The proposed change is not in any way controversial. There are no adverse cost implications for solicitors or purchasers of property, including house-buyers. I therefore hope that your Lordships will support this Bill and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Dundonald.)
7.55 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, for introducing this Bill, accepting the fact—I am not sure that he will—that land law in Scotland is archaic and a great deal of fundamental work has to be done on it at some time.
996
As it stands, I am informed by all the people I consulted that this is a helpful piece of legislation and that, as the noble Earl mentioned, the conveyancing committee of the Law Society of Scotland believes that the Bill will represent an improvement on present procedures. Until an opportunity is given to produce a major Bill on Scottish land law, it would be wrong of me to do other than appreciate, accept and welcome the modification of the amendment suggested by the noble Earl. I hope therefore that the Bill is given a Second Reading without any dissent.
7.56 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, on his introduction of the Bill. I welcome the Bill as I believe that it will put the financing of the Records Office on a better footing and, in so doing, do away with the substantial backlog of late payments which has built up.
At a general rate of £11 per £5,000 of property, the prepayment will not pose undue problems in most transactions of a domestic nature. It is likely that solicitors will have to pay in advance of the actual transfer of funds, but I am sure that a way round that will be found. That aspect will be more serious when considering large, multi-million pound transfers.
I foresee a possible problem being caused by the legislation in the rare circumstance that a purchaser agrees a sale and then dies. As the land sale registration would have been prepaid, it would not be cancelled, with the result that the deceased's executors would have to pay again for the re-registration of the non-sale back to the vendor's possession. Finally, as I welcome the Bill, I hope also that noble Lords opposite will consider bringing forward legislation to establish a comprehensive register of land ownership in Scotland which can be easily accessed by everybody and which will be widely welcomed by the Scottish people.
7.58 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend on the able and lucid way in which he presented the Bill. It is a very narrowly focused Bill; however, it is important in ensuring that the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland can undertake his statutory duties in a cost-effective and efficient manner.
There are no additional costs involved for customers of the agency, but it will enable the agency to make savings of around £500,000 per annum on the collection of fees. Those savings will assist the agency in carrying forward the extension of the land registration system to cover the whole of Scotland by no later than the year 2003.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, asked what would happen in the rare circumstance that he described; that is, a purchaser agreeing a sale and then dying. If an application to register a title on the Land Register or record a deed on the Sasine Register is withdrawn, the Registers of Scotland Fee Order 1991 provides for a fee to be charged to reflect work undertaken on the application. That fee would be subtracted from the fee submitted under prepayment and the balance returned to

997
the applicant. However, the Keeper of the Registers has a discretion to waive fees under certain circumstances, such as the death of the applicant. A full refund of the prepaid fee would therefore be made in such cases. I hope that that explanation reassures the noble Earl.
As my noble friend has shown, this is an uncontroversial Bill. It has all-party support and is also supported by the Law Society of Scotland. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
8 p.m.
The Earl of Dundonald: My Lords, I thank all concerned for participating in this debate, whom I can name directly as there are only four of us—the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8 to 8.35 p.m.]

Jobseekers Bill
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 9 [The jobseeker's agreement]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 7, line 37, leave out from ("officer") to second ("is") in line 38.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in rising to move Amendment No. 12, I should like, with the leave of the House and with the agreement of the Minister, to speak to two groups together since the issues are pretty well identical. Therefore, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 17.
These amendments all arise from an attempt to tidy up after the very big and particularly valuable series of concessions offered on the drafting of Clauses 9 and 10 on the second day of Report, the series I have come to think of as "Inglewood's easement". I said when those concessions were offered that I would need to read what was said and that indeed I thought I would need to read it several times. I have done so and I may say that it improves with reading. It is one of the most valuable series of concessions that we have had during the Bill and it is not in any ungracious spirit that I should like to try to add a little tidying up just to make it certain.
What concerned us about the drafting of the clauses, especially Clause 9, was the possibility that the wording of the jobseeker's agreement could come to provide a series of additional conditions for benefit beyond the conditions in Clause 1(2) (a) and (2) (c). The general purpose of the string of amendments is to restrict the eligibility criteria to Clause 1(2) (a) and 2(c)—to be "available for employment" and "actively seeking employment".
The words which particularly concerned us were the ones which Amendment No. 12 seeks to delete. An agreement,
998
"which complies with the prescribed requirements in force at the time when the agreement is made",
is described as a jobseeker's agreement. Those words gave a suggestion of an introduction of additional conditions. I am entirely convinced now that that was not the Minister's intention, nor anything like the Minister's intention. What I am concerned with now is tidying up to make sure that it shall remain that way in the future.
Amendment No. 13 inserts the words,
"in the prescribed format".
That is meant to give effect to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, on the second day of the Report stage. He said:
"The intention is to include things such as the jobseeker's name, his availability, the sort of work he is looking for, any period that is agreed in which he can restrict his availability and jobsearch … and rate of pay and a dated signature of both the jobseeker and the employment officer".—[Official Report, 16/5/95; col. 480]
We are not arguing with what the noble Lord said. Our concern is to make sure that no one adds anything else thereafter.
The remaining amendments in the group are all concerned to restrict the conditions of eligibility to the ones set out in Clause 1(2). It binds the adjudication officer to judge by those criteria and no others. I hope that the amendments are helpful. They are intended to be and they are certainly not intended in any critical spirit. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Earl for his kind comments at the outset of his remarks and acknowledging that we receive them in the spirit in which they were given. We have debated these issues over a number of days. As the noble Earl said, I endeavoured to give a full explanation of our intentions at Report stage, and I do not propose to repeat all that today. Nonetheless, it may be helpful if I clarify some of the points. I sense that the noble Earl is seeking reassurance on a number of issues. If I can reassure him, I shall be satisfied and he may then feel able to withdraw his amendment.
As I have made clear in every debate during the passage of the Bill, the agreement is a supportive measure which will help jobseekers get back to work. It will not—I repeat not—allow the employment officer or the independent adjudication officer to impose individual conditions of benefit. I have given the House repeated reassurances to this effect. I am happy to do the same again now.
I have already reassured the noble Earl that the power in subsection (1) is benign. Perhaps it would help him and the House if I explain once again that the regulations made under it will be used to set out what will be needed to constitute an agreement—broadly speaking, the headings that it must contain. The intention is to include such things as the jobseeker's name, his availability, the sort of work he is looking for, any period that is agreed in which he can restrict his availability and jobsearch to his normal occupation and rate of pay and a dated signature of both the jobseeker and the employment officer. We have made all this clear. I can confirm that the word "requirements" relates to the specification of what must be in the document

999
and not to actions which the jobseeker will take, as described in the agreement. I hope that that meets the point that the noble Earl is anxious about.
Having dealt initially with Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, I move on to the further Amendments, Nos. 14, 15 and 17. As regards Amendment No. 14, once the jobseeker has an agreement in force the key to his continued receipt of jobseeker's allowance will, however, be the actual steps that he takes to find work and his actual availability for employment. The agreement will be used as a basis for establishing what the jobseeker has agreed to do to meet the conditions of availability and active seeking, but whether the jobseeker has abided by the precise letter of what is in his agreement will not be the test of whether someone continues to meet the conditions.
For example, if a jobseeker has said in his agreement that he will apply for jobs in a factory but he then applies for a job in a supermarket in addition to or instead of a factory, that jobseeker will not be penalised provided he was still actively seeking employment. No one could possibly want that to be the case. This is an important point, and it is right that your Lordships should have focused on it now and previously. I want it to be absolutely clear that there is no question of the agreement setting different standards of availability and active seeking than are applied by the basic conditions.
I now move on to Amendments Nos. 15 and 17. As has been explained repeatedly in this House and in the other place, the Bill provides an extensive procedure for independent adjudication and appeal of jobseeker's agreements and variations. Both the jobseeker and the employment adviser will be able to have a proposed agreement or variation referred to an adjudication officer.
The adjudication officer will carry out his functions independently of government under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and receive guidance on carrying out their adjudication duties from the chief adjudication officer, not the Secretary of State. If the jobseeker or the employment adviser is dissatisfied with the adjudication officer's determination, either may seek to have it reviewed by a different adjudication officer. If the jobseeker is still dissatisfied he, but not the employment adviser, will have the right of appeal to the Social Security Appeal Tribunal; and thence to the commissioner on a point of law.
Now let us turn to the matters which the adjudication officer will consider in making his determination. Again, I believe that the noble Earl is seeking, in particular, to ensure that the adjudication officer will not be able to say that it is reasonable to expect the jobseeker to have to comply with other conditions over and above the availability for employment and actively seeking employment conditions. That goes to the very heart of Clause 9(6) and Clause 10(5). They offer explicit protection to the jobseeker. They provide for the adjudication officer to consider two matters. First, would the jobseeker, if he complied with the proposed agreement (or variation) satisfy the availability and actively seeking employment conditions of JSA? And, secondly, is it reasonable to expect the jobseeker to have
1000
to comply with the proposed agreement? Let me make it clear: the adjudication officer will not—indeed, cannot—consider other matters.
I gave examples of this at Report and I am happy to give them again today. Take, for example, a proposed agreement which stated that the jobseeker would apply for 90 jobs a week. Applying for 90 jobs a week would clearly enable him to meet the actively seeking employment condition but it would be unreasonable to expect him to have to do so. The adjudication officer would make a determination to that effect, and the jobseeker would not have to look for 90 jobs a week. Or a proposed agreement which stated that a declared anti-vivisectionist would be available for jobs as an assistant in a laboratory that uses animals for its testing would again be unreasonable because there are many other types of job which the jobseeker could be available for in order to meet the availability condition. Again the adjudication officer could make a determination to that effect and the jobseeker would not have to be available for work to which he was conscientiously opposed.
As I said at Report, the entitlement conditions apply to different individuals according to their particular circumstances. There is no absolute stipulated number of jobs that people in general should apply for in each week. But if the noble Earl's question is can an adjudication officer set a higher level for an individual in an agreement than would be sufficient for that individual to meet the conditions in Clauses 1(2) (a) and 1(2) (c), the answer is simple and straightforward: it is, no.
I believe the Bill is quite clear, but the noble Earl has suggested a drafting change to make it yet clearer. I have to say that I find that his amendment would make the Bill less clear. It speaks of reasonable steps for meeting the availability and actively seeking employment conditions, but there are no steps involved in being available. Steps are a matter of active seeking.
I believe that I can see the point the noble Earl is making. We could spend a long time debating fine drafting points. But I have given an explanation of what this part of the Bill means, and I believe that there must come a time in our deliberations when we leave the drafting to the draftsman. I very much hope, as I have gone through these various points and given reassurance to the noble Earl, that he can withdraw his amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister not only for the trouble he has taken about this matter, which is considerable, but also for the clarity with which he has understood exactly what our concerns are. It has made business a great deal easier to conduct. I am also grateful to him for four very specific reassurances he has just given.
First, and most crucial, is the exposition of the meaning of the word "requirements". That alone goes a very long way to reassure me on the points that we are concerned with. The second reassurance which he repeated was that the jobseeker cannot be held to the precise letter of the agreement. That provides a very valuable opportunity to react to circumstances as they

1001
turn up. The third reassurance is that it does not make it possible to bring in any different standards of availability and of seeking. That is an unambiguous reassurance and an extremely welcome one. In the fourth example of reassurance the Minister was only spelling out again what he said before, but with even greater clarity. That is the point that people cannot be compelled to take work to which they are conscientiously opposed. That is a valuable safeguard and a part of human dignity. I am extremely glad to hear it said so clearly. I thank the Minister warmly and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 8, line 16, leave out third ("of") and insert ("from").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 and 29. In the Report stage on 16th May, I spoke to a series of amendments to the clauses dealing with the jobseeker's agreement, which your Lordships were pleased to approve. I mentioned then that we proposed to make a small drafting improvement to the amended Clause 9(7) (a) and Clause 10(6) (a), which deal with the time-limit in which the adjudication officer makes his determination on an agreement.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 18 are purely technical, drafting amendments. I hope that your Lordships will welcome them. Amendment No. 29 is a small consequential amendment. Paragraph 42(3) of Schedule 2 amends Section 20 of the Social Security Administration Act so that the adjudication of a jobseeker's agreement will take place under the procedure set out in Clauses 9 and 10 of the Jobseekers Bill, rather than the Social Security Administration Act. The amendments to Clauses 9 and 10 which your Lordships approved at Report stage put the adjudication procedure on the face of the Bill. The reference to regulations in paragraph 42(3) must, therefore, be removed. This is a consequential amendment and I hope that your Lordships will welcome it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Variation of jobseeker's agreement]:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 9, line 23, leave out third ("of") and insert ("from").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Severe hardship]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 13, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) This section shall apply to any person aged 16 to 18 who has applied to join the armed forces but cannot join until the next enlistment date.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it would be redundant to explain this amendment to the House at this time of night. I think that we all know what it is about. It relates to 16 and 17 year-olds applying to join the Armed Forces. I tabled this amendment in order to find out
1002
whether the Minister is able to be a little more forthcoming than he was in his mildly and intermittently encouraging answer on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Earl rightly pointed out, we have discussed this issue previously. On those previous occasions, I recognised that there was an issue that we should look into. I promised to consult the Ministry of Defence and to write to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, with our proposals.
The noble Earl appeared to suggest at Report that the decision ought to be straightforward. But I regret to inform him that it is not that simple. As I have explained, there can be wide variations in the length of time between being offered employment with the forces and the actual enlistment date. There is little we can do to influence that. We have been informed by the Ministry of Defence that the waiting period can be as long as six months. I am sure that we would all agree that in those cases young people should not be encouraged to sit waiting for that enlistment date to arrive. It is reasonable to expect all young people to look for work and training during that time.
As the noble Earl knows, I do not normally consider amendments from a textual point of view, but the amendment as drafted states,
"applied to join the armed forces".
I thought that we had agreed that we were talking about somebody who had been accepted by the Armed Forces and was awaiting an entry date. Therefore, we have a problem. I have already indicated that we shall have to consider whether all young people in that situation should be able to claim JSA or only those at risk of severe hardship. We are still discussing the matter with the Ministry of Defence, and, as I have promised, when we have concluded our discussions, I shall write to the noble Earl. However, even when we reach that conclusion, I do not think that this should be a matter for primary legislation. It is something about which we need to consult and I believe that we can then deal with it in regulations in due course. As I have promised, I shall write to the noble Earl when we have reached a conclusion on the matter. I hope that he will accept those assurances.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply and for the trouble that he has already taken over this matter. I take his point about six months. I had not realised that the waiting period could be as long as that and I agree that it makes a difference.
I am also interested to hear that the provisions can be changed without primary legislation. That makes it easier to leave this matter beyond the completion of the Bill. If I had known that last Thursday, I would not have tabled this amendment. Having discovered that and having thanked the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Circumstances in which a jobseeker's allowance is not payable]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 15, line 40, leave out from second ("be") to end of line 42 and insert ("no more than two weeks in the first instance and a subsequent maximum of four weeks if the claimant persists in his refusal or failure to comply").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to Clause 19 and the circumstances in which a jobseeker's allowance is not payable. Two subsections spell out the circumstances in which that allowance is not payable. Subsection (5) refers to where a jobseeker has failed to observe a jobseeker's direction, has neglected or refused a place on a training scheme, or has been dismissed from such a scheme on grounds of misconduct. Subsection (6) states that the jobseeker's allowance will not be paid where the jobseeker refuses an employment opportunity, loses a job through misconduct or leaves without just cause. Those two subsections specify the circumstances in which the jobseeker's allowance shall not be payable.
The amendment deals with the fact that on the face of the Bill both of those circumstances—neglecting to go on a training scheme or being dismissed from a training scheme and what one would have thought the apparently more severe behaviour of refusing an employment opportunity, losing a job due to misconduct or leaving without just cause—carry the same statutory penalties.
Subsection (2) deals with the statutory penalties affecting subsection (5) and states:
"If the circumstances are any of those mentioned in subsection (5), the period for which the allowance is not to be payable shall be such period (of at least one week but not more than 26 weeks) as may be prescribed".
Subsection (3) uses almost precisely the same words but with reference to subsection (6), stating:
"If the circumstances are any of those mentioned in subsection (6), the period for which the allowance is not to be payable shall be such period (of at least one week but not more than 26 weeks) as may be determined by the adjudication officer".
Therefore, two different types of misconduct or behaviour which would disqualify one from receipt of the jobseeker's allowance are spelled out in subsections (5) and (6), with two almost identical subsections—subsections (2) and (3)—stating that the maximum penalty is 26 weeks in both cases. Anybody looking at the face of the Bill might think that the Government regard both types of behaviour as equally appalling, dreadful and awful and as equally justifying a 26-week refusal of benefit.
However, page 28 of the Notes on Clauses states as regards subsection (2)—that is, that which covers subsection (5):
"The intention is that the period of sanction should be for two weeks, rising to four weeks, if the sanction is imposed on a subsequent occasion".
So, a mild sanction is intended for those offences committed under subsection (5)—two weeks in the first instance, but four weeks if you go on doing it.
Page 26 of the White Paper says much the same thing:
"People who refuse to attend or complete mandatory courses, or fail to act on a jobseeker's direction will be disqualified from benefit for a fixed period of two weeks, rising to four if repeated".
Finally, on Report, when turning down the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which would have limited suspension to six weeks after repeated offences, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said:
"Amendment No. 77 removes the stipulation that the minimum period of sanction that can be prescribed under Clause 18(2) is one week, and the maximum period that can be prescribed is 26 weeks. As your Lordships will be aware, these sanctions relate to the circumstances set out in Clause 18(5); that is, refusal or failure to carry out a jobseeker's direction or to attend a training scheme or employment programme".
Then he goes on as a reason for refusing the amendment:
"But let me assure your Lordships that the Government's intention, clearly set out in the White Paper"—
which I have quoted—
"is that the regulations will establish a two-week sanction for these circumstances, rising to four weeks if the claimant persists in his refusal or failure. We believe it is right to set a clear penalty"—
I should not have thought it was very clear, as it is totally different from what is on the face of the Bill:
"so that unemployed people will be under no doubt"—
because presumably they will know the regulations that we do not yet have rather than the face of the Bill, which we do not intend to follow—
"of the consequences if they reject our help and assistance without good cause".—[Official Report, 15/5/95; col. 371]
The Government will not accept an amendment to reduce the period to six weeks, and yet they say in Notes on Clauses, in the White Paper, and on the Floor of the House that they will, at some time in the future, prescribe something far less drastic than that. The purpose of the amendment is simple. Why cannot that be on the face of the Bill? I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this is an important amendment. I support it warmly and with enthusiasm. In other circumstances I might have said so at some length, but as it is I think the Minister could write my speech to the amendment in his sleep, so I will not make him listen to it again.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this is assuredly an important amendment. The object is, in a sense, to rectify an apparent disparity as to sanctions. That alters the whole balance of part of the structure of the Bill. On Third Reading, in a thin House, it is hardly appropriate that we should entertain such a proposition.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, we have been round this track a number of times. As I have said before, the overwhelming majority of people who become unemployed make every effort to find work at the earliest possible opportunity and are prepared to be available for as many jobs as possible. They need no further incentive from the benefit rules. However for those who are less firm in their intentions and who do not have the same resolve to get back to work, sanctions can play a very important role in influencing the behaviour of people who are claiming benefit and reinforcing incentives for them to take the right steps to improve their prospects of finding a job.

1005
To make sanctions more effective we have sought to simplify and clarify them so that claimants will know exactly where they stand and what will be the consequences of failing, or refusing, to act on directions or failing to take advantage of government provision. It is reasonable to make things as clear in regulations as they are on the face of the Bill. It is all part of the law of the land.
We have made it clear in the JSA White Paper, and I have repeated that commitment many times in this House, that for all the circumstances set out in subsection (5) the sanction to be imposed will be a fixed two weeks, rising to four if the claimant persists in his refusal or failure to act. We have no plans for any change to those periods. We want it to be clear to claimants that that will be the period of sanction.
But I cannot accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord. The setting of fixed periods is a new approach to sanctions. At present it is possible to impose a sanction of up to 26 weeks for failure to act on an official recommendation or refusal to accept a place on an approved training scheme, so fixed periods of two and four weeks represent substantial changes to that provision. Sanctions must serve to provide disincentives to claimants against filing to take the right steps to get back to work. We made changes to the maximum periods of sanction in the 1980s precisely because we found that the provisions were proving unsuccessful in discouraging people from leaving employment. Should we discover in the future that the periods of two and four weeks are not proving adequate as disincentives, it would be reasonable for us to return to the issue of different periods.
As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, it is a fundamental change which is proposed at this stage of the Bill. It is important to retain the right degree of flexibility on these matters, which is why we propose to provide for the period in regulations in the manner I have described to your Lordships. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, if I understand what the noble Lord is saying, he is saying, "Don't believe what I say". He is saying, "It's in the White Paper. I have told you about it. It is on record that that is what we mean—two weeks and four weeks—and we don't mean it. Because we might at some further moment in the future want to be really nasty and make it 26, we are going to shove it in the Bill". That is not an argument. That is ridiculous. In view of the time of night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Pilot schemes]:
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Clause 37 [Parliamentary control]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 31, line 34, leave out second ("or").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 23 to 26 have the effect of ensuring that any regulation made under paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 will be subject to the
1006
affirmative procedure at all times. Similar provisions at Section 28(3) of the Benefits Act are affirmative. Your Lordships will remember that when we discussed this I explained in response to an amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the two groups we had in mind in this clause were share fishermen, who need to be dealt with specially—I do not want to repeat what I said about them, but I am sure that all noble Lords agree with me on that—and those workers who are on short time or who are temporarily stopped.
Having reflected upon our discussion, I decided that it was appropriate in the case of regulations which may require certain groups to satisfy additional conditions to receive a jobseeker's allowance, that we should make that change. The amendments add regulations made under paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 to the list of those in Clause 37(1) (c) which are subject to the affirmative procedure at all times.
Consequent upon that, these regulations are also added to the list in Clause 37(1) (a). This sets out the regulations which are subject to the affirmative procedure only if made before the date JSA becomes payable. It is necessary to exempt paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 from that list because the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure at all times.
I know that the noble Earl has tabled art amendment. Perhaps I may leave the matter with my remarks about what we propose to do in that regard and then with the leave of the House perhaps I may return after the noble Earl has spoken. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's agreement as regards the affirmative procedure. It is extremely helpful. I rise to speak to Amendment No. 28, which is in this group. It relates to the same line of questioning as arose in the issues that I raised with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, in relation to Clause 9. The words in the Bill that concern us are at paragraph 17 of Schedule 1. It reads:
"Regulations may require additional conditions to be satisfied with respect to the payment of a jobseeker's allowance".
That was the point about the Bill that caused Members on these Benches the most anxiety. We listened carefully to what the Minister said, and has repeated now, about the purpose for which the power is intended; that is, share fishermen and temporarily-stopped workers. We have no objection to the Government's stated intention. However, the vires in the paragraph go a good deal wider than the Government's stated intention. Your Lordships know that I am anxious about leaving unexploded vires lying about. If your Lordships read this morning's Independent about the clearing of mines in northern France they will appreciate my concern.
I appreciate that the Government's intention is benign. However, the wording of paragraph 17 contains no specification that it must be benign. I can see nothing in the wording of the paragraph—if there were anything I should be glad to hear about it—which makes it legally necessary that its use should be benign.
If the Minister suggests that either in this House or at a stage which will inevitably follow in another place the Government will include words to that effect I shall not

1007
feel inclined to insist on the words of my amendment. They were designed to incorporate what the Minister said were the purposes of the paragraph; that is:
"Regulations … may … require additional conditions to be satisfied by … share fishermen … short-time or temporarily stopped workers. For the avoidance of doubt, it is declared that the ejusdem generis rule applies".
I hope that I have it right.
I am aware that the amendment does not specifically define the genus. With more time we might have done better. The genus I have in mind is contained in the words of the Minister.
"It is clear that we are not dealing here with the normal case of unemployment. Many of these claimants will have continuing contracts of employment".—[Official Report, 16/5/95; col. 534.]
That is the genus that I had in mind. If we can find a way to tie the vires to the intention for which they are being taken, the gap between us will be closed and an anxiety will be removed. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall respond to the points made by the noble Earl in speaking to Amendment No. 28. He has, as frequently in this House, expressed concern about the potential wider uses of this power by a perhaps less benign future government than this Government.
Clause 1 sets out the basic conditions for entitlement to a jobseeker's allowance. The Bill is clear and we have stated that for the average JSA claimant those are the conditions that will apply. However, we must recognise that there are cases where small groups have access to JSA on a basis different from other claimants. As I explained on Report, the two uses of the power so far identified are for groups which have particular circumstances of employment and where the normal availability rules would be inappropriate. The wording of the power makes clear that it cannot be used for the generality of claimants and that any regulations made under it must apply only to specific groups which are identified with respect to their form of occupation. Any future uses would also have to be in respect of particular groups where the normal conditions need to be slightly adapted to special circumstances. I hope that having that explanation on the record will provide some reassurance to the noble Earl as regards the basic scope of the provision.
I understand his desire further to clarify the limits of the provision on the face of the Bill. The main aim of the amendment is to use share fishermen or short-time or temporarily-stopped workers as a benchmark against which other potential uses of the power can be measured. I do not believe that any such comparisons will be possible or desirable. New paragraph 18 would restrict any future uses of the power to groups who are similar in nature to share fishermen or short-time or temporarily-stopped workers.
The amendment suggests that that would avoid any doubt but I am not sure that it is likely to be the case. The two benchmark groups listed are very different in nature. Their employment status, the type of work that they undertake, the length of claim, the frequency of claim and other factors vary considerably. There is a
1008
great deal of difference between a self-employed fisherman based in Grimsby who cannot work for a week because of storms in the North Sea and an unemployed carpet maker in Axminster who has not been able to work for two months because his employer has no work for him.
They differ not only from the usual unemployed JSA claimant, but also from each other. The two examples illustrate very well the difficulties we face in setting down a general rule even by way of illustrative example, to govern the use of a power which by its very nature is intended to cater for exceptional circumstances. If we try to do this we risk limiting our ability to deal with other groups in future which might not exactly fit the mould of the normal unemployed claimant, who could legitimately look for help from JSA, provided slightly adapted conditions were met.
As I mentioned when I moved my own amendment, although I cannot accept this one, I understand the concerns raised by the noble Earl earlier and again today over what he perhaps sees as the potential wide-ranging use of this power. I brought forward the amendment to make it clear that the affirmative procedure will be used, and that of course ought to ensure greater parliamentary scrutiny of these measures. I accept that perhaps it does not go quite as far as the noble Earl would like, but I hope that it provides some reassurance, in addition to my words, on our view of this clause and the potential use of these provisions. In view of that, I hope the noble Earl will accept these assurances and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps with the leave of the House I might respond very briefly to the Minister. He has given me a good deal of reassurance, which I welcome. He has also fastened unerringly on the weaknesses in the drafting of my own amendment which might have made me slightly chary of pressing it had it come up at a different time. What he has not quite reassured me on—and I should be very grateful if he could go a little further on this—is the restriction of paragraph 17 to being benign. I can see that it is restricted to categories of employment which are of a prescribed description. However, I do not see in the words "prescribed description" anything which is necessarily benign.
The Minister talks about groups. He occasionally expresses surprise about my suspicion of the use of regulation-making powers; but it was precisely this sort of power to make special regulations for a group which was used by the Government to disentitle students. That was the beginning of my serious concern with regulations. Nothing which the Government could ever do with regulations could possibly cause more surprise to me than that. Therefore, if we can tighten these words "prescribed description" and make it clear that they are benign, I think that would help very considerably.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I could respond to the noble Earl. I do not think I can really go any further than I have gone. I repeat that any future use would have to be

1009
in respect of particular groups where the normal conditions need to be slightly adapted to the special circumstances because, as with the two cases we are dealing with, they are small groups which have access to JSA on a different basis from other claimants. I do not think that I can go quite as far as to promise him that the result would always be benign, and perhaps by using that word I was making a debating point at the beginning which I should not have put into the noble Earl's mind. However, perhaps I can look further at this and give him the assurance that I will study what he has said and perhaps write to him. I realise it is late in the passage of this Bill, but I hope he will accept that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 31, line 36, at end insert ("or
(iii) paragraph 17 of Schedule 1,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 25 and 26:
Page 31, line 40, leave out ("or").
Page 31, line 41, after ("35(1)") insert ("or paragraph 17 of Schedule 1").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Supplementary Provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 46, line 31, leave out ("regulations made under").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
I am not sure whether it was fate dealing me an unkind blow, but just as I am about to do this particular deed on this Bill, the First Reading of another Bill in which I am involved comes to your Lordships' House, just to remind me of work that is to come. We examined the Bill in considerable detail in Committee, during re-committal of Clause 6, last week on Report and again today on Third Reading. Our deliberations have been thorough and, in the main, very constructive.
Many of your Lordships have contributed to the debate but perhaps I can extend thanks to noble Lords on the Benches opposite, particularly the noble Baronesses Lady Hollis, Lady Turner of Camden, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde and Lady Williams of Crosby, the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy, Lord Carter, Lord Richard and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who have all contributed to debates so eloquently. I should also like to pay tribute to the voluntary organisations which have contributed their knowledge and experience to the debate both directly and indirectly, and whose suggested amendments put down on the Marshalled List by your Lordships have formed the agenda of so much of our discussion. I am at a loss to know how we would go about our business if outside organisations—be they pressure groups, as largely on this Bill—or professional, commercial and
1010
business interests were unable to have their concerns raised and their amendments addressed in either this or the other place.
On this side of the House, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who moved many of the amendments standing in my name and who helped me to provide answers to many of the testing questions put by your Lordships. My noble friend Lord Swinfen, as ever, spoke persuasively for the cause of disabled people as did the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on the Cross-Benches.
The Government set three clear aims for the jobseeker's allowance: to improve the operation of the labour market; to get better value for money for the taxpayer; and to improve the service to unemployed people themselves. I am sure that your Lordships would endorse those aims. During the passage of the Bill, we have not always been able to agree, but I hope that we were able to go some way to address the concerns expressed in debate.
I pay particular tribute to the work of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I reminded your Lordships on an earlier occasion that I was a founder member of the committee, which perhaps gave me added insight into the force of the arguments which were so carefully and thoughtfully set out in the report. The House was invited to consider,
"whether the Bill should be amended so as to provide more detailed framework within which Ministers may exercise the powers to be delegated to them under Clause 6"—
as it was then.
We took that recommendation, and the other findings, very seriously indeed and also listened carefully to the arguments advanced by several noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton, and noble Lords opposite. In response, we introduced extensive amendments at recommitment defining the conditions of availability and actively seeking work on the face of the Bill, and ensuring that the regulations made under Clauses 6 and 7 should be subject to the affirmative procedure whenever they are made. We also made changes to Clauses 9, 10 and 11 which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, kindly attributed to my noble friend Lord Inglewood earlier, to make clearer our intention on the face of the Bill and dispense with some regulation making powers.
We have made a considerable effort to explain our intentions as fully as we can and to place them on the record wherever possible. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, pressed us hard by regaling us with his five questions. I hope that the explanations of our intentions with regard to the powers in the Bill have gone some way to assuage his fears of some future—and as I described them earlier—less benign government than the present one.
I hope that I was able to reassure the House that we entirely accept that jobseekers with disabilities need special consideration. We have drawn up the labour market rules with them in mind. They will be able to place restrictions on their availability for employment which are reasonable in view of their condition and with no requirement that such restrictions should be inhibited by any questions of their prospects of securing

1011
employment. Their condition will also specifically be taken into account when the steps that they have taken actively to seek work are considered.
Importantly, in JSA—for the first time—we have included explicit provision for people with caring responsibilities to restrict their availability. They will be able to restrict the hours in which they are available for work below 40 hours. We also recognise that it would be unreasonable to expect people with caring responsibilities to be available to take up work immediately. That is why, following the persuasive arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and of my noble friend Lord Swinfen, we agreed that carers will be entitled to 48 hours' notice of any job or job interview. That will allow them time to make any arrangements necessary.
We also propose to introduce a special linking rule for the purposes of the back-to-work bonus for people who take short spells out of the labour market because they are sick. The rule will affect those people who have accrued a bonus and then fall sick and have to claim incapacity benefit or need to care for another person and claim invalid care allowance. During debate on the Bill in another place, my honourable friend the Minister of State for Employment said that she would consider the linking rules for people in those situations. I am pleased to announce now that people in that position will have their bonus protected for up to two years.
We have never been in any doubt about the magnitude and complexity of introducing JSA smoothly and successfully throughout the network of 1,200 jobcentres. This undertaking entails the development of two substantial computer systems, extensive organisational change and very large-scale training programmes. I have made clear on more than one occasion that the Government will take no risks to jeopardise the smooth introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. That is why I announced to your Lordships last week that the Government had decided that the jobseeker's allowance should be introduced in October 1996. We made that decision because we do not want to put at risk the improved service which we will be offering to jobseekers under the new arrangements.
I am glad to have been able to respond positively to at least some of the amendments from noble Lords on the Benches opposite. We have amended the Bill to protect from sanction a person refusing to accept an offer of employment arising from a trade dispute. We have replaced the power to make regulations for trial periods with a duty and reduced the qualifying period of unemployment whereby a person can qualify under the employment on trial rules from six months to three months.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was responsible for an amendment, which we accepted, that regulations provide that any variation in the terms or conditions of a jobseeker's agreement be referred forthwith to an adjudication officer. However, we have had considerable disagreement on the adequacy of benefit levels, the length of time over which they should be paid and a number of other issues. We heard on a number of occasions from the Benches opposite that they regard
1012
benefit levels as mean, inadequate, at poverty levels and other such words. Based on the superlative nature of these words I have deduced that the Benches opposite might reasonably be expected to want to increase benefit by, say, £10 a week. A £10 increase in the adult personal allowance in contributory based and income related JSA would cost more than £1 billion at 1994–95 prices and benefit levels.
I also had to resist amendments which would either have reduced the savings which the new system will bring or increased expenditure. In the day following the interesting Mais lecture by the Leader of the Opposition in another place in which he appeared to join us in determination to control public spending, it is interesting to note that the message has not yet spread to the Benches opposite in your Lordships' House. A quick glance at the amendments placed by the Benches opposite on the Marshalled List over the consideration of the Bill shows a reduction in revenue of £150 million, a reduction in the savings of £50 million and expenditure of around £200 million. Perhaps before we consider our next Bill noble Lords opposite should read, mark and inwardly digest the new financial prudence advocated in this week's Mais lecture.
We have also had disagreements over the quid pro quo issue of benefits in exchange for certain conditions like availability and actively seeking and, in addition, over jobseeker's directions and whether a claimant should always have the right to pick and choose his jobsearch and ultimately his job.
Sir William Beveridge himself recognised those difficult issues half a century ago when he argued that:
"The danger of providing benefits which are both adequate in amount and indefinite in duration is that men as creatures who adapt themselves to circumstances may settle down to them";
and:
"Men and women in receipt of unemployment benefit cannot be allowed to hold out indefinitely for work of the type to which they are used. Men and women who have been unemployed for a certain period should be required as a condition of continued benefit to attend a work or training course".
We are attending to those important aspects of our social security and unemployment system in this Jobseekers Bill. I believe that it will mark a major improvement in the way that benefit is delivered to the unemployed person, the jobseeker. It will also act as a sensible safeguard for taxpayers' money.
I conclude by once again thanking all Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part in the eight or nine days of our deliberations on this important Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Question that the Bill do now pass is usually an occasion for some pleasant camaraderie in which we tell each other, and even mean it, that the Bill is a much better Bill than when it entered the House. We said that about the Pensions Bill; I believe that we may have been correct. We look forward to the Disability Discrimination Bill and the Child Support Bill—I

1013
believe with the same teams—and we hope that that statement may be correct. However, such a statement is not true about this Bill. The Bill remains as malign and thoroughly nasty as when it came to us on 3rd April.
We have certainly learnt more about it. The more we learn about it, the more vicious it seems. But improve it, modify it, amend it or ameliorate it, my Lords?—no, that we have not done. And why? The Bill cuts contributory benefit to the unemployed, even though they have paid for it through national insurance as part of their social contract, from 12 months to six months and to nothing if a spouse is claimed for. The Bill attaches to even these grudging benefits harsher tests for availability and actively seeking work, built around a new jobseeker's allowance, which can then require a person to take a job which pays less than income support. If there is any doubt about whether someone unemployed receiving jobseeker's allowance is actively seeking work, the benefit will be stopped while that doubt is investigated, so that a person is punished in advance of being found guilty.
The Bill is authoritarian in the worst sense, allowing the employment office staff to impose their prejudices on unemployed men and women. It increases the poverty of the unemployed. Ninety thousand people will lose their benefit; 150,000 people will have cuts in their benefit; and many for the first time ever will have no benefit, no income, on which to live. Disabled people coming off incapacity benefit remain vulnerable. In other words, the Bill will finger the unemployed for their unemployment and will bully them into unlimited availability for unending jobsearch for non-existent jobs in an overstocked labour market. It is a demeaning, demoralising and contemptible Bill.
I believe that only two amendments from the House have been accepted by the Government. The first will allow youngsters with good cause to leave a bad training scheme without penalties. Surprise, surprise, my Lords. The second will allow carers and parents of young children 48 hours rather than 24 hours for availability for work.
The significant change to the Bill in the old Clause 6 came about not because the House was concerned with the lot of the unemployed but because it was rightly concerned at the overweaning powers that the Executive is taking to itself. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, on an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Richard, forced the Government to define "available for" and "actively seeking" work on the face of the Bill and to ensure that all the regulations associated with the provision came with affirmative resolution. That was, I think, salutary; but all too seldom, thwarting a Government whom I believe—and I think the public believe—have been in power so long that they have come to consider that public office is to some degree a piece of private property for which they are not fully and democratically accountable. I am glad that on this occasion at least the House of Lords managed to check the Executive. We hope that those changes will at least have given leverage to the other place to reopen some of the more significant debates.
1014
The second significant change, based on a discussion earlier today, involves a delay in introducing the jobseeker's allowance to October 1996. However, by cutting unemployment benefit from 12 months to six months we see a failure of the system again. We welcome the delay because it means that the benefits to the under-25s and the cuts to dependent spouses will be deferred for some six months. Otherwise, the delay stands as a condemnation of the Government's haste to cut benefits in advance of their administrative system being in place.
This is an occasion for "thank-yous". First, perhaps the one point of agreement that we have with the Minister today is that our thanks go to the voluntary organisations, the disability organisations and citizens' advice bureaux, who supplied us with many formidable briefs. Secondly, our thanks go to the members of a team which has always been both a social security and an employment team on the Labour Benches. That is my noble friend Lady Turner who led for us on Second Reading but retired from the proceedings on the Bill on her bereavement. She then gallantly returned to the fray. Our thanks go to my noble friend Lord McCarthy, whose unrivalled knowledge of the employment field and unlimited good humour did much to cheer us up, while simultaneously wrong-footing the Government. Both were equally welcome.
Our thanks go to my noble friend Lord Carter, who argued the case for disabled people with conviction, and to my noble friend Lady Dean, who spoke with such compassion for young people at risk. We also thank those noble Lords all round the House, on the Government Benches, the Lib-Dem Benches and the Cross-Benches who contributed to our debates.
The Ministers were always courteous, sometimes informative, usually cheerful, seldom cross and almost never helpful. Even as his speech on Bill do now pass expired, the Minister sought to tally the costs of the putative promises that we would have made if only we could. That came from a Government who managed, in one administration going from the rates to the poll tax to the council tax, to spend £3 billion. It is a bit rich to lecture—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: More than that!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It was £3 billion. That is what it cost this Government, not the local authorities but central government. In the lifetime of one government they changed their mind twice on the system of local government finance. We take no lectures on the custodianship of taxpayers' money from the Benches opposite when, to meet the prejudice and pride of senior Ministers, the Government throw taxpayers' money at legislation which they themselves have to reverse twice.
The Ministers were always courteous, never helpful! No doubt their briefs said, "Resist", and they resisted well. Pity about the unemployed. We are glad to be rid of the Bill. I only wish with all my heart that we could have abated it even a little, for the sake of those who will suffer by it. Our one pleasure is that despite our

1015
pressure to remove regulation from the face of the Bill, there is at least scope for a change of government to do something in the future.
9.37 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, my former supervisor, Mr. J.W. Gough, once remarked in an edition of the works of John Locke that perhaps it is only when it is possible to treat politics as a game and not as a war that democratic government is possible. I keep changing my mind about whether that is an optimistic or a pessimistic remark. However, one way or the other, I am certain that it is true.
In so far as it is possible to treat the Bill as a game, the two Ministers responsible—the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood—deserve our warmest thanks. Those of us who have never spoken from the Government Dispatch Box—and that means everyone who has led on both Front Benches on this side of the House, save only my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby—find it hard to imagine quite how difficult it must be to take all the flak that comes across that Government Dispatch Box: all the anger, all the persistence, all the speed, one thing after another. It must be rather like facing the West Indian fast bowlers. When I watched the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, at the Dispatch Box, I was reminded of watching John Edrich playing his first test at Lords, on the day when Wesley Hall came within a yard of bowling a six in byes. He showed an iron determination to play down the line at whatever risk to himself. The next time I watched him batting, he scored a century against Australia.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has the straightest of bats. But every now and then he displays a mischievous sense of humour that reminds me of the late cut that Denis Compton used to play when he had run too far down the pitch and the ball did not pitch where he expected. That sense of humour has been one of the great joys of this Bill, and I thank the Minister for it.
During the Bill's passage I have been reminded of the man who visited a south Indian village and went to look at the shrines. He saw the shrine of Brahma, that of Shiva and that of Vishnu. Away in the corner was a fourth shrine. He went to look at it and saw that it was to the judicial committee of the privy council. I should like to think that somewhere a Hindu jobseeker who will benefit by the changes in this Bill may erect a shrine to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. The committee has earned it.
The report was late, for reasons that were not the committee's fault, but it was very, very useful. I shall not make a meal of its being late. One such accident might happen to anyone. I shall say only that I hope, when we come to the Child Support Bill, to which we gave a First Reading tonight, that the memorandum will reach the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee in reasonably good time because there are many delegated powers issues in that Bill.
1016
I give warmest thanks to Anton Obholzer in our Whips' Office. He is one of the architects, after the Minister of course, of the amendments that I classified collectively as "Inglewood's easement" and for which we are extremely grateful. He is responsible for much of the thinking that identified the questions to which the Minister responded.
I should like to thank those in the Box who have helped us. It was a very great comfort during the passage of the Bill to have a Box on this side of the House as well as one on that side. The Bill has been improved. The drafting of Clause 6 is improved. I offer particular thanks to Conservative Back-Benchers and Cross-Benchers, whose help with Clause 6 was conspicuously honourable and constructive. The remarks of noble Lords, Lord Renton, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Henderson of Brompton—and two crucial interventions from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—have been of great help.
However, it is not too easy to treat the Bill itself as a game. People will die because of this Bill—not in any conspicuous way but among the anonymous statistics of deaths on the streets among the London homeless. I shall not dwell on the point. But it does not make it easy to treat the Bill as a game.
At Second Reading I under-stated my case when I said that this was one of the two or three worst Bills with which I had been involved. I think it is in fact the worst. Some Bills, such as that on the poll tax, were as bad for substance. Some, such as the Education (Student Loans) Bill, or the 1993 Education Act, before we got at it, were as bad for form. But I cannot think of another Bill that has been quite so bad for form and substance. Grateful though we are for the changes that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has achieved, I do not regard this for the future as an acceptable form of legislation.
As we have gone through the Bill, I have perhaps been most struck by the changes in the concept of entitlement. I shall not run through any of the detail, but I think I have understood a little further what is going on. I believe that the Government are relying on the notion of reciprocity, which I believe is accepted on both sides of the House. It flows from the stress on this benefit being conditional. But when one party to a reciprocal obligation appears to default on its conditions, it does not destroy the reciprocity; it does not destroy the obligation; and it does not end the relationship. I believe that Ministers agree with us quite strongly that if we fail to pay anything to those who deserve payment legally or morally, that does not entitle those people to commit crime.
But, equally, if they do not seek work in precisely the way in which we think that they should, that does not entitle us to say that they have nothing to do with us and we have no responsibility for them. I believe that the Bill is diminishing the sense that there is such a thing as society, and I regret it.
I shall not dwell at any further length on the regulation-making powers. But I believe that this Bill will be seen—perhaps even more than any of the things that are going on down at the other end of the Palace—as part of the decline of Parliament in the

1017
late 20th century. I know that the other place has faults but I love it and I am very sorry indeed to see its decline.
We have had defence after defence of disentitlement. I feel that we need to know the costs of that before we go any further. I intended to give the Minister notice of a string of questions to which I would like answers over the next year but, since the time advances, I shall perhaps give him those questions in writing.
We have a bad Bill. It is not quite so bad as it would have been otherwise. It is attempting a principle which the Social Security Advisory Committee warned the Government in 1992 was impossible. It commented:
"We understand that it is not possible to draw up regulations in such a way as to identify precisely those people who clearly have no intention of actively seeking work and who seek to maintain an alternative lifestyle supported by state benefits".—[Official Report, 20/4/95; col. 599.]
The Government are still trying to make that distinction. They have not made it, because it cannot be done. If we have the opportunity, we shall repeal the Bill, lock, stock and barrel. I was very sorry not to hear that commitment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. We hope that we can persuade her and her party to it over time. It is something that we very much hope is possible, because this legislation will have to go.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, from these Back Benches perhaps your Lordships will allow a word or two to mark the manner in which your Lordships' House has discharged its revisory role as regards Clauses 6 to 8 of the Bill, irrespective of the merits of the Bill and on a plane which transcends political allegiance.
As guardians of the unwritten constitution, your Lordships' House can take full credit for having introduced this requisite constitutional safeguard against potential ministerial misuse of delegated legislation. Your Lordships will remember how, on 25th April, the old Clause 6 came under very heavy crossfire, and how immediately my noble friend Lord Inglewood agreed to take it back.
Noble Lords know full well—two of them in particular: the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell—what efforts were taken on a non-party basis by the usual channels, the Leader of the House, the government Chief Whip and many noble Lords from different parties to improve and bring this matter into a proper state of affairs. That eventually has been done. Its importance is that, although on secondary legislation we may not amend, we have the power to reject, yet that power is never exercised. That power has not been exercised since the Rhodesian order, which was revoked within two days without a vote. It is a matter of political will, parliamentary prudence and, in the context of an affair such as this, it would never be exercised unless there was serious and manifest abuse. That is why the only safeguard is to bring these matters by definition on to the face of the Bill and to define the scope of the
1018
implementing regulations. Your Lordships have achieved that and it is to the eternal credit of your Lordships' House.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish for persuading the usual channels that while dealing with this Bill we should not also deal with the Disability Discrimination Bill. All of those who took part in the debates on this Bill will probably be taking part in the debates on that Bill and would have had an exhausting time, so it was a great relief.
I echo what was said by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway in regard to regulations and delegated powers. We see more and more delegated powers in Bills that pass through this House. As he said, and as the House knows, this Chamber cannot alter regulations. I feel that somehow we must provide a method whereby regulations can be properly examined and altered before they are completely accepted. Some method of agreement must be reached between this House and another place. The amount of secondary legislation being introduced is far too great.
As the House will also be aware, I have, as I normally do, striven to improve the lot of disabled people in this Bill. I do not feel that I have done a particularly good job because I have not been all that successful. One small success, in company with other Members of the House, was in procuring for carers of people with disabilities at least 48 hours warning of having to take up employment. In my view that still gives them precious little time to arrange care for those they love and for whom they are responsible.
I take this opportunity also to thank the voluntary organisations which have been advising me on the Bill. Without their help I can do very little. They know to whom I am referring and I do not feel that it is proper to mention names. I am extremely grateful to them. I hope that in the near future my noble friend will bring forward another Bill on jobseekers considerably to improve the poor position in which this Bill will leave them.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may respond briefly. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, intrigues me with the comparisons he makes and the quotations he dredges up from either the books he has read or the people he has met. I wish that I had a memory like that for all the wise or clever things people have said in my presence. I was particularly struck by the noble Earl's comment about whether this was a game or a war. In fact it is too serious to be either. If it was a game we would demean democracy and if it was a war we would be destroying democracy. Therefore it must be something in between.
I do not want to make too many political points in response to what has been said. But perhaps I may reiterate that I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will take the opportunity of the Recess to read her right honourable friend's Mais lecture. I was intrigued, as was my noble friend Lord Inglewood, when the noble Earl, Lord Russell—for the second time in my recollection—indicated that the Liberal Democrats would repeal the Bill, and he invited the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, to

1019
indicate that the Labour Party would make a similar commitment. Like him, I have not noticed that commitment.
On a lighter note, my noble friend Lord Inglewood and I were pleased at being described as batsmen facing the West Indies fast bowlers. Dare I say as a mere Scotsman that we seem to have managed to carry our bat for a bit longer than the average English batsman in recent years.
I thank noble Lords for their kind remarks. I appreciate that they in no way negate their objections to the Bill. But it is right and proper—and I hope that we would all do it—that we approach the issues which arise in a Bill such as this, and every other Bill, seriously and attempt to address them. While I do not expect noble Lords always to agree with the answers, I like to think, as does my noble friend, that I attempt to answer the questions that have been put to me.
With our thanks to all the officials who have helped us and, as I think noble Lords opposite mentioned, to the people who have been in the Box on their side to help them, I ask the House to pass the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Prison (Amendment) Rules 1995
9.55 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Prison (Amendment) Rules 1995 [SI 983] be annulled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is something of a peculiarity that I should be doing this because, although this Prayer is in time—in other words, it is within 40 sitting days of the date when it was laid before Parliament—I see from the front page of the rules that they came into force on 25th April. My first question to the Minister is: how can it be that rules under the negative procedure which take 40 days to achieve immunity from parliamentary action can be brought into force within 21 calendar days of the date of their being laid before Parliament? But the issue is far more serious than one of procedure.
The Home Secretary, in a speech on 18th November followed by a Home Office press release, responded in his inimitable way to a lot of press pressure about a very small number of offences committed by prisoners on home leave. His response was not a rational one—just to point out that only in at most 1 per cent. of the cases have prisoners on home leave committed further offences of whatever kind, whether or not related to the offence for which they were originally put in prison. Oh no, he did not respond rationally by giving the figures. He simply announced that he would change the rules so that there would be a 40 per cent. reduction in home leave.
The history of home leave, which is a provision of Rule 6 of the Prison Rules, is not such a short history and not such a dishonourable history that it can be properly subverted or indeed reversed by this knee-jerk
1020
reaction—there must be a better phrase than that but that is really what it was—of a Home Secretary who is more interested in the approval of the Conservative Party Conference than he is in the criminal justice or prison system. The Prison Rules have provided for many years that there should be home leave and other types of temporary release from prison: on compassionate grounds; on grounds that they are necessary for work or for education; that they permit family visits outside a prison; that they permit overnight stays with families.
It has always been the case that home leave has been a privilege and not a right. It has always been within the discretion of the governor of the prison rather than laid out in great detail. But innumerable Prison Service circular instructions over the years have set out the advantages to the Prison Service, to the prisoners and to society of an effective system of home leave. As recently as 1992, Prison Service circular instruction 43/92 set out the advantages of home leave in terms of increased self-confidence among prisoners and the ability for prisoners to readjust to society.
It is not as if these Prison Service circulars have ignored the issue of public safety. Circular 11 of 1993—only two years ago—said:
"It will be right to refuse any application where there is any doubt about a prisoner's behaviour whilst at liberty".
So there is no question whatever but that the existing rules provide for protection and that it is the responsibility of prison governors to ensure that society at large is not damaged by those who are let out from prison on home leave. So it is not as though the existing rules were inadequate to meet the dangers to which the Home Secretary professes he is responding.
It is much worse than that. The Woolf-Tumim report of 1991 on prison disturbances actually argued strongly for an extension of home leave. They pointed out that our provisions for home leave are markedly more cautious than in the rest of Europe. They quoted a Council of Europe report on that subject from 1992. They argued that there should be,
"substantial increases in the number of home leaves granted"
and that that should be done by extending the eligibility for home leave to other kinds of prisoners and to those at different stages of their prison sentence.
That report was accepted and welcomed by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Kenneth Baker. He doubled the provision of home leave in open prisons. The 1991 paper Custody, Care and Justice, was the basis on which the Prison Service said that it would be considering further extension of home leave arrangements.
So what has changed other than sheer panic in the face of Conservative activists? What has changed is that the Government have turned 180 degrees. They are now proposing that there should be a 40 per cent. reduction. By the way, one cannot get any of this information from the statutory instrument itself; it has to be deduced from the orders that were issued to prison governors between November 1994 and the present date.
There will now be three kinds of home leave or what is now called "licence". As before, there will be a compassionate licence for urgent personal family and other crises. There will be a resettlement licence which

1021
will not now be available at all to those serving sentences of 12 months or less. It is available only one-third of the way through the sentence for those serving one to four years, and it will be available only half-way through the sentence for those serving four years or more—in other words, the time of the first parole application. There will be a facility licence which is not available in the first 25 per cent. of the sentence and not available to category A or B prisoners.
Any suggestion that these provisions are either to protect the public or to improve the morale and effectiveness of the Prison Service is thrown away by the admission by the Prison Service working group which considered these matters. It referred to the period before people are eligible for these licences as the "punitive period". This is a punitive order and nothing else. Any pretence that it is there to protect the public is a sham.
It is punitive not only to prisoners, but to families and to the children of families. If one delays the eligibility of prisoners for home leave to later in their prison sentence, one may still be allowing them to re-establish family links which are so important when they come out at the end of the sentence, but one is stopping the possibility of maintaining family links and relationships from an early stage of the sentence. All the evidence from research in the United States and in other places, makes it clear that the lack of family support increases recidivism—in other words, it increases the likelihood that prisoners will re-offend when they come out of prison. Cutting back on the eligibility for home leave increases the probability that those who come out of prison will re-offend. Despite the directions given to it by the Home Secretary, there are plenty of examples in the Prison Service of that actually working. Since February 1994, one open prison has had a "compact" which provides a trade-off between home visits and visits in the prison itself. The effect has been significantly to reduce reoffending at the end of a prison sentence.
No, this is not a rational or humane response to even the very small number of cases of reoffending which have been identified. It is a punitive measure. It does not deserve the confidence of Parliament and I believe that we are right to ask Her Majesty that this measure be annulled.
Moved, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Prison (Amendment) Rules 1995 [SI 983] be annulled.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
10.5 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, it seems wrong at 10 o'clock at night and in only an hour to be considering the limited entitlement to temporary freedom of the men and women we choose to lock up in our prisons for what we judge to be good and sufficient reasons. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, this is a serious matter and I am sorry that we are not debating it in more suitable circumstances.
1022
I support all that the noble Lord said about the shortcomings of the statutory instrument. I regret it and think that it is a retrograde step in penal matters. Most importantly—this should be of greater concern to the Minister—I believe that no good will come of it.
I think that it is right to say that the aim of home leave is not to make life softer for those in prison or in any way to temper the harshness of their imprisonment. It is not an unsolicited act of generosity. The reason for home leave has been clearly stated by the noble Lord, and was set out most plainly of all in that paragraph of the Woolf Report which quoted Prison Service Circular Instruction 9/1988, which states:

"(a) To help restore self confidence by placing trust in a prisoner under conditions of complete freedom; and

(b) To help the prisoner to readjust to life outside prison by giving the opportunity to maintain links with family and friends and in the case of long home leave, to contact prospective employers and make firm plans for release".

Home leave is not in the self-interest of the prisoner—although he may like and enjoy it. It is in the self-interest of the community as a whole. It helps in the resettlement of a prisoner. It is good for his family. In addition, it makes the management of prisons that much easier by helping to reduce some of the tensions that might otherwise exist.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, some of us were led to believe that the arguments in favour of prison leave and of extended prison leave had been accepted in the White Paper of four years ago, which was entitled Custody, Care and Justice. That White Paper set out the case plainly, endorsing what Woolf had said. The introduction stated:
"This White Paper charts a course for the Prison Service in England and Wales for the rest of this century and beyond".
That was the view of Kenneth Baker as Home Secretary, and was endorsed by the Cabinet, of which the present Home Secretary, Michael Howard, was a member, yet within three years of that statement of policy it is being abandoned and we have not been given an adequate reason why.
In his speech in the debate on the Address on 18th November, the Home Secretary said:
"In too many cases, the system has been abused".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/94; col. 244.]
He explained that he would be conducting a review. He called it a "thorough review". If that review has been published in its entirety, I have missed it. I should be interested to know what figures were available to the Home Secretary in the course of that review which were not available to the then Home Secretary three years ago. What change was there in that period? It would be helpful if the Minister could explain that to us.
In his speech, the Home Secretary said that the safety of the public must be paramount. We cannot dispute that, except to say that there is bound to be an element of risk not only in releasing a prisoner for a period of home leave, but in releasing a prisoner altogether at the end of his sentence. Of course we must accept an element of risk unless we are to incarcerate prisoners for ever, and not even the present Home Secretary is recommending that.

1023
It may well be that, although preventing prisoners from having the home leave to which they might previously have felt themselves to be entitled may reduce some short-term risk, home leave makes it much less difficult to rehabilitate prisoners afterwards. If they do not settle back into their families, the risk to the community is very much greater than if they have had the opportunity to become accustomed to the life they will lead after their release.
A balance must be struck. Those of us who do not have the obligations and duties of the Home Secretary must be aware of that, but the balance will not be struck in the right place if the order is proceeded with. We have had no adequate explanation of why the Home Secretary made the decision, based on the purposes of home leave and the merits of the case. I wait with great interest to hear whether the Minister will be able to fill that gap tonight.
10.11 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the arguments against this nefarious order have been expressed so adequately and knowledgeably by my noble friend Lord McIntosh and by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes. My noble friend Lord McIntosh made all the main points that I would have liked to have made, and he made them more effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, added a few points of his own, including the important reflection that if we are to avoid all risks in relation to the release of prisoners we would keep all prisoners in prison for ever. That was worth saying. I only hope that the lead given from these Benches by my noble friend Lord McIntosh will be taken up just as strongly elsewhere. I look forward with hope to that happening.
Over 60 years ago, I had a great friend called Esmond Warner, the son of Sir Pelham Warner, after whom the Warner Stand at Lord's was named. I am picking up the cricketing metaphors used earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Sir Pelham Warner was manager of the MCC team in Australia at the time when Mr. Jardine adopted the policy of bodyline bowling, which nearly broke up the Commonwealth, as your Lordships may remember.
Sir Pelham Warner wrote back to his son, who showed me the letter, and asked, "Is Douglas mad?", referring to Douglas Jardine, the captain. The implication was that he probably was. With Mr Michael Howard, one is left to ask, "Is he mad?" As was explained in the previous two speeches, he has reversed the policies followed by his predecessors without giving any reason except—I shall not call it panic—an attempt at calculation. The only person who I think would agree with him is someone called Judge Argyle, who writes in the Sunday Express and who has said on occasion that we have been governed recently by a pro-crook lobby. That is no doubt the way that Mr. Howard sees things.
I find it difficult to understand how a man whom we know to be a successful barrister and good family man, and, so far as I know, a man of impeccable private life,
1024
can embark upon these sadistic policies. It is peculiar. No one holds the Minister responsible. I regard her as the victim of circumstances. She has to get up and defend this sort of nonsense time after time. We do not think any the worse of her. We just feel very, very sorry for her.
The arguments have been put forward very well and I shall not repeat them. Perhaps I may give an example of the stopping of family leave. It did not occur as a result of Mr. Howard's policies; it occurred independently of them. The case came to me through the federation of the organisations which support prisoners' families. I do not know whether Mr. Howard is allowed to read debates such as this or whether they are kept from him in order to avoid causing him a trauma. If he is allowed to read them he might like to bear this in mind as a example of what happens when family leave is denied.
A lady whose son was involved came to see me today. She had tea with me in the House and therefore I have heard about the case almost at first hand. The lady's husband was sent to a prison where he was no longer allowed home leave. The son was so horrified by the fact that he could not see his father without going to the prison that he had a breakdown. Eventually after leaving school he had to have psychiatric treatment. That is an example of what happens when home leave is denied. With 40 per cent. of home leave being stopped, there is no doubt that we shall have a great deal of psychological and moral collapse.
The speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and my noble friend Lord McIntosh, brought out the fact that the issue relates not only to providing a more agreeable time for prisoners. I believe that prisoners should be given a more agreeable time. Indeed, I think most prison officers believe that in the end if we are to try to educate prisoners, we should treat them better and not worse, which is the Howard philosophy. The issue relates also to family life and to the interest of the whole community. I strongly support what was said by my noble acting Leader, Lord McIntosh.
10.16 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I agree most strongly with and support all the previous speakers. This is an all-party issue. I regret that there is no Back-Bencher on the Government side to join in the debate.
I strongly object to the mixing of remand and sentenced prisoners, which is provided for in the order, bearing in mind that many remand prisoners are proved to be innocent. The only possible justification for such a course would be with the prisoners' consent and for the prevention of gross overcrowding within a prison or the prolonged use of police cells—and it is common knowledge that your Lordships object most strongly to that.
I urge Her Majesty's Government, and the Home Secretary in particular, to reflect on the experience of the Northern Ireland prison service. Generous home leave for long-term prisoners has been an outstanding success there. Christmas and summer leaves have helped family relationships and the return rate of

1025
prisoners to prison has been virtually 100 per cent. Working-out and work experience schemes have been equally successful. Of course, Northern Ireland is not directly comparable with England and Wales but at least it gives food for thought as regards incentives for good behaviour and a positive approach to resettlement.
I greatly regret that Her Majesty's Government are rejecting all the available advice, including the 1991 Woolf Report, the White Paper which followed that, the prison service circular No. 43 of 1992, and the advice of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe dating back to 1982. As if that were not enough, there is also the advice of the Control Review Committee, which I understand to be a governmental body.
By rejecting that wealth of advice the Government are likely to increase the punishment of prisoners' families. They certainly increase the risk of family breakdown and they are likely to damage the successful "Compact System" which is now in operation. They make it harder for offenders to obtain their own accommodation and new employment on release. They therefore, through this combination of circumstances, very much increase the risk of re-offending. I should just like to ask: from where did the Home Secretary get his arbitrary figure of 40 per cent. less home leave and temporary release? Why does he want to concentrate the remaining amount on longer sentences and late in the total sentence? I beg Her Majesty's Government to have second thoughts on this matter.
10.21 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, began by asking about the regulations and why they came into force only 21 days after being laid. I have to say that the 21-day rule is a rule of practice required by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It does not of course affect the 40-day time limit for the introduction of a negative resolution seeking to annul a statutory instrument. My understanding is that it is common for such instruments to come into force before the 40 days have expired.
The noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, were concerned about this being a punitive Bill and about the tightening up of release rules for prisoners. First, the new rules are directed not only to the need to ensure that prisoners are not released if they present a risk to public safety, but they are also intended to protect the public's confidence in the administration of justice. It really does have to be said that the public have a right not to see criminals who have been sentenced to imprisonment walking freely up and down their streets in their towns and villages too early in their sentences.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked whether the new scheme would make it harder for prisoners to maintain contact with their families, especially at the start of their sentence. Again, eligible prisoners may be released towards the end of their sentence in order to maintain family ties. However, it has to be said that the Prison Service is committed to enabling prisoners to maintain close links with the family. In recent years
1026
various initiatives, including the installation of card phones and the provision of more visits, have meant that prisoners are able to see and talk to their families a great deal more often than has been the case in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, asked whether the working group's report would be available publicly. I can say that a copy of the full report and a summary of the working group's study of the operation of temporary release and home leave schemes were placed in the House Library by the Home Secretary in November of last year. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, also asked about the figures which were available to the working group. A number of statistical exercises were undertaken in support of the working group review in 1993. One of the results of the review was the establishment of a new system to monitor the operation of the new scheme. These figures will feed into the review of the new scheme which will be carried out later this year.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, gave us an interesting anecdote, but could I say to him in response to the point he was making that of course there are now no prisons where temporary release is completely unavailable.
The amendments to the prison rules achieve three purposes. They will introduce a new and more focused scheme for the temporary release of prisoners; they will permit the greater involvement of unconvicted prisoners in positive regime activities while in prison; and they will increase the powers of governors to maintain a disciplined environment inside our prisons.
The amendments were debated in another place on 17th May. In that debate the Opposition indicated that they broadly supported the provisions in these amendments, which were in line with their response to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary's announcement in another place on 18th November for changes to the arrangements for temporary release, which the amendments to Rule 6 underpin. On that occasion, the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the honourable Member for Blackburn, said that he was, and I quote—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Order, order. My Lords, I did not think it was in order for Members in another place to be quoted from Hansard except in the case of government Ministers.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if that is the case, then I unreservedly apologise to the House for making that comment. However, I will make a general comment and say that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are out of keeping with many of his Front Bench colleagues in another place. These amendments meet the concerns both of Members of another place and of the Government in this area.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has, however, expressed his fear that the new arrangements for temporary release will prevent the effective use of temporary release. He made reference during the Second Reading debate of the Bill of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale to the recommendations of Lord Justice Woolf in his report on the 1990 prison disturbances. The changes to Prison Rule 6 on temporary release arise from a review carried out by the Prison Service in

1027
accordance with the commitment in the White Paper Custody, Care and Justice issued in response to the report of Lord Justice Woolf.
A working group was established in June 1993 to review the operation of the home leave and temporary release schemes. It included representatives from the police and probation services, as well as from a broad range of penal affairs groups. Those groups included Victim Support, the Prison Reform Trust and the Federation of Prisoner Family Support Groups.
The working group recognised that, since the report of Lord Justice Woolf some two years earlier, the profile of home leave and temporary release had changed significantly. There had been public concern about the operation of both schemes following a number of serious failures where prisoners had committed serious and violent offences, including murder and armed robbery, while released temporarily. In addition, the working group recognised the concerns of victims that prisoners were being granted temporary release only a short time after being sentenced.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, asked whether the Government had abandoned the principles of the Woolf Report. Again, I say to the noble Lord that the Government recognise—as, indeed, did Lord Justice Woolf in his report—the benefits that the temporary release of prisoners can provide. However, it is important that it should be within a clear framework, with the necessary safeguards in place to ensure public safety. The working group established in response to the Woolf Report recommended just such a scheme, which we have now implemented.
The report of the working group was presented to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in October last year. The report included 47 recommendations. They took full account of the needs of both the public and prisoners and their families, the need to maintain good order and security in prisons and, most importantly, public safety. It was in the light of that report that my right honourable friend made his announcement last November about the new system of release on temporary licence. That came into effect on 25th April.
The Government believe that there are important benefits to be gained in releasing suitable prisoners for short periods as part of the process of preparing for their eventual return to the community. Evidence shows that prisoners who have a job to go to, a secure family environment and skills developed by training or education are less likely to re-offend than those released "cold" into the community. Testing prisoners in controlled and monitored circumstances therefore contributes to public safety.
The benefits of releasing prisoners for short periods in that way must, however, be weighed against any potential threat that prisoners who have been temporarily released may pose to the public and against the need to preserve public confidence that prisoners who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment will not be released back on to the streets shortly after they have been sentenced.
1028
The new scheme of release on temporary licence is more sharply focused than its predecessors. Prisoners will in future be released only for precisely defined and specific purposes. Prisoners will continue to be eligible to be temporarily released for justifiable purposes such as education and training leading to a recognised qualification where that cannot be provided in prison. Any such release would be allowed only where programmed into a prisoner's sentence plan and specifically designed to help the prisoner to lead a law-abiding and useful life upon release. It is unacceptable, however, for prisoners to be released for purposes which are purely social or recreational. That will no longer be allowed.
The new system will also continue to allow prisoners to be considered for temporary release in urgent and compelling compassionate circumstances or towards the end of their time in custody to maintain their family ties or re-establish links with the community in preparation for their return to the community.
One of the primary purposes of the new scheme must be to ensure that the public are not placed at any risk by the unacceptable release of prisoners who pose a threat to public safety. The new scheme includes a mandatory and stringent risk assessment carried out in collaboration with the Police and Probation Services.
Prison governors have a duty, in considering any release, not only to ensure the safety of the public but also to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. Prisoners should not be released too early after sentencing, nor too frequently. To do so would undermine the purpose of imprisonment. Under the new scheme, therefore, prisoners will have to serve longer in prison before applications for release on licence will be considered.
The second change we have made through the amendment rules is an increase in governor's disciplinary powers. Maintaining good order and discipline will always be a priority for the Prison Service. Prison officers and governors have a difficult task. They face a prison population which is increasing and which shows higher levels of violence and indiscipline than used to be the case.
Prison staff achieve good order in prisons in many ways—through the right relations with prisoners, through incentives for good behaviour, through the right regimes and through the right security. But all of these need underpinning by proper disciplinary procedures. I am sure that there can be no disagreement over the need for governors to have sufficient powers to maintain authority in their prisons. They need powers that will properly mark the seriousness of the offences they are dealing with, and they need punishments which prisoners will recognise as real deterrents.
From the views that have been expressed by governors, by prison officers, by members of prison boards of visitors and by the public, it is clear that many people have been concerned that punishment powers are no longer adequate and no longer command the necessary full confidence of those who need to use them. Boards of visitors voted at their last annual conference for an increase in governors' powers.

1029
The amendment rules have increased the level of governors' punishment powers by 50 per cent. The only exception is the punishment of cellular confinement, which we increased last year and which we have not changed again.
These increases should give prison staff substantial help in the difficult task they face. At the same time, the punishment powers are at a level where they can be exercised properly by governors. They can be used safely as part of procedures that need to work quickly and relatively simply. They will be operating alongside extra safeguards which have recently been introduced: the Prisons Ombudsman, who has been considering prisoners' complaints since last autumn; the Prison Service's new discipline manual issued at the start of this year; and improved training for adjudicating governors, which started six months ago. For serious criminal offences by prisoners, the governors will continue to look to the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, and the courts.
I hope that I do not need to explain the changes in governors' powers any further. The last full review of prison discipline was nearly five years ago. Since then, offending in prisons has increased by over 23 per cent. There are now nearly 110,000 recorded offences a year for a prison population of 50,000. That level of offending has been held for last year, and the Prison Service has succeeded in reducing levels of escapes and assaults. However, there can be no room for complacency. The amendment rules should give governors the powers they need to help them run well-ordered prisons. They should also give prison officers, and the public, greater confidence that there is adequate authority to back the work that needs to be done.
We have also revised Prison Rule 3(2). We have done so with two aims: to remove unnecessary obstacles to unconvicted prisoners' access to available regime activities and facilities; and to enable governors to make more efficient use of available accommodation. The old rule restricted the possibilities for unconvicted prisoners to take part fully in constractive and purposeful activity while in prison because it required close supervision of any activity which involved contact between convicted and unconvicted prisoners. It also limited the governor's ability to make maximum use of cell space at times of population pressure.
There is sound justification for changing that rule. Imposing restrictions on mixing, in either activities or living accommodation, is clearly unnecessary where unconvicted prisoners are content to mix. In practice, unconvicted prisoners very rarely have any objection to mixing with convicted prisoners for activities or in living areas.
This measure will also reduce the need to hold prisoners in police cells, which is both costly and unsatisfactory in terms of the Prison Service's duty to hold prisoners in decent but austere conditions and to provide positive regime activities.
We are very conscious of the need to acknowledge the special legal status of unconvicted prisoners, which arises from the presumption of their innocence. The amended rule accordingly preserves the principle of
1030
separation while giving more weight to the wishes of unconvicted prisoners in line with the more relaxed approach to mixing now reflected in the European prison rules.
Where the unconvicted are content to mix with convicted prisoners, there will be no obstacle to their doing so. An unconvicted prisoner, however, who chooses not to take part in an activity with convicted prisoners will be given separate access to the activity, if possible, or, failing that, will be allowed to spend the allotted time in another activity approved by the governor. A situation may arise where the governor considers it unreasonable to maintain separation in the residential area, although the unconvicted prisoner may prefer it. In such circumstances unconvicted and convicted prisoners may need to be accommodated on the same landing, but no unconvicted prisoner will be required unwillingly to share a cell with a convicted prisoner.
The change to Prison Rule 3 is accordingly being made in the best interests of both unconvicted prisoners and efficient prison administration. We believe that these rule changes are necessary. They are necessary because they allow a more focused scheme for temporary release, a more positive regime for unconvicted prisoners and maintain a disciplined environment in the prisons themselves.
10.37 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, let me first deal briefly with the small procedural point which I was obliged to raise. I was not, of course, seeking to censor the Minister's speech. However, I believe that the point is acknowledged. I note with pleasure, and put on the record, that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has communicated to the officials in the box that it is not within our rules of debate for there to be any quotations from speeches of Members of Parliament in another place other than the Minister speaking on government policy. It is worth while having that on the record for any future speeches.
The Minister has chosen—we are grateful to her, in a way—to address the entire order rather than simply rule 2 of the schedule, which was all that I addressed. It is legitimate for her to do so, partly because the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the question raised in paragraph 1 about remand prisoners and convicted prisoners. I was satisfied by what the Minister said: that the new paragraph 2 in rule 3 provides that the consent of remand prisoners has to be obtained if they are to share residential accommodation or participate in any activity with convicted prisoners, and under no circumstances shall be required to share a cell with a convicted prisoner.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for his remarks on the other matter. I hope that he will feel satisfied that these are not dangerous changes to the rules.
The Minister also referred to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the schedule which refer to increased powers of punishment by governors for offences for failure to confirm withhold and leave requirements. She well

1031
knows from what I said at Second Reading of the Private Member's Bill introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, that I thoroughly approve of paragraphs 3 and 4. I approve of the increased powers which are given to the governors for the forfeiture of privileges and the stoppage of, or deduction from, earnings for offences of that kind. Therefore there is nothing between us on that.
However, the issues raised by paragraph 2 in the schedule—they were all that I addressed in my speech—are still too serious to be allowed to pass without further comment. The Minister has made no attempt to justify or explain the change in government policy from the opinions expressed by Mr Kenneth Baker earlier. She certainly made no attempt to deal with the pleas of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and Judge Tumim for an increase rather than a decrease in home leave. She has not dealt with the point I made and the quotation I gave from Instruction 11 of 1993. It says specifically that there should be no releases where there is "any doubt"—I emphasise the phrase—about the potential behaviour of the prisoner while at liberty. The power to protect the public is not only implicit in the existing rules before those changes were made; it is explicit. There is no justification whatever for such a change of rules.
The Minister relies on that classic phrase "public confidence". She said a number of times that there has to be public confidence about release too early in a sentence. When Jack Straw was responding to the Statement, he was responding not to this order but to a ministerial Statement. It was not clear from that Statement that the way in which the 40 per cent. reduction in home leave was to be achieved was by cutting out early use of home leave. It is still not clear
1032
from the order. It is clear only from subsequent instructions to governors in November and December of last year and January of this year.
To that extent, I do not accept that there is any significant difference between Jack Straw and myself about the matter. What I am saying is that when we see the rules and changes in them and the instructions which have been given by the Home Office to prison governors, that is the stage at which it becomes apparent that there is a blind determination to reduce home leave by 40 per cent. The figure was plucked out of the air so far as we can see. It is to be achieved by the most damaging of all possible restrictions on home leave—restrictions at an early stage. I do not accept that public confidence is eroded by early use of home leave, subject to the discretion of governors and to the overriding requirement that prisoners should not be released on home leave when there is any risk of them offending while they are at liberty.
I am not satisfied by the answers given by the Minister. I am grateful to her for the detailed explanation of some of the other parts of the order. But it is only my determination to adhere to the rule that we do not vote against statutory instruments that leads me to beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Birmingham Assay Office Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.

Malvern Hills Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before eleven o'clock.