Social Security Bill

HL Deb 06 April 1998 vol 588 cc506-78

3.9 p.m.

Lord Carter

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

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

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 105A: After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—

LONE PARENT REGULATIONS: COMMENCEMENT

(" . The Social Security (Lone Parents) (Amendment) Regulations 1997 shall not come into force before 1st October 1999.").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 105A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 115A. The effect of the amendments is to delay the two different cuts in benefits to lone parents—one made by regulations relating to premiums for income support and so forth and the other relating to child benefit made under Clause 70—until October 1999. Without prejudice to anything I may wish to do with the amendment during the progress of the Bill, for the purpose of today's debate I wish to confine it to one simple and, I hope, uncontroversial purpose. I wish to set the stage and establish what we are discussing.

One of the difficulties with debates on single parents is that a great variety of issues constantly overlap. The problem is like the Irishman's pigs; he could not count them because they would never stand still. I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I use the amendment to set the stage. In the debate on Amendment No. 110, I wish to deal with the rights of single parents who are not working. In the debate on whether Clause 70 shall stand part of the Bill and on Amendment No. 112, which are grouped together, I wish to deal with the case for having a benefit specifically for lone parents. That is a personal suggestion. I hope that that course will be for the convenience of the Committee and worth making clear.

The cuts in benefits for lone parents fall under two principal headings. The first is achieved by regulations which come into force today, unless otherwise corrected. It is the abolition of the single parent premium on income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. There will be a loss of £4.70 a week in income support and a loss on housing benefit and council tax benefit amounting at its maximum to £9.35 a week but varying according to circumstances. The second cut, introduced under Clause 70 of the Bill, begins on 1st June 1998 and amounts to a maximum of £5.65 a week. That is a hefty collection of cuts.

In order to balance those cuts, the Government are offering, mainly through the Budget, a series of replacements of income. The first is child premium for children under the age of 11 of £2.50 a week. That applies to income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit, family credit and disability working allowance and kicks in in November 1998. The second is family premium on income support of £2.50 a week and that kicks in in April 1999. The third, working family tax credit, kicks in in October 1999. In the absence of detail, one cannot quantify what that might be worth. It may be considerable for those in work, but it will be worth nothing to those out of work. There is to be a child care tax credit, but, again, one cannot quantify it without the details. It may be considerable to those in work but worth nothing to those out of work. It kicks in in October 1999, which is some way off.

As regards everyone affected by the cuts, some will be affected from today and the rest from 1st June this year. There will be no gain before November 1998 and no big replacement gain before April 1999. The effect will vary from group to group. Single parents on income support with one child under 11 will, in money terms, recover their existing position in April 1999. However, in real terms—that is, keeping up with an existing protected claimant who normally would be uprated—they will he £2.20 a week short.

A single parent on income support with two children would recover existing income in November 1998, which is a little better, but in real terms is £2.20 below existing claimants. A single parent with two children over the age of 11, and therefore not eligible for the new premium, will not recover the position until April 1999. That is still £2.20 a week short in real terms. A new claimant in work with an income of £85 a week will be a net gainer by the substantial sum of £7.09 a week by October 1999, but there will be a net loss of £5.65 a week in June 1998 and £3.15 a week in November 1998. Therefore, such claimants will be all right in the end, but getting there will take a long time. A new claimant in work with £150 a week will in June this year lose £9.13 a week. In April 1999, he or she will lose £4.13 a week and will not gain £4.82 a week until October 1999. Again, such claimants will be all right in the end if they can hang on until that day arrives.

Some people will not gain at all from the measures in the Budget. I refer to people who are in work but working less than 16 hours a week and therefore still eligible for income support. There are those receiving child maintenance under the CSA who are not eligible for the passported benefits and whose maintenance often arrives extremely irregularly. Therefore, they are sometimes dependent on child benefit for all their basic necessities. There are student single parents whose loan is counted as income whether they take it out or not. There are those who have been disentitled under the actively seeking work rules, some of them in slightly surprising situations. I give as an example the woman who was working an evening shift in a wine bar and was three times sexually assaulted. She asked to be moved to a different shift, was refused, dismissed, found to be voluntarily unemployed, and deprived of all benefit. Child benefit is the only benefit which a single parent in that situation will keep. That is why its universality is absolutely vital; it may be a life saver.

People in those positions gain nothing whatever of the conditions in the Budget—or practically nothing. In any case, the gains are mainly for those in work. When we reach Amendment No. 110 we will argue that the right of a parent with a young child not to work is, like the right to work, vital. When the time comes, we on these Benches will be prepared to uphold both rights.

I am sorry to have spoken at length. I hope that I have saved the Committee's time in the long run. I beg to move.

Lord Higgins

The noble Earl has clearly explained the amendment, but it is in the context of a confused sequence of events with regard to lone parents. The situation is further complicated by the fact that some of the changes are implemented by statutory instrument and others by primary legislation. Therefore, we have had a whole series of debates on those issues over recent months.

In the House of Commons there was a substantial Labour Party rebellion on this issue, and the matter then came to us. We have subsequently had the Budget and we are now in Committee. The Budget changes are very closely related to some of these measures.

However, the main point made on the amendment is one which the Committee should consider very carefully and perhaps return to at a later stage; namely, that a large number of lone parents will suffer as a result of the statutory instrument and the primary legislation if the Government's intentions go forward.

As the Minister will know, that was something which was foreshadowed under the previous government and therefore we understand that it may well be something on which there is agreement between the two Front Benches. Be that as it may, the situation which is now likely to occur if the Government succeed with their intentions is that there will be a number of lone parents who lose initially, and then subsequently gain. Of course, they will not gain in relation to the preferred position which they held previously as regards two parent families. That is a point to which we can return on the clause stand part Motion.

Nevertheless, there will be individual lone parents whose incomes will fall; and, after a considerable time—which may be extremely distressing for them—that income will be reinstated, albeit not in the same form in which it was previously being paid. That seems to be an extremely unfortunate situation and I hope that the Minister will let us have her views on how that is to be overcome, perhaps by acceptance of the amendment proposed by the noble Earl.

Lord Ashley of Stoke

I had tabled amendments on this issue before the Budget because there was no doubt in my mind that those on income support and new claimants were getting a raw deal under the provisions of the Bill. The poorest were being hit and that is unacceptable.

But the Budget changed the picture. The provisions in the Budget were very welcome and government figures show that on average no fewer than 1,470,000 lone parents will be £6.30 per week better off. I recognised that the Government acted to effect those cuts and so I withdrew my amendments. But it is now clear, as the noble Earl has indicated, that the working families' tax credit will not be introduced until October 1999. It is that which provides the major gain for lone parents.

Until that time, many lone parents will face the cut, which was explained so admirably by the noble Earl. Such a cut is both unjustified and unacceptable. We must ask: why should the impecunious be impoverished (as they will be) by that cut just because the dates of changes are made to suit the Government's convenience? It means that families already deprived of a spouse are to be deprived further.

Lone parents are among the poorest in the country and they simply cannot afford to lose pence let alone pounds. Every penny counts and must be counted and accounted for. That hardship cannot be wished away, rationalised or elbowed aside, and certainly not by the laughable excuse that it does not apply to present lone parents but only to new ones. As an honourable Member said in another place, the new ones are still people. Why should a family which becomes deprived of a parent after June of this year be ordered to live on less money than a current lone parent? It simply does not make sense and the whole concept of a fair deal goes out of the window.

The effective answer is to delay the cut in the lone parent benefit until October next year. That is all we are asking, and that is what the amendment achieves. It is the common-sense, reasonable solution to a major problem for lone parents. I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept the amendment.

Lord Desai

I ask my noble friend to clarify one matter. I start by confessing that rules for social security payments are so complicated that I find it very difficult to understand what is going on. I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for explaining case by case what is happening.

I was surprised and shocked—as were my other noble friends—by the cuts in lone parent benefit. I understand that the Government wish to encourage lone parents to get back into work. I understand also that that particular cut applies only to lone parents entering benefits as of this year. But there is an anomaly and I should be grateful to my noble friend if she will clarify the matter when she replies.

It is concerned with lone parents who are in jobs but who may lose their jobs. I understand that if that happens, they cannot obtain the benefit to which they were previously entitled. If that is the case, that is a great disincentive to taking work, and I am sure the Government do not want that. Even going along entirely with the Government's logic, I still see an anomaly in relation to cutting benefit for people who lose their jobs because those people must go back to zero and start all over again. That seems to me to be an added injustice and perhaps my noble friend will clarify the position.

3.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)

There are two principles underlying the Government's strategy for benefit rates for families. First, we do not believe that the current structure, which pays a higher fixed rate of child benefit and family premium to all lone parent families and to no two-parent families, is the best way or the right way to address the extra costs which particular families may face. Therefore, it is right that we should change that structure to align the rates of benefits paid to families in respect of their children irrespective of the family structure. That is why we are going ahead with this measure.

Secondly, the Government are committed to supporting all families with children. We believe that support for families should be based on the needs of children and, as I say, not on the basis of family structure. Therefore, it may help the Committee if I seek to set out the measures which we are implementing to deliver those two principles.

As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, mentioned, we inherited measures aligning rates of benefit from the previous government. The Social Security (Lone Parents) (Amendment) Regulations 1998 were laid on 8th March. They align the rate of family premium in the following income-related benefits—income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit. Those measures come into force today and will apply to all new claims from lone parent families. Existing lone parents will not be affected and will continue to receive the higher rates, as Members of the Committee have already identified.

Those regulations replace regulations already debated in this House—the Social Security (Lone Parents) (Amendment) Regulations 1997. Perhaps I may address the point made by my noble friend Lord Desai by saying that the only substantive difference is the introduction of linking rules to protect lone parents who take up work and return to benefit after a short period of work. For the first time, we are introducing a 12-week linking rule which is more generous than the linking rule proposed by the Social Security Advisory Committee. That was only eight weeks. I hope my noble friend will take comfort from that fact. We are seeking to introduce those linking rules to protect lone parents who take up work and return to benefit after only a short period of work and to ensure that lone parents who receive the higher premium, such as the disability premium, but have an underlying entitlement to the lone parent premium, receive the same protection as other existing recipients.

The measure we are debating today is not the regulations associated with family premium and not, with this amendment, the linking rule, although we shall return to that. This measure will align the rate of child benefit because that is required to be changed through primary legislation while other aspects of child support can be dealt with through regulations. It is our intention that this measure should come into force in June 1998, at the same time as improvements to the childcare disregard. Again, it will apply to new claims only, with existing recipients continuing to receive the higher rate.

However, this Government recognise that all families have extra costs as a result of caring for their children. That is why we are committed to retaining and uprating universal child benefit which is paid to all families irrespective of income. That is why we announced a £2.50 increase in the standard rate of child benefit for the first child. That was announced in the Budget on 17th March and will be implemented from April 1999. We will introduce an increase of £2.50 a week in the rate of family premium for income-related benefits such as income support, income-based job seeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit at the same time. We shall do it in that way because, as the Committee knows, child benefit is not paid separately to families in receipt of an income-related benefit; it is subsumed within their benefit. Therefore, to offset or to "equivalise", if I may use that word, the child benefit gain for those families in work who receive child benefit, we are making a parallel move on family premium for those families on income-related benefits to the same extent of £2.50 a week. So families not in work and families in work will be treated in similar ways. Existing lone parents will not receive this increase because they will already be receiving the higher lone-parent rates of child benefit and family premia, but all other families and all new lone parents will receive these new rates.

In addition, we are introducing extra help for families with very young children. The child allowance in all the income-related benefits will be increased by £2.50 a week; in other words, there will be an extra £2.50 per week per child for those under the age of 11 for all families who are on income support or other income-related benefits. Again, that was announced in the Budget and will be implemented from November of this year.

All families in receipt of these benefits with children under the age of 11—not just children under five—will receive this higher allowance, including all existing lone parents, even though they will retain entitlement to the existing higher lone-parent premia. We will follow up these measures by introducing more help for families in work, as has been mentioned, through the working families tax credit and the childcare tax regard in October 1999. So there is an increase in the rate of the family premium for families who are on income-related benefits, an increase in the rate of child benefit for those families who are in work and not on an income-related benefit, an increase of £2.50 per child for those families on income-related benefits whose children are under 11, and additional help through the working families tax credit and the childcare tax credit in October 1999.

I believe that I am right in saying that something like four separate measures will come together and produce, in our view, real help to all families, whether they consist of single parents or two parents and whether they are fractured or intact. They will be concentrated, focused and targeted on the needs of the children, especially those under the age of 11. I trust that the Committee will accept that these four measures together meet the two principles that I outlined at the beginning of my remarks. They align the benefit rate for families with children for all family types but they will also ensure that the financial needs of families, especially those with younger children, are recognised through the benefit system.

However, those measures do not mean that the tax and benefit system will not take account of the specific difficulties and extra costs that some families face. We are focusing resources specifically on meeting those costs rather than giving higher fixed rates to particular families. Perhaps I may identify them. Our childcare tax credit will provide extra help for all working families who need help with childcare costs. Lone parents will be the main beneficiaries of that tax credit and will receive more help with childcare costs—which is the main obstacle to their being able to spring out of the poverty trap and move into work—than has previously been the case.

But some two-parent families may also need help with childcare. It is right that the childcare tax credit should also help those families. The improvements to the childcare disregard that we will be introducing in the interim will also be open to all families. We believe it is right to give extra help to families who are unable to work or whose opportunity to maximise income from work is limited by parental responsibility. That is why we are introducing those two measures to improve the incomes of those families. I repeat: we are increasing the family premium in income-related benefits by £2.50 a week for all workless couples and we will increase the child personal allowance for the under 11 year-olds by a further £2.50 a week. This means that a family with two young children will be better of by £7.50 a week. I hope that the Committee will agree that that is consistent with our strategy to help all vulnerable families receive an adequate income when out of work.

The third element of our strategy is to help those people move into work. We are already breaking down the barriers between lone parents and work by way of the New Deal and our national childcare strategy; indeed, our working families tax credit will guarantee every working family, including lone-parent working families, an income from full-time work of at least £180 a week. We have also put in place measures to ensure that all four year-olds have an early education placement at the start of the school year.

The Government inherited measures to remove differential benefit levels for the children of lone parents and the children of two-parent families. We believe it is right that benefit rates should be aligned. We have introduced legislation to implement that measure. However, that would have meant, if I can use the cliché, "levelling down" lone parents to where jobless couples find themselves. We have taken the obverse approach: we have sought to increase benefits by targeting them on children and children in need for all families—both lone parents and two-couple families—which is effectively a levelling up of couples to where lone parents, in very broad terms, though not exactly, currently find themselves. That is why we are introducing this package of measures and doing so as early as possible. We believe that it is right to target specific help. That is why we are meeting the needs for childcare through our national childcare strategy and why we are helping lone parents into work.

I hope that the Committee will agree that, with these four measures—the increase in the family premia for all couples; the increase in child benefit for couples in work; the increase in the income support rates for couples and lone-parent families who are receiving income support for children under 11; and the proposed improvements through the childcare disregard and the working families tax credit—we have a far-reaching strategy for families. I believe that those measures represent key milestones in implementing the strategy. Where extra help is needed, we have sought, through the Budget and through the changes being announced today under the New Deal and so on, to deliver it. I trust that the Committee will agree that we have in place a broad-brush set of proposals which will help all families, whether lone parent or couples, equitably. On the one hand, we will be increasing the help to those who have young children under the age of 11, and, on the other, we will be helping those who can move into work to do so through childcare credit. We believe that that is the right way forward. Those who cannot work because of parental responsibilities will be given additional help; but, where they are in a position to seek work, we will help them to do that, too, by removing the major obstacle in their way; namely, childcare costs.

Finally, we have the linking rule which I mentioned earlier. Therefore, with all those measures in place, I hope that noble Lords will agree that we genuinely have a new deal for all lone parents, as well as workless couples, as they enter the next few years.

Baroness Turner of Camden

Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps she would be kind enough to comment on the following information. Because the working families tax credit does not begin until October 1999, I understand that some lone parents will be worse off. Indeed, the Child Poverty Action Group estimates that 60,000 lone parents will be worse off to the extent of £2 per week because the working families tax credit does not kick-in until October 1999. Can my noble friend comment on that information?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

As I understand it, lone parents with children under the age of 11 who will lose the child benefit from June 1998 will, nonetheless, gain in April 1999 by the sum of £1.85. However, those with older children—the group to which I believe my noble friend was particularly referring—will not have the same recompense as we had hoped. I shall be glad to write to my noble friend with the specific details.

Lord Higgins

To anyone who had not followed the history of these events the Minister's remarks would seem eminently plausible. The noble Baroness began by saying that the Government's policy was to align the benefits of lone parents with those of two-parent families. But that is what the previous government were proposing to do. It is also what Mr. Blair promised he would not do before the election. It is also what the Secretary of State for Social Security said she would not do. The Minister who has just spoken described that measure as vindictive, punitive and utterly wrong. Her present position is a total reversal of the Government's previous policy.

We can return later to a number of the points the noble Baroness made. I refer to the linking problem which I described in previous debates as the "in, out" problem; that is, the problem of the lone parent who takes up work, then loses the job and finds himself or herself on the lower rate of lone parent benefit rather than the higher rate. My Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 address that point. However, we are not clear about the amendment moved by the noble Earl. The Budget has increased the level of benefit for this group, whether they comprise single parents or two parent families. However, it appears that, as a result of the way this measure has been handled, lone parents will eventually be no worse off, generally speaking,—with the exception of certain specific groups, for example lone parents with children under 11—but in the meantime they will be worse off because their lone parent benefits will be cut before the measure in the Budget is put in place. Therefore there will be a hiccup, if I may so describe it. As I understand the position, the noble Earl's amendment seeks to rectify that point. With great respect I do not think the Minister has addressed the matter.

3.45 p.m.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I believe the noble Lord referred to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and myself in this regard. I believe he said I had described the proposal as utterly vindictive and wrong. If the measure was being proposed today by the noble Lord on behalf of his party in government my response would be the same as it was before the election. At that time the proposal from the then government was vindictive and wrong. It was nothing other than a cutting strategy to reduce lone parents' benefits to the levels of benefit of workless couples. Had the noble Lord proposed that today, my response would have been the same. However, we are not proposing that. It is a bit rich of the noble Lord to accuse me of hypocrisy when I have made it clear that the changes we now propose will produce what the noble Lord's party did not propose; namely, additional child benefit of £2.50 for the first child, a childcare strategy and a linking rule. Had the noble Lord's party offered those three measures before the election, he would have gained the support of my party. However he did not propose that, and therefore he did not gain our support.

Lord Ashley of Stoke

My noble friend speaks so eloquently and so persuasively. However, the Committee has a question. I hope I have explained that there will be a hiatus as a result of the earlier cuts that were imposed and the fact that the working families' tax credit will not be introduced until 1999. In the meantime lone parents suffer a cut in benefit. Can my noble friend disprove that? If she can, I shall be delighted. If she cannot, will she accept the simple proposition that by deferring the cut until October next year she will solve the problem?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My noble friend is correct. These proposed changes were introduced in the Budget and will therefore take time to be introduced. We cannot get the working families tax credit up and running until 1999, as my noble friend said. That is the situation we are in.

Lord Higgins

I do not wish to pursue at length the point I made earlier. I merely state that what the noble Baroness objected to when in opposition was the principle of equalising payments as between lone parents and two parent families. She has no idea what we might have introduced in the Budget had there been a new Conservative government. Be that as it may. The noble Baroness has still not addressed the crucial point of the noble Earl's amendment; namely, to remove what the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has just described as a hiatus. It seems to me that it should not be impossible to deal with that matter by means of an amendment of the kind that the noble Earl suggested.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I addressed that point in reply to my noble friend. Many of the changes we propose are dependent on the Budget and cannot be put into effect as quickly as we would wish. What we objected to when in opposition was that the then government's measure represented simply a cut. His party believed that lone parents were increasing in number because of a financial incentive and that therefore the best way to cut the number of lone parents was to reduce their benefit. We have approached the matter from an entirely different direction. We wish to tackle family poverty and family need, whatever the family structure. Therefore we seek to ensure that all families, whether they comprise lone parent families or two parent families, will enjoy the extra advantages of higher child benefit—the highest increase in child benefit since 1978 and the administration of my noble friend Lord Callaghan—a major, far-reaching childcare strategy, and a linking rule that will genuinely offer lone parents a new deal. I hope that my noble friends will accept that.

Earl Russell

I think we have taken the matter about as far as we usefully can today. I set out to make an uncontroversial speech. It seems that I have succeeded because in her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, the Minister did not deny my crucial point about the gap. We do not agree on a great many things as regards this subject. However, at least I hope that as a result of this amendment we shall agree on what we disagree about. We disagree about the treatment of lone parents who do not, or cannot, work. We shall address that point when we discuss the next group of amendments. We disagree about whether there should be a specific benefit attributable to lone parenthood. We shall address that matter on the clause stand part debate.

I am glad that the Minister referred to the linking rule, which I should have mentioned. I welcome that, but it is not as generous or as beneficial as the 12 month linking rule for disability. I congratulate the Minister on achieving that in the Green Paper. If the two could have been equally generous, my welcome would have been a great deal warmer. As it is, the gap remains. The purpose of this amendment is to bridge that gap. I hope that the Minister may reflect on that aim between now and the next stage of the Bill. I do not require an answer to that now, but in the hope that she may reflect on the matter I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 38 [Reviews of decisions]:

The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie)

moved Amendments Nos. 105B to 105G: Page 24, line 12, after ("relates") insert— ("(aa) may review such a determination on the ground that the person who applied for the payment to which the determination relates misrepresented, or failed to disclose, any material fact;"). Page 24, line 30, at end insert— ("(5A) In making a determination on a review an appropriate officer or a social fund inspector need not consider—

1. (a) in the case of a determination on a review under subsection (1)(a) above, any issue that is not raised by the application;
2. (b) in the case of a determination on a review tinder subsection (1)(aa) above, any issue that is not raised by the material fact;
3. (c) in the case of a determination on a review under subsection (1)(b) above, any issue that did not cause him to carry out the review").

Page 24, line 31, after ("review") insert ("under subsection (1)(a) or (b) above"). Page 25, line 2, at end insert— ("(6A) In making a determination on a review under subsection (1)(aa) above an appropriate officer or a social fund inspector shall—

1. (a) act in accordance with any general directions issued by the Secretary of State; and
2. (b) take account of any general guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

(6B) Any reference in subsection (5A). (6) or (6A) above to a determination on a review under a particular provision of subsection (I) above shall be construed, in relation to a social fund inspector, as a reference to a determination on a further review of a determination which has been reviewed under that provision."). Page 25, line 7, after ("review") insert ("under subsection (I)(a) or (b) above"). Page 25, line 11. after ("determination") insert ("which has been reviewed under subsection (1)(a) or (b) above"). The noble and learned Lord said: These amendments have already been debated. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 105B to 105G en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 73 [Overpayments out of social fund]:

Lord Hardie

moved Amendments Nos. 105H and 105J: Page 48, line 27, at end insert— ("( ) This section applies where such a determination as is mentioned in section 71(1) of the Administration Act is made in relation to a social fund payment—

1. (a) to which section 71 ZA of that Act applies; and
2. (b) which is made on or after the day on which this section comes into force.").

Page 48, line 28, leave out subsection (2). On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 74 agreed to.

Clause 70 [Power to reduce child benefit for lone parents]:

[Amendments Nos. 106 to 109 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

4.00 p.m.

Baroness Maddock

moved Amendment No. 110: Page 47, line 20, at end insert ("save where the lone parent has one or more dependent children under the age of five"). The noble Baroness said: This amendment stands in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Russell and also my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby who regrets that she cannot be present today. The purpose of the amendment is to mitigate the effects of cutting lone parent child benefit for lone parents who have children under the age of five. I was fortunate enough not to be a lone parent; nor did I have financial worries when I was a mother. However, I vividly remember the time when I had two young children under the age of five, with 22 months between them, and my husband used to be away from home for perhaps a week or two weeks. The constant worry of care and responsibility on one's own was enormous. I was lucky. My children slept; I had a good mother-in-law; and I knew that it was coming to an end at the end of two weeks. But to live with that situation, day in and day out for 365 days of the years must be tough. Those are the kind of people about whom we are talking today.

I strongly believe that the Government are mistaken in their intention to lower one parent child benefit. As has been said by other noble Lords, the Minister has eloquently provided full details of the Budget changes and how they will improve the financial situation for many lone parents. It is a complicated picture. We have, I think, clarified it fairly well today. However, I wish to add another factor to the debate. I have been advised that there are still several groups of people who will lose out. No fewer than five groups will receive no compensation for the loss of the lone parent child benefit as a result of the Budget changes. Thereby they will no longer receive any acknowledgement of the extra costs that lone parents incur when bringing up their children. The five groups include working lone parents with earnings above family credit or the alternative working family tax credit levels; working lone parents who earn too much for income support but who work fewer than 16 hours a week and cannot claim family credit; lone parent students whose income takes them above income support levels; lone parents whose child maintenance income lifts them above income support levels and for whom child benefit may be their most reliable source of income; and lone parents who live on some other source of income—it may be a widow's pension—or who are ineligible for income support or other means tested benefit because of the capital cut-off limit. For all those people the arguments remain the same for the extra costs that are faced by them as lone parents.

The majority of two parent families have two incomes. That is never an option for a one parent family. And lone parents incur relatively higher costs as opposed to two parent families. Heating and lighting costs are exactly the same whether it is a one parent or two parent family. As I believe I illustrated by my own example, at the same time caring on one's own is more difficult than with two caring for a family. One may buy more expensive foods or use more convenience foods. One certainly has less time to shop around for bargains. As I explained from my own point of view, there is no second adult to compensate for any of that.

Lone parents often experience considerable hardship because they are likely to be in receipt of benefits for much longer periods than those in two parent families.

I wish to highlight the plight of lone parents who are students. For a lone parent on benefit, normally child benefit is deducted pound for pound from income support. However, if one is a lone parent student—my noble friend Lord Russell has referred to this—and a student who receives income in the form of a grant and a loan, not benefits, the removal of the lone parent rate of child benefit will mean a net loss of £5.65 per week.

In 1995–96, the Department for Education and Employment commissioned a report about students and their expenditure. It looked in particular at lone parents. It found that lone parent students incur higher childcare costs than other students with children. However, unlike people in low paid work, students receive no additional help specifically earmarked for childcare costs; and the lone parent rate of child benefit is the only non-taxable and non-means tested benefit which recognises the extra needs of lone parent families. Yet the Government are intending to remove this for students.

The report also pointed out—it is something that many of us will acknowledge—that for many lone parents education is a route out of dependence on state benefits and it is undoubtedly a path to secure, well paid work. I believe it is vital that this route is not blocked by a further erosion of the financial support available for lone parent students.

I have other worries. They were touched on by other noble Lords today. It is quite clear that, through a combination of this Bill and the recent Budget proposals, lone parents will find it difficult to understand and claim the amount to which they are entitled. My past experience of sitting on housing benefit and tax benefit review boards leads me to predict fairly accurately that many lone parents may inadvertently get into arrears with their housing benefit and will have other problems in that direction. My worries are further increased as I understand that the Government propose to reduce by 25 per cent. the administration costs of benefits.

I hope that the Government will support the intention of the amendment. It recognises the level of poverty which exists for lone parents and their children. It also recognises the special pressures for lone mothers with very young children. It recognises, too, the extra needs of very young children.

The Government's intention is to encourage lone parents into work. We could argue whether for those with very young children that is a good idea; but that is their stated intention. I believe that cutting lone parent benefit will work as a disincentive. It is the only means tested benefit especially tailored to meet the needs of one parent families at present; and the benefit is deducted pound for pound from income support. It is mainly of benefit to lone parents in employment, so the lone parent rate of child benefit provides one-fifth of the increase in income that is available for lone parents who start work. As such, it is essential to help them overcome the work disincentives which they face. Removing that benefit at the same time as trying to encourage lone parents into work is not consistent.

The amendment recognises that lone parents of very young children should not be subjected to the penalty of withdrawn entitlement to benefit. They often face the highest costs, have the least job flexibility and possibly the lowest earning power. In putting the case for the amendment, I am grateful, as I am sure are other noble Lords, for information supplied by the Child Poverty Action Group, the National Council for One Parent Families and the Children's Society. Those groups support the view that this benefit should not be cut.

I feel that the proposal is a rather mean-spirited move by the Government. It has been estimated that in the first three years the total cost of not reducing the lone parent child benefit would be about £45 million. The total social security budget is £100 billion. But in 1998–99, for 75,000 individual lone parents it will be a cost of £5.65 each week. But the amendment does not refer to all parents. It asks for part of that £45 million because we are considering specifically parents with children under five. I beg to move.

Earl Russell

I support the amendment, to which I have put my name, and speak to Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 which are in my name.

I agree with everything that my noble friend said about the amendment. Clause 70 is a peculiarly inappropriate measure for a Government whose ambition is to get lone parents into work. It has blocked the most direct route available for the purpose. It has produced instead a route so roundabout that it is practically going to Birmingham by way of Beachy Head. I speak as one who had to do that journey, and a very laborious process it was.

Amendment No. 114 provides an exemption from the provisions of Clause 70 to a lone parent primarily responsible for a child as a result of the death of the child's other parent or of another person who was primarily responsible for the child's care, or as a result of domestic violence.

The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, is no longer in his place, but I am sure that noble Lords will remember his moving speech at Second Reading, and I am sure he will forgive me for referring to it. When the noble Lord was six his father went down the pit and did not come back again. The noble Lord said that for a year after that he and his two younger sisters would not let their mother out of their sight. It would have been extremely difficult to get that mother to return to work. The noble Lord's case is exactly the kind of case that the amendment is designed to meet, and there are more of them than one would wish.

The other part of that amendment deals with domestic violence. It is, sadly, necessary on many occasions for a woman who has been the victim of domestic violence to keep herself out of sight where her former partner cannot find her. That tends to make actively seeking work difficult. I hope that, if the Minister is making no other concessions, she will take that point seriously.

We have to look beyond the amendment, bearing in mind that Amendment No. 105A is still on the books, and to the right of single parents who do not wish to work. This is for us a question of the basic philosophy of the state. It is not the state's business to tell us how to live. It is the state's business to help us live the way we choose to. We on these Benches will bend over backwards to help single parents who want to work, but equally we will bend over backwards to assert the right of those single parents who wish to work at home caring for their children. Both of these are rights and we are prepared to defend them equally. We see the state as capable of being used as a heavy roller to provide a level playing field but not as a new broom to sweep grass off the pitch. There is a very big distinction between those two functions.

The state cannot judge the sufficiency of the many reasons why people may want to stay at home with their children. Indeed, there is no reason why the state should judge; it is a personal matter and a human right.

Changing the benefit system to "encourage people to go to work" (which are the words used by Mr. Alistair Darling and others) is something that would worry us. The Government should think about the maximum rate of success they could achieve in encouraging single parents into work. I know that the Minister is familiar with the Bradshaw 20 Countries Study. The highest rates for single parents in employment in those 20 countries are Japan 87 per cent., France 82 per cent., Luxembourg 73 per cent. and Sweden 70 per cent. No other country is over 70 per cent. The Government would be optimistic in hoping to get more than 70 per cent. of single parents into work, and in fact it would be quite an achievement. That leaves 30 per cent. of single parents. These people have rights. They may have very good reasons as well. I welcome the many ways of financing the measures in relation to childcare, but to raise the money from the other 30 per cent. who do not want to work is the wrong way to go about it. It is getting the money from those least able to provide it.

Single parents who do not want to work are not, I understand, to be compelled, and I welcome what the Minister has said. It is being "encouraged" that worries me, being starved into submission like a besieged town. The Minister does not like that, but she may have seen yesterday's Observer which records that Ministers are looking at proposals to force more than a million lone parents to attend jobcentre interviews to help them find work. If that is not pressure, I do not know what is. A ministerial source is quoted by the Observer as having said that it does not seem too much to ask lone parents to attend just one interview to discuss whether they want help in finding work or training. That may not appear to the lone parents quite as it may appear to the Minister. If I were to guess the source of that remark, if I were to be playing "I spy", I should be tempted to spy someone beginning with "F". It worries me. I am happy to support the amendment and the wider implications behind it.

Lord Milverton

I support the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, many of us know what it is like for single parents. Nothing should be done to make their task of bringing up, with loving care, children under five and over five more difficult. It must be remembered that many will have poor financial means.

As a priest, and in other ways, I know what it is like. I agree with the principle of the amendment. I may agree with the Liberals. My father was once a Liberal and at one time I asked myself whether I should be a Liberal or a Conservative. As my wife knows, some years ago I voted Liberal at a general election because I was not happy with the Conservative candidate or the Conservative Party at that time.

Baroness Hats of Heigham

Does the noble Lord mean now?

Lord Milverton

That was some years back, not now. The Conservatives would have to do something terrible.

In principle I agree with the amendment because it is very important. I am surprised at the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, because her present position runs contrary to her previous statements. We should be very careful about such a proposal, particularly if it is intended to save money. I hope that the Government will give the amendment great thought and take note of it.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I can assure noble Lords that I know, even from my limited experience at this Dispatch Box, that we take serious note of what noble Lords say and review the position after each stage of a Bill. Your Lordships' contributions, even if the Government do not act upon them, are taken seriously. I like to think that the previous administration did the same, but I am not entirely sure about that.

The Government are committed to supporting vulnerable families. We recognise that families can face difficulties for many reasons, a number of which have been highlighted by noble Lords.

Families can be vulnerable because their opportunity to maximise income from work is limited by their parenting responsibilities. Let no one doubt how much this Government, and I am sure the previous government, value parental responsibilities. That applies to many lone parents, but it also applies to many couples with young children. Therefore, the Government do not believe that the best way to help the families is through differential rates of benefit for different family types.

I do not wish to repeat all the changes that we are developing and which I outlined in the previous amendment. I wish to avoid taking up the Committee's time. I merely remind the Committee that the total spending on all those initiatives—the working family tax credits, the child benefit and income related benefits improvement—will result in about an extra £3 billion, equitably, for lone parents, workless couples and couples with children. They target particularly the needs of the most vulnerable. That £3 billion, expected over the next 18 months, is the result of cumulative changes which were announced in the Budget.

Thus we seek to help lone parents, couples and workless families in an even-handed way. While some lone parents may choose not to work immediately because they have young children or have been through the trauma of domestic violence, as a result of our proposals they will, we hope, have the opportunity to take up the option much sooner, when they are ready to do so. That will reduce the time they spend on benefit, thereby reducing the high levels of hardship they experience.

I turn to individual amendments. Amendments Nos. 110 and 113 are concerned with families with young children. I have outlined the measures the Government are implementing to direct extra help to poorer families with young children, not just children under school age but all families with children up to the age of 11. We recognise, as I am sure all noble Lords do, that there is no magic cut-off age when the difficulties of balancing parenting and work responsibilities disappear. They will certainly continue up to the age of 11.

We believe that our proposed measures are a major step forward in reducing the effects of poverty on families with young children. I point out that the amendment would not only help the most vulnerable. Because it only applies to child benefit, it will not provide additional help, as stated in the amendment, to those families on income support. We have done that, not through this amendment but through our increases in the family premia and the child allowances which I have already outlined.

Amendment No. 114 seeks to help people who are caring for a child when the other parent or carer has died and parents who suffer domestic violence. I recognise that such parents will face particular difficulties and I sympathise with the intent of the amendment. I point out, however, that widows with children—one of the examples given—do not normally receive the lone parent rate of child benefit. That is because they are helped in a different way, through the widowed mothers' allowance, which would not be affected by Clause 70.

The Government's strategy is to ensure that all vulnerable families receive an adequate income when out of work, and to address the barriers they face in moving into work. Although we fully appreciate that some lone parents face particularly difficult circumstances, we do not believe that it is right to pay different levels of benefit to lone parents on the basis of how they came to be a lone parent. That is the thrust of the noble Earl's amendment. It would also be virtually impossible to deliver benefits with those added complexities.

However, we think it is right to give extra financial help where it is specifically needed, such as for childcare costs and where there are young children in the family. That is extra help which we know we can deliver and which I am sure has support from all Members of the Committee.

I share the concern about women who have escaped domestic violence and their continuing vulnerability. I have already outlined the extra benefit support that will be available to all vulnerable families. However, the need for support for women in that situation goes far beyond increasing benefit levels, as I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would be the first to agree.

The Government are committed to tackling domestic violence on every front. We recognise how important it is to increase greater awareness of domestic violence and the issues surrounding it among the public and relevant professionals. The Government are currently considering a new interdepartmental publicity campaign on domestic violence. As well as the services and support provided by Women's Aid and the refuge network, with which I know the noble Earl has long and honourable connections, women experiencing domestic violence may seek help from a variety of sources including the police, local refuges, social services and health professionals.

Tackling domestic violence is one of the Secretary of State's priority issues. She will be driving forward an over-arching strategy to combat violence against women. It is a strategy which I am sure will command the support of all the Committee. Again, because the amendment only applies to child benefit, the noble Earl's amendment would not help the most vulnerable families which are on income support.

The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked about the five groups who will lose. If I have omitted any points, I shall write to the noble Baroness afterwards. All lone parents, including those in the five groups she mentioned will either retain protected rights to the higher rate of child benefit or they will gain from the increases in the standard rate of child benefit we have announced. A total of 60,000 lone parents will lose overall, but 1 million lone parents will gain, but those who gain include those who are most vulnerable.

Perhaps I may give an example of this. One of the five groups the noble Baroness identified as experiencing hardship because they were losers under our proposals were working parents with earnings above the tax credit level. If a working lone parent has earnings above the tax credit level such that she does not even qualify for the family childcare strategy or help, she has to be earning £30,000 a year. I would have thought that was not a group in particular financial hardship.

I hope that I have answered the points made by Members of the Committee. If not, I am sure that they will come back to me.

4.15 p.m.

Baroness Maddock

I thank the Minister for her full reply to the points made when I moved Amendment No. 110 and also when replying to the amendments made by my noble friend Lord Russell. Before discussing Amendment No. 110, perhaps I may say that on domestic violence, I know the Minister shares our concern. I hope she will also press for there to be better finances to support refuges for those suffering domestic violence. It is still a problem, trying to find sufficient finance to support enough refuges around the country. I am sure the Minister will agree with me and hope she will push for that.

Perhaps I may thank the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, for his support and for his past support for the Liberal Party. We welcome him at any time.

Lord Milverton

My father was also a member of the Labour Party.

Baroness Maddock

Various people move around the parties but I have been a member of the Liberal Party and the Liberal Democrat Party only.

The Minister talked about the five groups and answered some of the points. The main point is: why should we pick out any group and say, "You will have a cut"? That is what may happen to some people. I realise that some of the groups are not those in the worst situation. We try to recognise that lone parents have more substantial costs than others in bringing up their children. That was part of the reason for moving the amendment.

We on these Benches want the principle of an earmarked benefit that is special to lone parent families to continue. There is no doubt that lone parents, particularly those in work, will stand to lose a substantial amount with the cutting of lone parent rates for child benefit. As I said and others will agree, there is considerable evidence to show that there are higher costs for one parent families than for two parent families.

We oppose the removal of the higher child benefit for lone parents. As we have received some support at this stage, we intend to pursue the matter at a later stage. However, today I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Russell

moved Amendment No. 111: Page 47, line 20, at end insert ("so however that the rate at which child benefit is paid to a lone parent shall not be lower than the rate at which it is paid in any other case."). The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 111 was put down to enable the Minister to put into the record an extremely welcome concession which she made at the preliminary briefing meeting in the Moses Room. So, in optimism, I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

The drafting of Clause 70 is clearly causing some concern which we need to lay to rest. I am therefore happy on behalf of the Government to accept Amendment No. 111 in principle. It is not our intention to do anything other than align the rates of child benefit paid to lone parents and couples.

I should like to ask the draftsman to consider the most appropriate form of words to allay the concerns that Clause 70(1)(b) is causing, and I shall come back to the matter on Report. With equal optimism, therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Earl Russell

The Minister's optimism is abundantly justified. She said everything I hoped and rather more. I thank her warmly and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Russell

moved Amendment No. 112: Page 47, line 20, at end insert— ("( ) Regulations under this section may not be introduced until there is evidence from a systematic independent study of relative costs, incomes and expenditures of lone parent and two parent families on benefit and in work which conclusively demonstrates that one and two parent families should be treated equally by the tax and benefit system."). The noble Earl said: I move this amendment with not quite so much optimism. In moving it, I shall speak also to Clause 70 stand part.

Amendment No. 112 is designed to ensure that regulations under Clause 70 should not be introduced, until there is evidence from a systematic independent study of relative costs, incomes and expenditures of lone parent and two parent families … which conclusively demonstrates that one and two parent families should be treated equally by the tax and benefit system". The Minister, as I do, respects research. I hope therefore that she will be prepared to rise to this specific challenge. If not, I have up my sleeve a further amendment that Clause 70 should not stand part. That would take out altogether the attempt to destroy the lone-parent premium in child benefit.

It has already been explained by my noble friend Lady Maddock that stopping the child benefit premium which benefits only those in work is a particularly curious way of encouraging lone parents to go into work. In fact, the long and roundabout scheme which the Government introduced instead to encourage people to go into work by paying money to a much larger number of people is a curious attempt at robbing Peter to pay Paul. As usually happens when we rob Peter to pay Paul, the "fence" ends up getting most of it.

The Government are using an extremely untargeted approach. They are paying money to practically everybody rather than targeting it on the group which is clearly, on a large body of research, in the greatest amount of hardship. In fact, it is an extremely expensive bow to the editor of the Daily Mail.

The key question behind this is whether there should be any specific benefit for single parents. We on these Benches say that there should. We are in this House, among the Front-Benches, alone in saying so. We are not ashamed of that. But if we put it in a slightly wider context than just the parties in this country and this Parliament, the picture comes out rather different. If we put it in the context of centuries, we are far from alone.

The principle that there should be separate payment for lone parents can be traced through other centuries about as far back as one can go. I found it in the Book of Exodus and even in Tudor and Stuart England, when the treatment of single parents was about as harsh as it has ever been. Single parenthood at that time was initiated by whipping them until their backs were bloody—the ideal treatment for post-natal depression. Even then there was a separate element of payment specifically for being a single parent.

We can look at the matter in a geographical rather than a chronological context. If we look again at the Bradshaw 20-country study, there is a separate element of benefit for being a single parent—benefit under the benefit or tax system—in Denmark, Finland and Norway. Before noble Lords say, "Just the Scandinavians again", it occurs also in France, Australia, Japan and the USA. That raises a question as to who is in the minority. It suggests that the case that we from these Benches are arguing is a great deal less lonely than it appears in the rather parochial context of the adversarial politics of the Front Benches of this Chamber.

The reasons why there might be separate costs for being a single parent were extremely well outlined by my noble friend Lady Maddock: the cost of heating, because there are the same number of rooms whether there is a single or a double bed in the bedroom; the cost of housing; the cost of time. The National Consumer Council study of the cost of food shows that it may be up to 20 per cent. higher if one cannot travel around and go to the supermarket where goods are cheaper. Single parents incur more paid childcare when there is not another person to share the childcare with. And, as I remember the few days while our second child was being born and I was caring for the first on my own, they incur perpetual travel, in my case between central London, Wimbledon and St. Thomas' Hospital; and perpetual travel comes rather expensive.

I am well aware that that is all disputed and the Minister, I am sure, will dispute it at great length. It seems worth checking whether it is in fact so by looking at the spending measures of poverty; looking at which people are short of which things. The Rowntree study, Small Fortunes, by Sue Middleton and others (I know perfectly well the Minister is familiar with it) tackled the problem of poverty by taking a series of indicators of things which parents were generally agreed children need. They classified those who were short of three indicators as poor and those who were short of five as severely poor.

Though not particularly fancy indicators, the ones that do not involve food are things like one warm coat and one waterproof pair of shoes. I do not think there can be much argument as to whether they are necessary. The study found that single parents who were not working were 7.5 times more likely to count as poor than couples who were also not working. There is therefore a cost attached to singleness. It found that all the children without all three of the food items were children of single parents; that 25 per cent. of children of single parents not working and 8 per cent. of children of couples who were not working were short of one food item. Even where there is a common employment status therefore the children of the single parent were three times as likely to be going short of meals.

Work did not turn out to be a panacea. One-third of single parents in full-time work were lacking one of the three items; 24 per cent. of the children of parents in part-time work were lacking one food item. Those are the figures for the children. The situation for the mothers is far worse. It is commonly agreed in such situations that the mothers regularly go short of food in order to make sure that the children have enough. Malnutrition is extremely expensive.

I could multiply those indicators; in fact I could go on multiplying them for a long time. But the pattern is consistent. If single parents are not worse off than couple parents on the same income, I should like to know how the Minister explains those findings. I beg to move.

Lord Ashley of Stoke

The noble Earl says that he and my noble friend the Minister respect research. Nobody in his right mind would dispute that proposition. I notice that the noble Earl quoted research in support of his case and it is possible that my noble friend will quote research in support of a different case. However, regardless of conflicting research, I have no doubt whatever that the extra costs follow one-parent families. Academics and Ministers can say anything, but it is nonsense to suggest that a single-parent family does not bear heavier costs than a two-parent family.

I am from a one-parent family because my father died when I was five. I watched my mother bring up three children in the grim 1920s and 1930s. I have taken a special interest in this subject and I have seen single parent families suffering. It does not matter what the century is or the time is—the noble Earl referred back to the Book of Exodus—single parent families really suffer.

I do not propose to add to the many examples quoted by the noble Earl and by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, who spoke to a previous amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, except to offer two additional points. The first concerns the lack of mobility of single parent families. Because the children are there they cannot shop around. That is a real problem. The second point is this: you can bet your life that unscrupulous shopkeepers will tend to palm off the bad food behind the display to the vulnerable, harassed single parent, who is usually a woman. That adds to the costs of the single parent family.

We all hope that welfare-to-work will be successful and that lone parents will benefit if they want to work. However, if it is not successful, if the jobs are not found, and if the tax credit benefits do not flow, one parent families will need every penny they can get.

I conclude by saying that the case of the Social Security Advisory Committee is that the argument for one parent families being no worse off than two parent families is "not proven." It suggests that the Government should not proceed until the evidence is absolutely clear, forthcoming and concrete. It puts that reasonable proposition which I hope will be taken on board by the Government. I should like an assurance from my noble friend that the Government will ensure that this research does take place.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Higgins

The Question whether Clause 70 shall stand part of the Bill has been grouped appropriately with this amendment. Therefore, I should like to say a few words about it, although there are subsequent amendments in my name to the clause which appear between the debate on it and when it will actually be voted on, if indeed there is a Division.

The noble Earl and the Liberal Democrats have been entirely consistent in the attitude they have taken with regard to lone parents; namely, that there is a case for their having a differential set of benefits to account for the fact that they are lone parents rather than parents in a two parent family. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, who spoke a moment or two ago, has equally been consistent. And so have we on these Benches. We took the view in government that there ought not to be differentials. The party which has not taken a consistent view on the subject is the party opposite. Instead of arguing, as it did in opposition, that there should be a differential for lone parents, it is arguing now that there should be no such differential.

Will the noble Baroness make it absolutely clear whether there are any groups which she feels deserve preferential treatment, or is it her view now that there is no reason why lone parents should have preferential treatment in any circumstances? Perhaps she will be kind enough to indicate whether that is so.

In our earlier exchanges the noble Baroness sought to justify the Government's position, and the change in her own position, by arguing that there have been measures in the Budget and that the whole thing should he taken as a package. At the risk of being rather partisan, it is perhaps not irrelevant to point out that the change and the arrival of the package happened after the rebellion in the other place. While it is true that this means that lone parents as such, subject to the debate we had earlier about the fall in benefits before they are restored, will not permanently lose, nonetheless they no longer have the differential advantages—I stress the words "differential advantages"—which they previously enjoyed. My understanding is that despite the Budget some 60,000 lone parents will still lose an average of £2 a week and will not benefit sufficiently from the Budget for that to be offset.

Having said all that, I believe that the attitude we previously took in government was right and therefore I do not oppose the view which the Government have now taken. I listened with interest to the points made by the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, about the need for further research. If, indeed, that produces some new evidence, no doubt all of your Lordships will wish to consider it carefully.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

As we have said several times today, the Government are committed to supporting families. Perhaps I may come straight to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He asked whether, under any circumstances, the Government would think it right to give preference to lone parents, because of their status as lone parents, or other families. I suspect he may think that this is an oblique answer but our concern is not actually with the family structure. We are concerned with the poverty that follows, particularly for children, in vulnerable family structures.

This tends to be associated with fractured families. It could be other families which, though nominally intact, have violence or in which there is disability. There may be all kinds of stresses on the family. Our concern is to deal with those stresses and those problems, including poverty, rather than the actual family structures. That is why, with lone parents, we are seeking to address a three-fold strategy: the benefit changes that we have been talking about today; the welfare-to-work proposals of the New Deal together with the child support proposals; and, of course, over the next few months, reform of the Child Support Agency so that maintenance begins properly to flow.

We believe that support for families should be based on the needs of the children, not on the nature of the family structure. We do not believe that the current structure which pays a higher fixed rate to all lone parent families and to no two parent families is the best way of addressing the extra costs particular families may face.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, when referring to a previous amendment, talked about the extra costs of lone parents. Perhaps I may speak for a moment about costs and then go on to talk about research. It is obvious, as has been said, that lone parents share with couples similar, possibly identical, costs for housing, heating, lighting, cleaning and furniture. It is also the case that lone parents face higher costs than two parent families or couple families—above all, opportunity costs, of which the primary one is child care. I think we all accept that. From my own experience I should have thought that there are lower costs in lone parent families compared with couple families because, for example, a lone parent and a child must spend less on food than two adults and a child, particularly if the second adult is a man. They must also spend less on clothing. They also probably spend less on transport and probably less on such things as drink, cigarettes and so on. So, in terms of costs, I think the jury is genuinely out. Lone parents do have higher costs in some areas; they have identical costs in others; and they must as a family unit spend less absolutely, though not necessarily less relatively, than couple families on such items as food, clothing and so on. That has to be true.

When one adds the point which the noble Earl has made to me on many occasions—he is absolutely right—that there is, in addition, the allocation of money within the household, so even within a workless couple household a greater amount of residual money will go to him rather than to her, reflecting, if you like, the power politics within that household, it is clear that the lone parent is often better off without that partner.

That point has been expressed by other noble Lords on previous occasions. It was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in a question the other day asking why lone parents chose not to re-partner with a workless man. If couples were better off than lone parents, following the logic of that argument, lone parents would be financially wise to re-partner. The fact that they choose not to do so may well be recognition of the fact that they are better off financially without having a workless man in the household. The response to that is not that they should not have a partner in their lives, but wherever possible we should do what we can to encourage him and her, when the children are old enough, to have the choice of work. I am sure that the noble Lord will take that point.

I come now to the research itself. The noble Lord is right: I am very interested in the research. It is very important. The research comes with different baggages of assumptions as they address the problems. There are real difficulties separating what counts as need from what counts as preference. It may relate to cigarettes where we know that proportionately poorer families spend more. That is not a judgment. Far be it from me to judge the noble Earl's private tastes, preferences or habits in that direction.

I suspect that if the noble Earl and I were to carry out a study into what lone parents need we would come up with different assumptions as to whether they did or did not need cigarettes in their expenditure. Therefore, the research would reflect that. There are very different significances in the conclusions reached. Given all the difficulties surrounding such studies, there is research which supports the retention of the premium for lone parents. The work of Middleton, Ashworth and Braithwaite in Small Fortunes, which the noble Earl quoted, concluded that lone parent families are more deprived than couple families. Other research points in the opposite direction. Work by Oldfield and Yu in The Cost of a Child [1993] and by Bradshaw in Household Budgets and Living Standards found that lone parent families were relatively less disadvantaged on income support than couple families.

Research by Dickens et al in 1996 in The Costs of Children and the Welfare State shows that lone parents are under-compensated by the benefit system in relation to some family types and over-compensated in relation to others. What is clear, without in any way impugning research, is that in this area one will find the research answer which is consistent with assumptions which are brought to bear on the research. Having read at least half-a-dozen research reports, all written in the past seven or eight years on this subject, I do not believe, unlike my noble friend Lord Ashley, that further research will give an unambiguous answer and certainly not the clear and concrete answer that my noble friend asks for. As I say, there have been seven or eight highly esteemed pieces of research. But, because they come with different assumptions and seek to test the relativity of lone parent incomes against other family households within the benefit system, they come up with very different answers. They come up with what they first started with.

However, the Government recognise that all families have extra costs as a result of caring for their children. That is why we are committed to retaining child benefit as a universal benefit and why we have announced a £2.50 increase in the standard rate of child benefit for the first child. We also recognise that some families have specific extra costs. Lone parents in particular, but also some couples, where both may be students, often have to pay for childcare. We could never meet the costs of childcare, which can easily be £100 a week or more, through a higher rate of child benefit for all lone parents. Instead we are introducing the childcare tax credit which will focus help on those families who have additional costs associated with childcare, thus relating it to specific needs. Lone parents will be the main beneficiaries of that childcare tax credit. Some two parent families will also need help with the cost of childcare. In my view the childcare tax credit will help those families as well. Like the noble Earl, I share concerns about lone parents who are unable to work. But again we need to consider what help is appropriate to all families and what specific help is required to address those particular difficulties facing the family.

Earlier this evening we outlined two measures; namely, the increase in the family premium for those on income-related benefits and the increase in the child personal allowance for the under-11s by a further £2.50 a week. Together those increases mean that a family with two young children will be better off by £7.50 a week.

Lone parents experience high levels of hardship. That is because they find it harder to obtain work and therefore spend longer periods of time on benefit than other groups. Only one workless couple in eight tends to be on an income-related benefit after five years; for loan parent families it is one in three. It is the longevity of time spent on benefit and therefore the difficulty of replacing carpets, the cooker, clothes, bedding and blankets, rather than the relativity of the benefit income to lone parents and other family types, that is the issue to be addressed as well as trying to help lone parents back into work. That is why, as part of the changes to budgeting loans in the Social Fund—this was discussed earlier at Committee stage—we have included the length of time on income support and family size as two of the personal circumstances which we use to determine budgeting loan applications. The longer the lone parent has been on benefit and the greater the hardship she is likely to experience as a result, the better and speedier the access she will have to budgeting loans. Indeed, because lone parents already face a longer period on benefit they already receive over half of the annual budgeting loan expenditure of £140 million.

I hope that I have met the questions raised by the Committee. We shall be treating both lone parents and two parent families in the same way when they face long periods on benefit. We believe that they should be treated equitably. We seek to ensure that all vulnerable families receive an adequate income when out of work; we seek to address the barriers they face when moving into work. We are breaking down those barriers for lone parents and workless couples alike through our new deal for lone parents, our national childcare strategy and our working families tax credit. We shall guarantee an income to every working family of at least £180 a week.

As Members of the Committee will know, we have also put in place measures to ensure that all four year-olds have an early education playschool start at the beginning of the school year. These measures will provide lone parents with the opportunities they have asked for to work—opportunities not previously open to them. If lone parents choose not to work in the short term—perhaps because they have very young children—we have sought to meet that need by increasing the income support premia. We hope that we shall be able to reduce the time they spend on benefit but to give them while they are on it priority access to a budgeting loan.

Research is inconclusive about the relative needs of lone parents and two parent families. We know that the specific costs that lone parents face are the length of time that they spend on benefit; the difficulties of getting access into work; and the costs of childcare. Our strategy is to address not just the symptoms of their poverty, which is the differential between their benefit and those of a couple, but the causes of it. There is the fact that they have young children which means that they are not free to go to work; there is the obstacle of moving into work and the difficulties that stand in their way as regards the Social Fund. We are addressing those problems. As a result I believe that in years to come lone parents will enjoy a level of prosperity that they have not experienced so far. I hope that this amendment will not be supported and that in due course Clause 70 shall stand part of the Bill.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Ashley of Stoke

I challenge my noble friend on one point. The noble Earl and my noble friend said that they respect research, but my noble friend has just spent 10 minutes rubbishing research. She said that one cannot really depend on research because people bring all their own assumptions and presumptions to bear. Their own bias is built in. Anyone can rubbish that kind of research.

In saying that, my noble friend is really saying that research is of no value. That is the clear implication of what she said. Everyone brings their own presumption, assumption, predispositions and bias to bear and so the research is clearly of no value. That is a very big statement for my noble friend to make.

It is always a great pleasure to listen to her. As I have said before, she is one of the most persuasive Members of this House. But we cannot really buy her argument. The request does not come from me but from the Social Security Advisory Committee. It has said that we should try to have independent, quality research about whether the single parent family has more costs or not. In my credulous view, there is no argument: of course they have many more costs despite the persuasive points made by my noble friend.

Perhaps I may take one example. I refer to the research of the effect of smoking on cancer. My noble friend Lady Hollis is surely not going to say—and she must say this logically—that proving that smoking causes cancer is ridiculous because there is bias and prejudice built into the research. That invaluable research has saved many lives throughout the world. I hope that my noble friend will not give a definitive no. She is not a dogmatic person; she is very reasonable, so I hope that she will think about this matter, sleep on it, and possibly answer at a later stage.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I must intervene. Heaven forbid that I should rubbish research. I have spent over 35 years of my life carrying out research and I would hate to think that it had no value, so I am certainly not rubbishing research or saying that it has no value. I am saying that where research points in different directions and continues to do so, we must then ask what assumptions people are bringing to bear on it.

Perhaps I may do something that I do not normally do and emulate—perhaps I should say "copy" because "emulate" might be the wrong word—the noble Earl and give a classic example that I used to cite to my students. There is a long-standing debate about whether the standard of living of working-class people rose or declined during the industrial revolution. It is a classic argument in which one takes students through the cohort of two dozen articles in the English Historical Review and the Economic History Review, and they all come up with different answers. That is because all the arguments start with different assumptions about what constitutes a standard of living.

I choose that example because it is not so far removed from our argument today. One considers the quantitative arguments, the qualitative arguments, the cost of goods, the information you do not know, the information you do know, and the hours people work and then at the end of the exercise one says, "If you judge this as significant, that is the answer", or "If you judge that as significant, this is the answer", but on the whole the jury is out. The jury is out after 30 years of diligent research by many historians. That is what I have found after 30 years of undergraduate teaching.

I am not rubbishing research. Where research on, say, smoking and cancer, is coherent and scholarly, and is consistent with other research, that is the point at which the Government take action. It may be that a single piece of research—the latest research—has additional evidence that was not available to previous researchers, thus causing a hiccup or placing a question mark on our established thinking, whether on BSE or any other matter, in which case one stands back and tries to replicate that research and to gain peer group support. One would then probably commission further research. We know that the contours of research on which one bases action have to be ascertained. Having read all the research, I have to say, in good faith, that the jury is out. Indeed, I suspect that on this matter we will always have a hung jury.

Earl Russell

As one researcher to another, I understand what the Minister is saying about research. In that respect, she is quite right. Her example about the standard of living and the industrial revolution was well chosen. I remember bowling that as a bumper at a candidate at an entrance interview, and the candidate replied, "I can't answer this question. How do you quantify clean air?"—and the candidate was, of course, in straightaway.

Where the Minister was very interesting—she did her level best with rather thin material—was in her admission that the jury is out. That is genuinely the smoking gun behind the Government's policy because we have had the sentence; it is being enforced; it is to be executed today. To have the sentence while the jury is still out is rather a curious form of proceeding. I cannot help feeling that it is just a little precipitate.

The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, spoke with the voice of experience. On this matter, the voice of experience seems to be pretty unanimous. I am inclined—this may be a prejudice, but it is one that I am prepared to defend—to think that, other things being equal, the body of expert and apparently competent research which coincides with the voice of experience is slightly more likely to be right than the body of research which does not.

The Minister made great play of the argument that we want to treat families according to their particular circumstances, not their family structure. I respect the desire not to judge family structures, but our argument from these Benches is that single parenthood is itself a stress. The Minister is clearly right that childcare is the most expensive of those stresses. However, it is not correct to argue that childcare is the only such stress. I should be inclined to argue that transport comes a very close second because the amount of time that one has to spend trying to be in two places at once can be considerable. There is genuinely truth in the proposition that time is money.

I hope that, in the light of what she said about the jury still being out, the Minister will reflect on Amendment No. 112. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 112 without prejudice to what I may do in a moment on the Question of Clause 70 stand part.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 not moved.]

Lord Higgins

moved Amendment No. 115: Page 47, line 20, at end insert— ("( ) No regulations made under subsection (1) may reduce the rate of child benefit payable to lone parents in receipt of disability benefit; and accordingly such lone parents shall continue to receive child benefit at the higher rate."). The noble Lord said: This is a simple and straightforward amendment. In an earlier debate, I asked the Minister whether there were any particular circumstances in which her general view that there ought to be no preferential treatment in future for lone parents would apply. I believe that this is such a case.

We have just had an interesting discussion about research. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, would probably agree with me that in economics the assumptions that one makes are often crucial to the results that one ultimately achieves. However, I should not have thought that it would require an enormous amount of research to suggest that those who are both lone parents and disabled are likely to require some form of special treatment. In essence, that is the purpose of the amendment.

Clearly, the Government's overall policy of seeking to ensure that, whether by stick or by carrot, lone parents move from welfare to work has much to be said for it but, equally clearly, in the case of lone parents who are disabled, it is much less likely that they will be able to achieve that objective—which is an objective shared by both the Government and many lone parents who are disabled. By definition, they clearly have bigger handicaps.

Last week we had an excellent debate on the disabled, and this amendment partly stems from that. I hope that we shall have a sympathetic response from the Minister. She has already made exceptions for those who are already in receipt of lone parent benefit. Their benefit is to continue at the higher rate, as we shall discuss when we reach the next group of amendments. That being so, should not the Minister perpetuate that in relation also to lone parents who are disabled and in receipt of disability benefit? I beg to move.

Lord Ashley of Stoke

Inevitably, a lone parent with a disability will face additional costs. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to accommodate the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. My noble friend has done more for disabled people than any Member of your Lordships' House. She is not able to articulate what she has done behind the scenes, but it has been a major achievement. I am sure that if she can possibly help, she will do so.

Earl Russell

I should like to express agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has just said about the Minister. I should also like to say that this is a good amendment and that we on these Benches support it for all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.

Lord McCarthy

Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, a question. He said earlier that he is against government policy for special reasons, but he has not told us exactly what those reasons are. I thought that it was the policy of his party to be against all differentials between single-parent families and two-parent families, but he now wants a single, special exception. I think that it is a sensible exception, but does it represent a change of policy on the part of his party or does it in some way fit with his previous general opposition to all differentials?

5 p.m.

Lord Higgins

The answer is that both factors have a cumulative effect, but it is the disability aspect, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, referred in the debate last week, that makes one question with the Minister whether or not this is an appropriate exception.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

When I first saw the amendment it appeared highly desirable. I sympathise with the sentiments behind it, but I wonder whether it confuses two matters. I believe that there are two issues here: the parent's, and possibly the child's, disability, and the level of child benefit. We believe that the right way to help a family with a disabled person in it, whether the parent or child, is not to have higher rates of child benefit but to help with the costs of disability. That is why a particular exception was made in their case in the first place. That is the push of our strategy, as my noble friend was generous enough to identify. We are providing additional help for people with disabilities in different ways. The Committee will be aware that disability working allowance is paid to people in work who have an illness or disability that places them at a disadvantage in the job market. But all of our research shows that DWA is not as effective as we would like it to be. It does not move into work the number of disabled people that it should, because only about 14,000 take advantage of it.

It is for that reason that my right honourable friend the Chancellor will replace DWA with a far more generous disabled person's tax credit to ensure that disabled people are better off in work. That will provide them with a guaranteed minimum income above and beyond the minimum wage, and it will include improved help with childcare costs through a childcare credit. Therefore, a disabled person who moves into work will, under the new disabled person's tax credit, have a better standard of living than is currently the case if he is on disability working allowance.

My noble friend has forgotten more than I shall ever know in the field of disability. He will be the first to tell the Committee that the Government pay a range of benefits to vulnerable people who are not able to work due to ill health and disability. The disability living allowance is paid irrespective of other income to severely disabled people in order to help them with the extra costs arising as a result of their disabilities. Incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance are available to other people who are unable to work due to ill health or disability. In addition, income-related benefits provide help to disabled people to help meet the extra costs they may face. A lone parent who is disabled will receive a disability premium which is of greater value than the higher family premium paid currently to lone parents; in other words, a family with children and a disabled parent in it will already receive a higher level of income by virtue of that disability.

People who are severely disabled and who live alone are most likely to have extra care costs. They will qualify for a severe disability premium which is of greater value still. Therefore, the benefit needs of disabled people are not about family structure. The benefits system provides help specifically for families and, in parallel, specific help for people with disabilities. This amendment would not provide any help to the most vulnerable families in greatest need. It would affect the rate of child benefit available and, as a result, not affect families on income support whom the Government are helping through the measures to which I have already referred.

I suggest to the Committee and to my noble friend Lord Ashley that the right way to help a family where a parent or child suffers from a disability is to offer financial help to meet that disability. The Government are doing that through the measures I have outlined. We shall continue to explore these matters with the disability organisations in the fora that we have set up. I believe that that is the right way to progress rather than to put an extra premium onto child benefit which will fluctuate up and down according to the health of the parent. It is surely right to uncouple those two assumptions and provide parallel help on both fronts, that with disability and that with children. I hope that in the light of that the Committee will feel able not to proceed with the amendment.

Earl Russell

Before the Minister sits down, does she agree that a single parent with a disability is at a disadvantage when it comes to mobility compared with a parent with an equal disability but also with an able-bodied partner?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

Certainly, someone without any support who suffers from a disability and who has either mobility or care needs is at a disadvantage compared with a person who has support. The purpose of DLA in terms of both care needs and mobility is to enable that person to buy that support.

Lord Higgins

I listened carefully to what the Minister said. One needs to study the matter very carefully given the complex inter-relationships between the whole range of different benefits. At times it is not at all clear whether in any particular case a benefit is superseded by a higher benefit of a different category. I should like to study between now and Report Stage what the Minister said and, if need be, return to the matter. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 115A not moved.]

5.6 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 70 shall stand part of the Bill?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 38.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.
Ailsa, M.	Courtown, E.
Anelay of St. Johns, B.	Cranbome, V.
Barnett, L.	David, B.
Bassam of Brighton, L.	Davidson, V.
Biffen, L.	Davies of Coity, L.
Blackstone, B.	Davies of Oldham, L.
Blackwell, L.	Desai, L.
Borrie, L.	Diamond, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.	Dixon, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	Dormand of Easington, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Dubs, L.
Burlison, L.	Eatwell, L.
Cadman, L.	Erroll, E.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L.	Evans of Parkside, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Ewing of Kirkford, L.
Carter, L. [Teller.]	Falconer of Thoroton, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Gallacher, L.	Nelson, E.
Gilbert, L.	Nicol, B.
Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.	O'Cathain, B.
Glenamara, L.	Onslow of Woking, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.	Orme, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Palmer, L.
Gray of Contin, L.	Paul, L.
Grenfell, L.	Peston, L.
Hanworth, V.	Pitkeathley, B.
Hardie, L.	Plumb, L.
Hardy of Wath, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Haskel, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Hayman, B.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Henderson of Brompton, L.	Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Higgins, L.	Rendell of Babergh, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Hoyle, L.	Rogers of Riverside, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.	Rowallan, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.	Savile, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]	Sewel, L.
	Shepherd, L.
Islwyn, L.	shore or Stepney, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.	Simon, V.
Jay of Paddington, B.	Simon of Highbury, L.
Jeger, B.	Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Jenkins of Putney, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Kennet, L	Strange, B.
Leathers, V.	Strathclyde, L.
Lockwood, B.	Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Longford, E.	Taylor of Warwick, L
Lovell-Davis, L.	Tenby, V.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]	Thomas of Macclesfield, L.
	Turner of Camden, B.
Mallalieu, B.	Varley, L.
Manton, L.	Waddington, L.
Mason of Bamsley, L.	Walker of Doncaster, L.
Merlyn-Rees, L.	Weatherill, L.
Milner of Leeds, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Milverton, L.	Whitty, L.
Molloy, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Monkswell, L.	Williams of Mostyn, L.
Montague of Oxford, L.	Young of Old Scone, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Mar and Kellie, E.
Avebury, L.	Marsh, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Meston, L.
Calverley, L.	Nicholson of Winterbourne, B
Carlisle, E.	Razzall, L.
Dholakia, L.	Rochester, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Falkland, V.	Russell, E. [Teller.]
Goodhart, L.	Shaw of Northstead, L.
Grey, E.	Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Hamwee, B.	Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Hayhoe, L.	Steel of Aikwood, L.
Hooson, L.	Stockton, E.
Lane of Horsell, L.	Taveme, L.
Layton, L.	Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Lester of Heme Hill, L.	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Ludford, B.	Tope, L.
Lyell, L.	Tordoff, L.
Maddock, B. [Teller.]	Williams of Crosby, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 70 agreed to accordingly.

5.14 p.m.

[Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 not moved.]

Clause 71 agreed to.

Lord Evans of Parksidemoved Amendment No. 117A: After Clause 71, insert the following new clause—

INDUSTRIAL. INJURIES BENEFITS: BACKDATING

(" .—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulation provide that a claim in respect of a disease prescribed under section 108 of the Contributions and Benefits Act may he backdated for a period of up to 12 months from the date of the claim, or to the date of disablement (whichever is the later). (2) Before making regulations under subsection (I) above, the Secretary of State shall invite advice from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council.").

The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 117B. During Second Reading on 15th January, I was severely critical of Clause 72. I said:> I turn now to Clause 72 which deals with the restriction on the back-dating of benefit. I have great difficulty with this clause. To be frank I am rather ashamed of it"".—[Official Report, 15/1/98; col. 1197.] Until 1st April 1997, claims for most benefits would have been backdated for up to 12 months. There are good reasons for late claims which can be proved. It was a fair, sensible and humane provision. There are many reasons why people find themselves having to make a late claim.

The previous Conservative government reduced that claims period from 12 months to three months. I thought that their attitude and actions were disgraceful and strongly opposed them. The purpose of the change was just to save money. I understand that its purpose was to save about £365 million over a three-year period, but of course those savings would come from some of the most impoverished people in this country—people who often had great difficulty in even understanding the forms that they were being asked to complete.

I expected that the new Labour Government would have conducted a major review of the impact on impoverished people who were affected by the new three-month backdating rule. I thought that they would seek to see how much hardship had been created by that new provision. But it is self-evident that the Government did not have any form of investigation into the impact of the new regulations.

The new backdating regime commenced on 1st April 1997. The new Labour Government were elected on 1st May 1997—some two months later. The original backdating came into force during the course of the general election. No one debated the impact of that new regulation in any great depth.

The Bill received its Second Reading in the other place on 22nd July. We all know that Bills are not produced out of thin air. They have to have a fairly lengthy period of gestation. The more complex a Bill, self-evidently the longer the period of gestation. So it is obvious that there was no inquiry or review of the impact of the new regulations. It was a savage cut from three-months' back-dating to one month, apparently to save a further £58 million.

On Second Reading I referred particularly to workers who have had their health damaged, in many cases critically, by the industrial substances and processes with which they worked. I am critical of any proposition to cut their backdating rights. Amendment No. 117A attempts to deal with that situation.

The main problems with industrial injuries disablement benefit relate to diseases which are often difficult to diagnose, and are generally not even noticed or felt until some time after the condition has started to cause the disablement.

Industrial injuries benefit is a form of compensation which society has recognised should be paid without regard to whether there is a need for money. Most people would recognise the complete fairness of back payments in such cases. That is particularly true in the case of asbestos-related diseases. A mesothelioma tumour does not usually manifest itself until between 20 and 50 years after exposure to asbestos. Many sufferers of asbestosis, including the non-working wives of industrial workers who have contracted the disease from the dust and fibres carried home by their husbands on overalls and boiler suits, have no idea when they were in contact with asbestos. Many individuals have long forgotten the employer who exposed them to the asbestos in the first place. People contract the disease late in life, forgetting what has happened to them.

Perhaps I may cite my own case and the difficulties involved in such situations. My knowledge of the subject is not based on academic studies or cases relating to my work as a Member of Parliament for 23 years, but on my employment in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry on Tyneside. I began when I was 15 years old and continued to work in the industry until I was elected to Parliament in March 1974. During those years, I worked in ships' engine and boiler rooms during building and repairing. Every steam pipe and boiler in those vessels was lagged with asbestos. When we were asked to erect the pipelines and boilers or, even worse, to remove and repair them, we removed the asbestos lagging by hacking if off with an axe, hammer and chisel or a hacksaw. The ships' boiler and engine rooms were covered in asbestos dust and none of us had the faintest idea of the difficulties we were creating for ourselves in later life. No one told us of the dangers involved with asbestos.

When the repairs had been finished by people such as myself, workmen were asked to renew the asbestos lagging. Workmen known as "laggers" mixed the new asbestos cement in the boiler or engine rooms without taking any precautions whatever. Again, the atmosphere was filled with asbestos dust. As we gained more knowledge and watched our colleagues die from asbestos-related diseases, it is hardly surprising that I and people like me often wonder whether we have contracted the disease. People who would have been the same age as me died 10 or 15 years ago from asbestos-related diseases.

Many other industries have crippled their workers. In St. Helens, the town which I had the privilege of representing for many years, was mentioned in the Guardian on Friday, 27th March. It reported that: Two men who developed asthma, memory loss and mood swings after working for more than two decades with noxious chemicals at a plant making Cellophane were yesterday celebrating a £75,000 compensation victory. 'I was effectively sniffing glue for 22 years, said James Fallon, aged 65 … Mr. Fallon and Robert Burrows, aged 70, both worked as titters at British Sidac at St. Helens, Merseyside, which closed in 1982. They came into contact with carbon disulphide, toluene, formaldehyde and phosgene … Mr. Fallon, who claims he wore no masks or protective clothing during his employment from 1958 to 1980, was attracted by high pay levels and often worked seven days a week to boost his income. 'The company told us nothing', he said. 'They concentrated on the fire risks because the chemicals were so volatile. The smell was evil and there were times when I was high on a cocktail of different things'.

Interestingly, the solicitor for the company, which has closed, said that the two originally made substantial claims, including compensation for loss of earnings. The insurers decided to offer a modest proportion of the potential claim to avoid an expensive trial. Perhaps I may point out that that factory was surrounded by terraced housing. Therefore, not only were the men and women in the workforce affected by the substances, but so were people living around the plant. One wonders how much damage has been caused to many people in St. Helens and to those living around similar plants in the rest of the country.

Amendment No. 117A could mean a great deal to many workers suffering from crippling diseases. If passed, it will enable the Secretary of State to introduce regulations restoring the one-month backdating rule. The amendment also calls upon the Secretary of State to invite advice from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council before introducing such regulations. Members of the advisory council are the experts in the field and I am sure that they have the confidence of industrial workers everywhere. Amendment No. 117B writes into the Bill similar safeguards as regards reduced earnings allowance.

Many men, and on occasions women, who have been crippled as a result of prolonged contact with the industrial substances with which they worked without realising what was happening, have been able to continue in some form of employment but at a lower rate of pay. Often they have had to give up the original job which earned them the high wages, probably paid, because of the conditions in which they were working. The benefit made up those lower earnings.

I trust that my noble friend the Minister, who I have pestered about the issue during the past few weeks, will listen sympathetically to what I have said and agree with me. I beg to move.

Earl Russell

The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, has made an extremely powerful case. We on these Benches were prepared to support the amendments but will now support them with even more emphasis.

I do not usually recommend the Minister's own speeches to her. However, if she reads her speeches on mesothelioma during the course of the recovery of compensation Bill she will find that she put the case as powerfully as did the noble Lord.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

The amendment puts on the face of the Bill an exemption to the backdating limit of a maximum of 12 months for industrial injuries disablement benefit claimants who have suffered disablement as the result of a prescribed disease associated with certain employments. I shall ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment because I wish to speak on Clause 72, to which the amendment relates.

Clause 72 provides the powers for us to set out new rules for the backdating of benefits. It puts a responsibility on individuals to claim benefit promptly to ensure that they receive the benefits to which they are entitled. Our intention, as explained on Second Reading in another place, has been to provide automatic backdating for up to one month for non-income related benefits such as retirement pension and to allow one month backdating of income related benefits where there were exceptional circumstances which prevented an individual from claiming on time.

As he so elegantly put it, my noble friend Lord Evans has been pestering me over the past couple of weeks as regards the particular issue of latent and industrial diseases. This Government see the development of a modern service as one of their key objectives for the future of the welfare state. We have published our Green Paper, New Ambitions for our Country—A New Contract for Welfare. In that paper we have set out our principles. A key principle is that we should develop a modern service. By that we mean that the system of delivering modern welfare should be flexible, efficient and easy for people to use.

We have made it clear in the Green Paper that we shall put the claimant at the centre of service delivery. We shall set success measures to achieve that. We are making a start on developing a modern service in this very Bill with our proposals for new arrangements for decision-making and appeals. Those are intended to produce a more streamlined, efficient and responsive service. For example, it means piloting kiosk technology in Cambridge. We are looking at the possibility of electronic access points, internet services and so on in the longer term.

We do not wish to see people miss out on benefits to which they are entitled. Indeed, we are keen to encourage people to claim what they are due. The Benefits Agency wants its claim forms and leaflets to be as clear as possible. It has recently set up a consultation exercise to see whether its material can be improved.

As the other side of the issue of backdating, we know that there are real difficulties about the take-up of benefits. We are committed to taking real practical steps to ensure that people receive the benefits to which they are entitled. Indeed, from today, we are starting a series of pilot projects to identify why pensioners do not always claim the income support to which they are entitled. Those projects, costing about £15 million are based in York, East Renfrewshire, Lambeth, South Staffordshire, Stroud, Preston, Glasgow, Torbay and Torfaen. They will run until the end of this year and we shall then evaluate them. As I say, the other side to backdating and entitlement is take-up. We are seeking to test the best ways of getting income support to those who are currently entitled to it but who do not claim the entitlement and to see how we can improve that in future.

At the same time we are aware that some people are receiving benefits to which they are not entitled. The gateway to the benefit system needs reform. We are a responsible government and we must make the best possible use of taxpayers' money. We must ensure that people take their responsibilities seriously. But our priority is to begin the improvements in the welfare state as we have set out in our Green Paper. Therefore, to that end, we are also conducting major reviews of housing benefit, pensions and, in full consultation with the disability organisations, incapacity benefit.

We want to look at all those issues together. We want to improve service delivery in the active modern service which I have talked about in terms of new information technology. Also, we wish to address the gateways to benefit, including incapacity benefit and income support. Generally, we want to reform the welfare state to produce a modern service. Therefore, at this stage it is not sensible to make changes to the backdating rules in isolation. We prefer to look at all aspects of the problem in the light of the information which we draw from the pilot projects and then take strategic decisions.

There will no doubt be changes to the process of claiming which draw on the outcome of our reviews, the pilots under way, and the experience of the modern service approach. We shall wish to consider how best to deal with changes which may be required in the context of any future legislation. In that regard we have decided to withdraw Clause 72 from the Bill. We shall therefore oppose the Motion that the clause shall stand part of the Bill. In that context I should like to include consideration of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Evans about the difficulties facing those who suffer disablement as a result of a prescribed disease with a long latency period as part of our wider consideration. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Evans of Parkside

I say a heartfelt thank you to my noble friend. I am absolutely delighted that my honourable and right honourable friends in another place and my noble friend the Minister have given serious consideration to representations I know they have received from many quarters about the impact of Clause 72.

I believe that the signal which has been sent out will demonstrate that this Government are a listening government. They listen and come back with better answers to the question after consultation. I thank the Minister wholeheartedly and, I am sure, on behalf of many hundreds of thousands of people who will have had a burden lifted from them in a whole variety of areas I shall not bother to elucidate now. It is with great pleasure that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 117B to 126 not moved.]

On Question, Whether Clause 72 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Higgins

As can be seen from the Marshalled List, I was proposing that this clause should not stand part of the Bill and I am very glad indeed that the Minister is prepared to agree with that proposition.

There can be no doubt that the case presented by all the pressure groups concerned—the Law Society, Age Concern, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Child Poverty Action Group and so on—was overwhelming. It seems clear that the measure was entirely Treasury-driven and that the sums involved were such that the Treasury felt that it was something which should be pushed through. I suspect that it reflects very much the relationship between the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The system always breaks down where Secretaries of State are not fighting their corner.

One has only to look at the Question for Written Answer tabled by my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree to realise that the clause would have had a serious effect on a great many people; indeed, every conceivable group one would have thought the Government would wish to help and, I am very glad to say, they are now prepared to help.

I said on an earlier amendment that a dictum of the late lain Macleod, when securing a concession from the Government, was that you do not shoot Santa Claus. On this occasion, I am not proposing to delay the Committee for a great length of time for that very reason. Having said that, the Government say that they will take back the matter and look at it again. I really do not believe that that is necessary. It seems to me absolutely clear that this case is overwhelming. The number of individual cases cited by outside groups who deal with the problems of the disabled, the bereaved, those suffering industrial injuries and housing problems—I refer in particular to the point made by my noble friend Lord Blackwell who was concerned about the impact on housing benefit—all make an overwhelming case.

Although what the Minister said today is extremely welcome, by the time this Bill reaches its final stages I hope that the Government will make it clear that they have absolutely no intention of going ahead with this measure. The limits are so tight that inevitably people who are entitled to benefit—and who, Parliament has decided, should have benefit—should be able to claim that benefit, even though, for very well understood reasons, it takes them a while to make their claim.

Lord Ashley of Stoke

My noble friend the Minister and the Government emerge with great credit regarding this decision. I had a very harsh speech prepared because I was taken aback by the proposition in the Bill. The fact that my noble friend has been able not only to listen but also to respond to comments made is to her great credit. There should be no cheap party political points made in that respect. Indeed, it has come about as a result of consultation and discussion. As I said, both my noble friend and the Government should be thanked most sincerely for taking that decision.

Baroness Ludford

I, too, warmly welcome the announcement by the Minister and have nothing but warm words to say about the decision. I certainly have no intention of making any party political point. Like the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I am grateful to the considerable range of organisations which have provided such expert and comprehensive briefing. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, I have had to undergo a complete change of mind and scrap what was a very angry speech. Members from all parts of the Committee felt that Clause 72 was a measure which went too far and that it really would deprive some of the poorest people. I am absolutely delighted that the Government have recognised that fact. There is no need for me to speak at length because I am absolutely overjoyed.

However, perhaps the Minister could provide me with some clarification. I understood her to say that Clause 72 is being withdrawn entirely and that there is no intention to return with an alternative provision; in other words, the backdating provisions will remain as they are at present. I believe that to be particularly sensible because I understand that the Government's comprehensive spending reviews will be announced in the autumn. One of the points that I had intended to make was that this provision was a false economy because the costs would merely be incurred elsewhere—for example, by local authorities. As I said, I believe that it is entirely sensible for the Government to take such an approach.

Baroness Turner of Camden

I should also like to thank my noble friend the Minister. With some heart searching I attached my name to the list of those wishing to oppose the Question that Clause 72 should stand part of the Bill. My noble friend was well aware of my feelings about the clause because I had made them known to her. I am deeply grateful for the fact that the Government have been prepared to think again on the matter.

Although I fully agree that there ought to be a strategy in place to ensure that people claim their entitlement when it is due, I felt that it was not right to put in place such a clause before the strategy had been developed to ensure that benefits were claimed on time. Nevertheless, I am most grateful for what has been said. I look forward to hearing further from my noble friend the Minister as to the method that the Government have for carrying forward their plans on welfare reform, which I believe are badly needed. However, I hope that we shall not have a clause such as Clause 72 before those plans are in place. Indeed, if that clause had been put into practice, it would have damaged a great many vulnerable people.

Lord Newton of Braintree

When I spoke on Second Reading it was, as some Members of the Committee will recall, my first speech in this Chamber. I indicated then, in what was intended, quite properly, to be a non-controversial speech, that I had a number of reservations about aspects of the Bill regardless of their provenance. The one upon which I made clear I felt most strongly was this backdating clause which, quite frankly, I flatly opposed. Therefore, like others on all sides of the Committee, I am most grateful for what the Minister announced this afternoon.

There has been some reference to a Parliamentary Question that I tabled—indeed, my noble friend Lord Higgins, referred to it—about the breakdown of such savings. I should like to place it firmly on record that the Answer to that Question revealed that, of an estimated £58 million of savings in about a year's time and thereafter, no less than £42 million would come from the elderly, the long-term sick and disabled, carers and lone parents. I do not wish to labour the point further.

While I entirely appreciate that the Minister's speech focused a good deal on reviewing the matter in the light of a variety of other considerations, which is probably what I would have said if I got into the same mess—which, happily, I do not recall doing, but it can happen to any of us in social security matters—I should tell her that I quite understand why there was this camouflage. However, whatever the Minister does about take-up and all the other matters that she mentioned, I very much doubt that she will arrive at a situation in which she can re-introduce a variant of this proposal without similarly hitting those same groups of people on a large scale. I hope that it is indeed camouflage and that the noble Baroness will now stay firmly underneath it.

5.45 p.m.

Baroness Pitkeathley

I have had many happy moments since I came into this Chamber, but I believe that this ranks as one of the happiest. I should like to add my thanks to those already expressed and also those of millions of disabled people and their carers for this proof that the Government do listen. I hope that I may also add my personal thanks to my noble friend the Minister, who has put such time, effort and commitment into the matter.

Earl Russell

As I was very briefly out of the Chamber at the moment when the announcement was made, I hope that I may, nevertheless, be allowed to join in with the general welcome. Indeed, it seems to me to be a model of this place acting as it should as a revising Chamber. Perhaps I may also be forgiven for making one suggestion. Whatever backdating limits are ultimately arrived at, I presume that there will be some provision for exceptions as has been the case in the past. Will the Minister consider the possibility of allowing exception for "good cause" as used to be done, rather than attempting a total enumeration by regulation? The noble Baroness knows my arguments in that respect, so I will not dwell upon them.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I shall be very brief. I am pleased that Members of the Committee are satisfied that the response to my noble friend's amendment was to withdraw the entire clause, rather than accept the amendment. We believe that the backdating situation is confusing. We also believe that in the longer term it needs to be reviewed and sorted out. We wish to do so within the context of a more streamlined service and the kind of considerations that I have mentioned. Despite what the noble Lord said, it is not camouflage. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, we have two measures simultaneously in progress at present. First, there is the development within the DSS of efforts to produce an active and modern service—for example, our initiatives to use information technology for data matching so that we can achieve the automaticity of benefits; and, secondly, we want to encourage take-up and review gateways. Real and important discussions are taking place in that respect.

The second point made by the noble Baroness, was, again, absolutely right. We are part, perhaps most, of the way through main reviews of major benefit areas. It seems sensible that any review of backdating should take place after the shape and contours of those benefits—especially housing benefits, incapacity benefit, and the rest—have been reviewed. Indeed, if I may put it this way, it is a second order question and should, therefore, come in second place. We should not anticipate where we may seek to go and what we may need to change.

The issue of backdating remains a real one and one which, I suspect, will have to be addressed by the Government in due course. There is no intention to return to it in this Bill. Therefore, like Members of the Committee, I shall be saying "Not content" when the Question is put.

On Question, clause negatived.

Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 126A: Before Clause 75, insert the following new clause—

PILOT SCHEMES

(".—(1) Any regulations to which this subsection applies may be made so as to have effect for a specified period not exceeding 12 months. (2) Any regulations which, by virtue of subsection (1) above, are to have effect for a limited period are referred to in this section as "a pilot scheme". (3) A pilot scheme may provide that its provisions are to apply only in relation to—

1. (a) one or more specified areas or localities;
2. (b) one or more specified classes of person;
3. (c) persons selected—
1. (i) by reference to prescribed criteria; or
2. (ii) on a sampling basis.

(4) A pilot scheme may make consequential or transitional provision with respect to the cessation of the scheme on the expiry of the specified period. (5) A pilot scheme ("the previous scheme") may be replaced by a further pilot scheme making the same, or similar, provision (apart from the specified period) to that made by the previous scheme. (6) In so far as a pilot scheme would, apart from this subsection, have the effect of—

1. (a) treating as capable of work any person who would not otherwise be so treated; or
2. (b) reducing the total amount of benefit that would otherwise be payable to any person,

it shall not apply in relation to that person. (7) Subsection (1) above applies to—

1. (a) regulations made under section 171D of the Contributions and Benefits Act (incapacity for work: persons treated as incapable of work); and
2. (b) in so far as they are consequential on or supplementary to any such regulations, regulations made under any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (8) below.

(8) The provisions are—

1. (a)subsection (5)(a) of section 22 of the Contributions and Benefits Act (earnings factors);
2. (b) section 30C of that Act (incapacity benefit);
3. (c) sections 68 and 69 of that Act (severe disablement allowance);
4. (d) subsection (1)(e) of section 124 of that Act (income support) and, so far as relating to income support, subsection (1) of section 135 of that Act (the applicable amount);
5. (e) Part XIIA of that Act (incapacity for work);
6. (f) section 61A of the Administration Act and section 31 above (incapacity for work).

(9) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions) a pilot scheme shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").

The noble Baroness said: The welfare reform Green Paper, published just over a week ago, outlined eight key principles which guide our welfare reform programme. The first of these principles is that the new welfare state should help and encourage people of working age to work where they are capable of doing so. Thus, work is at the centre of our reform programme. For those able to undertake it, paid work is the surest route out of poverty and out of social exclusion.

A key element of our work-focused strategy is to tackle work disincentives. One group faces particular difficulties in a competitive job market, difficulties which include employer prejudice and physical access. I am, of course, talking about those with disabilities or who suffer from long-term illness. What is more, the benefit system often works in such a way that it discourages them from taking up work.

If we are to extend employment opportunities to disabled people we need to reduce the risk associated with taking a job; to reduce financial disincentives to make the move into work; and to offer practical help to those who want to take the first steps towards moving off benefit.

These are not just the views of the Government. We have consulted widely with disabled people and their representatives. Their aspirations are the same as ours. Many disabled people, given the right amount of encouragement and support, have the capacity to work. They have no wish to be consigned to a life of benefit dependency. Those who are capable of work want that option and they want a benefit system which supports them in that aim.

In his ground-breaking Budget earlier this month my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Government's plans to bring forward a whole range of innovative measures to help people move from welfare into work and to make sure that work pays. This new clause supports that strategy and is one of the first steps towards our vision of a welfare state which extends opportunities to all. The clause deals with the circumstances in which a person is to be treated as capable or incapable of work. It introduces a new regulation-making power to allow for pilot schemes to be set up. These schemes will allow us to test the effect of less restrictive definitions of incapacity in order to improve opportunities for disabled people.

At present if sick or disabled people do even a small amount of work or undertake work trials, they will normally lose entitlement to the incapacity benefits, making it more difficult for them to take the steps they want towards independence. This power will give us the ability to test different measures to determine which are the most effective in helping those sick and disabled people who wish to move towards the world of work to do so.

This is an entirely benevolent power which will enable pilots to extend benefits to those who might otherwise be excluded. It will not, however, allow trials which would have the effect of removing or reducing the benefit of those currently entitled. This important safeguard will ensure that the power can be used only in a beneficial manner.

It is our intention to use this pilot power to test out two work incentive measures from April of next year. The first will allow a disabled person to do a small amount of work and still retain entitlement to the incapacity benefits. We shall seek the views of disabled people as to what that level of benefit disregard will be. Our pilots will show us the effects of the limits we have set. However, it will be a modest figure. As I have said, we shall consult disabled people as regards how best to proceed.

The second pilot will allow for those participating in work trial schemes run by the Employment Service to continue to be treated as incapable of work. They would be able to work for a trial period of up to three weeks without leaving benefit.

These pilots will run alongside two further pilots to be set up under powers in the Employment and Training Act 1973. These will extend the jobmatch payments of £50 a week—which are payable for six months to those undertaking part-time work—and the jobfinder's grant of £200 to those on incapacity benefits. These initiatives—I believe they are important ones—are designed to encourage disabled people to do what work they can, even if that might be very little. They will also allow people to try a small amount of work as a stepping stone back into employment.

It is important to recognise that there is no question of compulsion in any of this. Every disabled person will continue to have a free choice as to whether he or she takes up part-time work or training to determine whether they can return to work without risk. What this clause will do is to ensure that, where a person decides to take advantage of these opportunities, the choice will be risk free. He or she can return to their previous benefit.

This measure is a modest but important part of the overall package of reforms to modernise the welfare state. It will enable us to test the effects of allowing people to undertake training or to try a small amount of work as preparation for a return to the labour market. It will allow us to assess the value of enabling those who will never be able to sustain regular full-time employment nevertheless to participate in the world of work.

Disabled people want the opportunity to work but the benefit system sometimes puts barriers in their way and puts the whole risk of moving into work onto their shoulders. This measure is part of our plans to break down those barriers and to remove those risks. I commend it wholeheartedly to the Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Higgins

After the experience of the previous Sitting of the Committee when the noble Baroness proposed a measure which was said to be entirely benevolent but we discovered it contained all kinds of snags, when she uses that expression I immediately start to read the small print. However, having done so, I note that the proposed new subsection (9) states, A statutory instrument … shall not be made unless a draft … has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament". At least we have a clawback position if there turns out to be something which is less agreeable than was thought to be the case. Having said that, I believe we can accept the noble Baroness's assurance that this amendment is intended to do good rather than to be restrictive.

Earl Russell

It seems that peace has broken out in this Chamber in a big way. This amendment embodies another considerable victory. Both the Minister and I have argued that the all-work test has considerable limits on the grounds—as the Minister outlined—that most people with disabilities are capable of some work but not other work. Pilots will obviously be necessary to test the effect of this measure. The proposed new subsection (6) is particularly important; namely, that the effects of the pilots will be entirely benevolent. I particularly warmly welcome it. I am delighted to see this measure. I add one small note of caution. We do not know exactly what we shall find when we try to discover what work people can do and what they cannot do. For one thing, we do not know how much of that kind of work will be available. If we get a new incapacity test which is genuinely medically sound, I do not think we shall know until we put it into effect whether we shall save money.

Lord Ashley of Stoke

I add my congratulations to the Minister. It is quite a change to offer congratulations rather than some of the harsh words that have been exchanged as regards some aspects of the Bill. This is a helpful and progressive measure which will be warmly welcomed by disabled people. It ends the old, rigid demarcation between those who can and those who cannot work. That is extremely valuable because of the continuum of ability to do different kinds of jobs. It breaks that terrible log-jam that has bedevilled disabled people for so long. This may well lead to the provision of a partial incapacity benefit, which has been a requirement of disabled people for many years. My noble friend has shown the value and the benefits of constructive consultation with disabled people. They will be encouraged by the proposition of my noble friend, and also by its potential if the pilots are successful. I have no doubt that they will be successful. I again thank my noble friend for a helpful and constructive suggestion.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I am delighted at the warm reception that the amendment has engendered. It is indeed dear to my heart. As my noble friend Lord Ashley said, the current incapacity benefit test is based on the assumption that disabled people are either capable of work or are not capable of work. As was pointed out in the debate on disability last week, disability is a continuum. People's conditions improve or deteriorate; they fluctuate by the week or month. Therefore we want a more tailored and sensitive system of benefit support to disabled people, taking the risk from them of moving into work.

My noble friend mentioned the question of a possible partial capacity benefit. If one puts together the piloting of the jobmatch scheme of £50 a week, which the person takes into work with him, the proposals for the disabled person's working tax credit and the linking rules of 12 months, one begins to see the proposals, changes, flexibilities and support mechanisms in place for disabled people so that they can assess the possibility, as they tell us they want to do, of returning to the mainstream of society through the world of work. I am delighted that the proposals have received the Committee's support. I commend them.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

6 p.m.

Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 127: Before Clause 75, insert the following new clause—

SECRETARY OF STATE TO PUBLISH BENEFIT INFORMATION

(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall take such steps as appear to him appropriate, including the publication of advertisements and leaflets, for the purpose of informing persons of their possible entitlement to a relevant benefit. (2) The Secretary of State shall report annually in writing on the steps he has taken under subsection (1) above. (3) In this section "relevant benefit" has the same meaning as in section 9.").

The noble Earl said: It would be pleasing if we could achieve a hat trick. The amendment deals with the encouragement of take-up. I know that that, too, is a cause dear to the Minister's heart. I have heard her dwell on it many times. Some of the information I have to present, such as the percentage of pensioners who do not take the income support to which they are entitled, is information I have heard the noble Baroness recount many times, including a number of occasions since she came into office.

We wish to encourage take-up of benefits for exactly the same reason that we want to discourage fraud. We want to ensure that money goes to the right people and not to the wrong people. It seems to me that a genuinely even-handed policy will attempt to do both things at once.

The need to encourage take-up is particularly intense for those who are old and who do not always feel that it is worth reading all the paper that comes their way. That may be a valuable conclusion from experience. But every now and then it is one which leads people astray. For example, a citizens advice bureau reports a case of a woman of 84 who visited the bureau to ask about hospital taxi fares and was quite unaware that she could claim income support to supplement her pension. There must be many more such cases.

I know that the Government review benefit leaflets to see what they can do about that. They might manage to do a little more. In so doing they might find that they can do a great deal to encourage good health, and therefore save in one place what they spend in another. However, the essential case for the amendment is that of justice and the efficient working of the system. Any savings that resulted—I believe that there could be some—would be an uncovenanted bonus. I beg to move.

Lord Ashley of Stoke

I add my warm support. The Government have a clear responsibility to inform and to ensure awareness among people of the benefits available; otherwise the most vulnerable lose out. What is truly amazing is the lack of awareness of means tested benefits revealed by the citizens advice bureaux in their splendid briefs. It seems there are still people who are oblivious of the disability living allowance, the ICA and housing benefit. The lack of knowledge is quite remarkable. If the Government can help people to understand these matters, it would improve the take-up.

I make a plea to the Minister that special care be taken to ensure that the information is accessible to disabled people such as the blind and the deaf. The blind can often miss out on notices unless the information is in braille. Deaf people can miss out unless the information is clearly visible. Mentally handicapped people can also miss out. If those categories can be borne in mind by my noble friend, it will help many millions of disabled people.

Viscount Mountgarret

Perhaps I may add my support, for the reasons given by the noble Lord. Not only are the deaf and blind important. I have some small experience at home, with a number of elderly people living in almshouses. Before we know to what extent weekly maintenance contributions may be made, it is necessary to establish their income. When one asks them their entitlement to any benefit, they invariably do not know. In the end we find ourselves advising them. Without doubt they would not be able to get to offices which may well have the information in leaflets. The noble Earl suggests that the information should be made available. It is a small request and could easily be achieved to the benefit of those who have difficulty knowing the various rules and regulations. I hope that the Minister will take note of what has been said and consider whether it is possible to incorporate an amendment on these lines in the Bill.

Baroness Pitkeathley

I support the amendment, and speak also to Amendment No. 128. The bottom line is that people do not know the benefits to which they are entitled. The Green Paper on welfare reform, A New Contract for Welfare, recognises that take-up, for example of the disabled living allowance may be as low as 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. I know from experience that even though 375,000 carers claim care allowance, there is still much underclaiming. For example, in the first three months of this year when Carers National Association ran a take-up campaign on invalid care allowance, in the first eight weeks we had over 3,000 inquiries to our CarersLine about the benefit. It is also well documented that 1 million pensioners do not claim the income support to which they are entitled. The Government's moves to encourage take-up of income support, with the projects announced today, are most welcome.

At Second Reading I pointed out that many people take years to realise that they are carers. Most describe themselves as wives, fathers, daughters and sons. The name of the main carers' benefit, invalid care allowance, is also misleading since it appears as though it is intended for the disabled person, not the carer. Since carers' benefits are dependent on those of the disabled person for whom they care, it would be a logical step to include a leaflet about ICA in the DLA and AA claim packs, alerting carers to their possible entitlement.

Carers National Association was delighted to note that in correspondence the Secretary of State for Social Security told a carer in Southwark: I believe the inclusion of information on DLA/AA claim packs will significantly increase awareness of ICA and help prompt claims from carers". Last week I spoke to a carer called John who has been caring for his wife since she suffered a stroke eight years ago. He called our north of England office to ask about invalid care allowance. He had read something in the paper which was part of our campaign. John found that because he was 66 years old he was not eligible to claim ICA. Had someone told him about invalid care allowance when his wife first became ill, or had a form been included in the claim packs, he could have been receiving vital income of around £30 a week and had his basic state pension protected.

I hope that the Minister will remember John and the thousands like him and will acknowledge in her reply that the amendment proves an ideal opportunity for the Government to show their commitment to a continuing programme of improving take-up.

Baroness Anelay of St. Johns

It seems that peace has broken out. I. too, lend my support to the amendments. I hope that the Minister is able to support them as well.

I am aware that whenever one talks about take-up, one faces two battles. The first concerns statistics. Whatever statistics one quotes about people who do not take up benefits, there are always those who say, "Ah, but there are those who do not claim the benefits simply because the result will be such a minimal change that they feel it is not worth while. They may know about the benefits but they do not claim them." There are others who say that one can never do enough because, however much information one gives, there are those who simply choose not to claim benefits.

I have been active in spreading the word about take-up of benefits over the last 20 years, during which time I have worked happily as a volunteer for the CAB in various capacities. I declare my interest as I am currently president of my local CAB. I would like to bring to the attention of noble Lords some projects which I hope the Minister can say will continue in the foreseeable future.

The amendments refer to the issuing of advertisements and leaflets giving information about benefits. One can be more active than just issuing paper and deforesting the planet, particularly through assistance given to non-governmental organisations, of which the CAB is just one.

One can give assistance by way of direct grants, by seconding personnel and by use of technology. Through making grants one can issue more and more leaflets; one can translate them into more and more languages; one can issue them in Braille and use other means of making them accessible to people with disabilities. All of those measures are welcome. One can have benefits buses travelling the countryside giving information at various points to facilitate easy access for people with mobility problems.

Here I enter a special plea in another guise, as spokesmen on agriculture, that one should never forget the needs of those who live in rural areas, not just those who live in the Highlands and Islands and in Wales, who experience special difficulties. In the rural areas of England, travelling, even if you are able bodied, may be difficult, particularly if you have two or three children in tow under the age of five. Life can be extremely difficult even if you are making every effort to keep yourself well informed.

The DSS and the Benefits Agency have already made great strides and I hope that they will continue to do so. On a visit to the Aberdeen Benefits Agency office two years ago, I was delighted to learn that one member of staff was being seconded to the local citizens advice bureau and vice versa; somebody from the CAB was going to the Benefits Agency. It was the intention that they should break down the barriers of misunderstanding between the two organisations by learning how each other operated, what their objectives were and how better to serve the claimants in the area.

I have seen the work done in the district offices of the Benefits Agency; they act as customer service officers—people who often feel that they are at the end of the line when the Benefits Agency hands out funds within the district. I make a special plea that we should continue the fight, as we did when we were in government, to make sure that the Benefits Agency properly recognises the work that these customer services officers do. I have seen them, for example, in Portsmouth working closely with representatives of local charities to bring information from them to individuals to make sure that they claim the benefits to which they are fully entitled.

There is then the issue of technology. Last week I moved an amendment in regard to computers. I said then, and I say again, that I welcome the use of information technology whenever possible when it is to the benefit of the claimant. I welcome the development of touch screens. Where we are able to work in partnership with the Benefits Agency, local charities and local authority organisations to produce touch screens, we should welcome that opportunity. Some local offices have worked closely with CABs and other organisations to provide basic facilities such as direct fax lines so that they can easily exchange information.

I should like to add a caveat. When the Government increasingly refer in the area of social security and other policy areas to increasing use of the Internet on which to post information, will they please bear in mind that there are those in this country who will never have access to the Internet? Even if they have access to a local charity, that charity may not have access to the Internet. Therefore I hope that we do not produce a situation in this country where we have the information rich and the information poor. I made that plea last year in a debate on information technology. That argument will continue to be relevant in future years.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised the issue of fraud. When one encourages take-up, one also faces the problem that some people will not claim because they think that, if they claim, they will be put alongside all those who are targeted as being fraudsters, and they do not wish to be considered in that way. It is a problem that we have all faced. In a debate on 12th November 1996 the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I pointed out that there is a danger for government in stressing how important it is to combat fraud. This Government have continued our battle against fraud. The noble Earl said that combating fraud leads to under-claiming. We should look with equal intensity for people who ought to be receiving benefit and who are not doing so.

I support the amendments. I hope that when the Government continue the fight against fraud they will bear in mind those who need to claim and who should not in any way feel discouraged because they might be associated with those who claim wrongfully.

6.15 p.m.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

The aim of Amendments Nos. 127 and 128 is to require action to be taken to inform people of their possible entitlement to benefit. I suspect that this may be one occasion on which I also speak for the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when I say that I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is on our side on the issue of take-up. Her colleagues in a previous incarnation resisted a great many proposals in regard to social security. I am delighted to see a meeting of minds.

Baroness Anelay of St. Johns

The Minister has been here longer than I, but I have read Hansard and I am aware that my noble friends in the past have always wished to encourage those who are entitled to benefits to claim them. But, as I recognised in my comments, I know the problems of government in encouraging benefit take-up. My noble friends who occupied ministerial office, I am sure, have made the point at the Dispatch Box that the Minister now occupies that one would always wish to encourage benefit take-up where there is entitlement but not in cases of fraud. If the Minister can point in Hansard to where my noble friends have stated that people who are entitled to benefit should not be allowed to claim it, then I would be delighted to read that.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

It would be an absurdity for a Minister to say that anybody entitled to something was not entitled to it. But it is the case that on a series of occasions when on the Opposition Benches we pressed amendments on take-up in various ways, the government of the day were over-impressed by the difficulties associated with that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, so euphemistically put it. I hope that, on the basis of my response, she, and other Members of the Committee, will agree that this Government are not over-impressed by the difficulties and are taking an active role.

As a result, while I entirely support the sentiment behind the new clauses, I hope to persuade the Committee that, given the action the Government are taking, it is not necessary to include them in the Bill. I hope the Committee will listen to what I shall say about take-up, which was never addressed, even in warm words, let alone practical terms, by the previous administration. Even the noble Baroness will accept the distance that has been travelled by the Government and the department. The Government are already starting work to find out what it is possible to achieve in terms of identifying people entitled to benefit using data-matching techniques. When I moved an amendment to that effect in opposition, it was rejected by your Lordships and the Government.

Our priority in this work is the situation which arose under the previous administration, namely, the fact that 1 million pensioners are not claiming their income support entitlement was ignored. That is possibly the biggest single group experiencing disentitlement—in other words, failure to take up benefits—of any of the client groups. That will not be allowed to continue under the Government. We believe that all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation. We have a manifesto commitment to examine means of delivering help automatically to the poorest pensioners. We are already delivering on that commitment.

Within a few months of taking office we commissioned research to find out why those pensioners do not claim their entitlement to income support. As I am sure the Committee will agree, it is important to gain an informed view of a problem if one is serious about tackling it. The research will help us to ensure that the help available is targeted efficiently and effectively at those who need it.

But we are doing more than that research project. Starting today, as I said earlier, we are running pilot projects in nine areas of Britain to find the best ways of identifying and getting help to the pensioners who are not taking up their income support entitlement. That work is testing the effectiveness of data-matching between computer systems in practice. We are spending some £15 million on the pilot projects. The noble Baroness made a point about rural areas: two of those projects are in rural areas—Stroud and East Renfrewshire. We are serious about getting help to those pensioners quickly and want to see whether rural areas have additional, more difficult or different problems in comparison with their urban counterparts.

While we are taking immediate direct and new action to help the poorest pensioners get their income support entitlement, we would encourage anyone who thinks they may be entitled to a benefit to make a claim. We have already taken steps to put across that message.

For example, one of the first jobs, to my delight, on coming into this post, was when last May and June we informed all MPs, GPs, welfare rights organisations and relevant trade unions of the new, more generous rules governing industrial injuries disablement benefit which will make it easier for coal miners suffering certain diseases to receive the benefit.

We have taken specific measures—again, a new step—to increase awareness of family credit. As part of the New Deal service, lone parents are given advice about in-work benefits which may be available to them. That, of course, includes family credit. The intervention, the New Deal, also ensures higher take-up.

I turn now to Amendment No. 128 in the name of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley. The noble Baroness's concerns arise, I know, from her outstanding achievements on behalf of carers via the Carers National Association. I am sure she would welcome the tributes that the Committee would wish to pay to her organisation and the valuable contribution that carers make. It is especially important that they should be aware of potential benefit entitlement.

Carers may be entitled to invalid care allowance if they are looking after a severely disabled person for a substantial period each week. "Severely disabled" means being in receipt of attendance allowance or disability living allowance care component at the middle or highest rate. They are complex benefits which can take some time to determine, largely because of a need to obtain further evidence. If carers delay making their claim until one of those qualifying benefits is in payment, they may not be able to have it backdated as far as they would wish. The ideal time for them to claim is when the disabled person puts in a claim for one of the benefits I have mentioned. I understand that the noble Baroness seeks to ensure that carers are alerted to the possibility of claiming invalid care allowance at the earliest possible moment. That is absolutely right and I wholeheartedly agree that we must do everything we can to achieve it.

What we cannot do is to make the two benefits run simultaneously, because caring responsibilities may well follow, in terms of rules of entitlement to ICA, several months later than the person moving on to DLA, which triggered that entitlement, would wish. If the Committee wishes, I could enlarge on the point, but I am sure that my noble friend will understand the point very well.

I hope the Committee will be reassured to know that officials are looking at ways of alerting carers in just this way by giving them the information in the relevant claim packs. In addition, as we have just discussed, the Benefits Agency is committed to improving the service by improving information available about benefits, providing better access to help and advice about benefits, and streamlining the claims procedure.

We have already discussed other measures taken by the Benefits Agency to make sure that people have access to clear, helpful information about benefits. The amendments require the Benefits Agency to do something it already has a responsibility to do and is already doing. I do not believe that anything would be gained by enshrining that responsibility in primary legislation.

Amendment No. 127 also seeks to require a formal report to Parliament every year of the steps taken to improve the take-up of benefits. The Department of Social Security already produces an annual publication giving estimated take-up levels for the income-related benefits. I have here the publication, which I am sure many Members of the Committee will recognise and already use. In addition. Ministers have kept and will keep Parliament fully informed of the initiatives taken to promote take-up by the various needy and vulnerable groups being targeted. The Committee would think poorly of me, in view of my concern over the years on the issue and that of many Members of the Committee, if I were not to bring such information to the House at the earliest possible opportunity, as we progress. I hope that in my reply I have met the substance of the noble Earl's amendment and that in the light of those commitments the noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Earl Russell

That is not quite a hat trick, but it took the varnish off the stumps. It is not often that one and the same amendment attracts the support of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, and the noble Viscount. Lord Mountgarret. We also had two expert speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Anelay of St. Johns.

Thinking about the problem, it strikes me that one of the difficulties we face in the last part of the century is information overload, especially when the information is on paper. When I try to get information over to pupils, I find that they may have seen the information on umpteen pieces of paper but they do not have that knowledge when they need it. They have it if they can pick up the information by word of mouth at the moment they need it. That is why the work done by the citizens advice bureaux is of such importance. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, spoke with great expertise on that subject.

The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, talked of people who were not aware of the disability living allowance. That reminds me of a neighbour when I was a boy who constantly referred to Marylebone station as the Grand Central station. She was by that time at least two stages out of date.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, with the powerfully argued case of John, reminded me of another incident. A dangerous criminal—and perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive the parallel which is not relevant in that respect—was kept in prison for 18 years until he tried the handle of the door, opened it and walked out. One wants to show that the door is open a little sooner.

I entirely understand that the Minister's heart is in the same place as ours on this. I am not in any way wedded to the wording of the amendment. What she says about data-matching is a serious point. What she says about pensioners and the level of take-up, I take very seriously. But when she says that it will not be allowed to continue, I hope she would agree that it is a right not to claim benefit if it is done wittingly and with full knowledge.

I welcome the pilot schemes warmly. I hope to hear more of them when the results are reported. In that hope, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.30 p.m.

Baroness Pitkeathleyhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 128: Before Clause 75, insert the following new clause—

INFORMATION ABOUT ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFITS

(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall take such steps as seem to him appropriate to inform persons of their possible entitlement to a relevant benefit, including distributing leaflets to persons claiming benefits on which the entitlement to benefits of other persons is dependent. (2) In this section "relevant benefit" has the same meaning as in section 9.").

The noble Baroness said: I welcome the Minister's assurances that her officials are looking into the issue of providing carers with information as and when they need it. I am happy, therefore, not to move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]

Clause 75 [Regulations and orders]:

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 129: Page 49, line 20, leave out subsection (3). The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 129 has already been debated. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 130: After Clause 75, insert the following new clause—

PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL OF REGULATIONS

(".—(I) Subject to the provisions of this section, a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions) regulations under—

1. (a) section 13(2), 8 or 70 above; or
2. (b) paragraph 11 of Schedule 1, paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 or paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to this Act,

shall not he made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. (2) A statutory instrument—

1. (a) which contains (whether alone or with other provisions) regulations made under this Act by the Secretary of State; and
2. (b) which is not subject to any requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament,

shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. (3) A statutory instrument—

1. (a) which contains (whether alone or with other provisions) regulations made under this Act by the Lord Chancellor; and
2. (b) which is not subject to any requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament,

shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."). On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 76 agreed to.

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 130A: After Clause 76, insert the following new clause—

TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

(". Schedule (Transitory provisions) to this Act (which contains transitory provisions) shall have effect.").

The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 130A, I shall speak also to.

Clause 77 stand part and Amendments Nos. 132A, 150A and 161A.

Clause 77 is already a lengthy clause which deals with transitory provisions. We are making a number of consequential government amendments to the clause which extend those provisions. However, the cumulative effect is to create a very long and unwieldy clause. As a result we propose that Clause 77 should not stand part of the Bill and that all transitory provisions should be included in a new schedule.

The schedule is designed to make several important transitional provisions which will come into force upon Royal Assent. It deals with the following matters: it puts beyond doubt that once a claim is determined the claim ceases to exist. An efficient, modern benefit system must have clarity about the responsibility of both claimants and the department. A claimant cannot establish entitlement to benefit without making a fresh claim if the original claim fails and the decision is not reversed by the Secretary of State or upon appeal.

The schedule ensures that appeal tribunals do not have regard to changes in claimants' circumstances which occur after the date of the decision which is under appeal, where the appeal has been brought after Royal Assent. It gives commissioners the discretion to return cases to the Social Security Appeal Tribunal (or, as appropriate, the Disability Appeal Tribunal or Medical Appeal Tribunal) where each of the principal parties to the appeal agree that the decision appealed against was wrong in law. It ensures that the power to suspend payments in look-alike cases will have immediate effect from Royal Assent until the parallel provision in Clause 22(2)(d) comes into force. It ensures that the power to restrict arrears to the date of the relevant determination includes claimants who applied for a review of the Secretary of State's decision before or after the relevant determination. This amendment was debated on 2nd April as Amendment No. 132 when the provisions in Clause 27 were discussed.

The schedule also ensures that new discretionary social fund review procedures can be operated by social fund officers, prior to the introduction of the new decision-making arrangements under Part I of the Bill, when social fund officers will be replaced by appropriate officers. The new procedures will support the introduction of the budgeting loan scheme and the power to recover social fund overpayments. They will not become operational until Clauses 68, 69 and 73 are commenced through commencement orders.

Amendment No. 150A is a technical amendment. It removes from Schedule 6 the transitory provisions for the new budgeting loan review procedures, as these have now been included in the new schedule before Schedule 6. Amendment No. 161 A to Clause 81 provides for the new schedule of transitory provisions and the new clause on pilot powers to commence on Royal Assent.

The transitional provisions in the new schedule give effect to the policy behind certain provisions in the Bill for the purposes of the current adjudication and appeals system. It will have effect for the period between Royal Assent and the date when the corresponding provisions in Part I of the Bill take effect. The provisions in the schedule will provide clarity about the responsibility of both claimants and the department; they will help to prevent the development of further backlogs in the Independent Tribunal Service; they will have a beneficial effect for the administration of commissioners' appeals; and ensure that the department is able to exercise proper control over the integrity of benefit expenditure.

I commend the amendments and the schedule to the Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Meston

Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord an entirely pedantic question. Why has the word "transitory" been used in this Bill rather than "transitional", which is more normally used in legislation and is well understood? Indeed, that is how the noble and learned Lord described the provisions in the course of his short speech. A transitional provision can be transitory and vice versa, but not necessarily so.

Lord Hardie

I wondered that myself. I suspect that the parliamentary draftsman favoured "transitory" rather than "transitional". If Members of the Committee prefer the word "transitional" instead of "transitory", I am sure that we will have no difficulty with that.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 77 [Transitory provisions]:

[Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Clause 77 negatived.

Clauses 78 to 80 agreed to.

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 132A: Before Schedule 6, insert the following new schedule—

("SCHEDULE

TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

Claims no longer subsisting after decisions made

1. In relation to any time before the commencement of section 9(2) of this Act, section 21 of the Administration Act (decision of adjudication officer) shall have effect as if after subsection (6) there were inserted the following subsection— (7) Where at any time a claim for a benefit to which section 20 above applies is decided by an adjudication officer or by a social security appeal tribunal on a reference by such an officer—

1. (a) the claim shall not be regarded as subsisting after that time; and
2. (b) accordingly, the claimant shall not (without making a further claim) be entitled to the benefit on the basis of circumstances not obtaining at that time."

Appeals to tribunals

2.—(1) In relation to appeals brought after the passing of this Act and any time before the commencement of section 13(7)(b) of this Act, section 22 of the Administration Act (appeal to social security appeal tribunal) shall have effect as if after subsection (7) there were inserted the following subsection— (8) In deciding an appeal under this section, a social security appeal tribunal shall not take into account any circumstances not obtaining at the time when the decision appealed against was made. (2) In relation to such appeals and any such time, section 33 of that Act (appeals following reviews) shall have effect as if after subsection (6) there were inserted the following subsection— (7) The tribunal shall not take into account any circumstances not obtaining at the time when the decision appealed against was made.

Appeals to Commissioners

3.—(1) In relation to any time before the commencement of section 15(7) of this Act, section 23 of the Administration Act (appeal from social security appeal tribunal to Commissioner) shall have effect as if— (a) after subsection (6) there were inserted the following subsection— (6A) If each of the principal parties to the appeal expresses the view that the decision appealed against was erroneous in point of law, the Commissioner may set aside the decision and refer the case to a tribunal with directions for its determination. In this subsection "principal parties" means—

1. (a) in a case relating to statutory sick pay or statutory maternity pay, the persons mentioned in subsection (2)(a), (b) and (c) above;
2. (b) in any other case—
1. (i) the persons mentioned in subsection (3)(a) and (b) above; and
2. (ii) where applicable, the person mentioned in subsection (3)(d) and such a person as is first mentioned in subsection (4) of that section."; and.

(b) in subsection (8), for the words "subsection (7)(b) above" there were substituted the words "subsection (6A) or (7)(b) above". (2) In relation to any such time, section 34 of that Act (appeal from social security appeal tribunals or disability appeal tribunals to Commissioners etc.), shall have effect as if, in subsection (4), for the words "(7) to I 0 of section 23" there were substituted the words "(6A) to (10) of section 23". (3) In relation to any such time, section 48 of that Act (appeal etc. on question of law to Commissioner) shall have effect as if— (a) after subsection (4) there were inserted the following subsection— (4A) If each of the principal parties to the appeal expresses the view that the decision appealed against was erroneous in point of law, the Commissioner may set aside the decision and refer the case to a medical appeal tribunal with directions for its determination. In this subsection "principal parties" has the persons mentioned in subsection (1)(a), (b) and (d) above."; and. (b) in subsection (6), for the words "subsection (5) above" there were substituted the words "subsection (4A) or (5) above".

Suspension of benefit in prescribed circumstances

4.—(1) In relation to any time before the commencement of section 22(2)(d) of this Act, section 5(1) of the Administration Act (regulations about claims for and payments of benefits) shall have effect as if after paragraph (n) there were inserted the following paragraph— (nn) for suspending payment, in whole or in part, where an appeal is pending against the decision given in a different case by a social security appeal tribunal, a Commissioner or a court, and it appears to the Secretary of State that if the appeal were to he determined in a particular way an issue would arise whether the award in the case itself ought to be revised;". (2) In relation to any such time, paragraph 10(2) of Schedule Ito the Jobseekers Act (supplementary provisions) shall have effect as if for the words "section 5(1)(n)" there were substituted the words "section 5(1)(n) or (nn)".

Restrictions on entitlement in certain cases of error

5. In relation to any time before the commencement of section 27 above, section 69 of the Administration Act shall have effect as if after subsection (1) there were inserted the following subsection— (1A ) Where the review under section 25(2) or 30 above was carried out on an application under section 26(1) or (as the case may be) section 30, it is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (1) above whether the application was made before or after the date of the relevant determination.

Reviews of social find determinations 6. In relation to any time before the commencement of section 38 of this Act, section 66 of the Administration Act (reviews) shall have effect as if— (a) after paragraph (a) of subsection ( I ) there were inserted the following paragraph— (aa) may review such a determination on the ground that the person who applied for the payment to which the determination relates misrepresented, or failed to disclose, any material fact; and"; (b) after subsection (5) there were inserted the following subsection— (5A) In making a determination on a review an appropriate officer or a social fund inspector need not consider—

1. (a) in the case of a determination on a review under subsection (1)(a) above, any issue that is not raised by the application;
2. (b) in the case of a determination on a review under subsection (1)(aa) above, any issue that is not raised by the material fact;
3. (c) in the case of a determination on a review under subsection (1)(b) above, any issue that did not cause him to carry out the review.";
4. (c) for subsection (6) there were substituted the following subsection—

(6) In determining a question on a review under subsection (1)(a) or (b) above a social fund officer or social fund inspector shall, subject to subsection (7) below, have regard to whichever of the following are applicable, namely—

1. (a) all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, the criteria specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1) of section 140 of the Contributions and Benefits Act;
2. (b) the criteria mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1A) of that section; and
3. (c) the criterion specified in directions issued by the Secretary of State under that subsection and the criteria mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection.";
4. (d) in subsection (7) of that section, after the word "review" there were inserted the words "under subsection (1)(a) or (b) above";
5. (e) after that subsection there were inserted the following subsections—

(7A) In making a determination on a review under subsection (1)(aa) above an appropriate officer or a social fund inspector shall—

1. (a) act in accordance with any general directions issued by the Secretary of State; and
2. (b) take account of any general guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

(7B) Any reference in subsection (5A), (6), (7) or (7A) above to a determination on a review under a particular provision of subsection (1) above shall be construed, in relation to a social fund inspector, as a reference to a determination on a further review of a determination which has been reviewed under that provision."; (f) in subsection (9), for the words "this section- there were substituted the words "subsection (1)(a) or (b) above"; and (g) in subsection (10), after the word "determination" there were inserted the words "which has been reviewed under subsection (1)(a) or (b) above".

Overpayments out of social fund

7. In relation to any time before the commencement of sections 10, 11 and 38 of this Act, section 71ZA of the Administration Act (overpayments out of social fund) shall have effect as if for subsection (2) there were substituted the following subsection— (2) Section 71 above as it so applies shall have effect as if the following provisions were omitted, namely—

1. (a) in paragraph (a) of subsection (5) and subsection (5A), the words "reversed or varied on an appeal or";
2. (b) in paragraph (b) of subsection (5), the words "appeal or"; and
3. (c) subsections (7), (10A) and (10B)."

Child support: appeals to tribunals

8. In relation to appeals brought after the passing of this Act and any time before the commencement of section 42 of this Act, section 20 of the Child Support Act (appeals) shall have effect as if after subsection (4) there were inserted the following subsection— (5) In deciding an appeal under this section, the tribunal shall not take into account any circumstances not obtaining at the time when the decision appealed against was made." ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]

Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 134: Page 61, line 33, at beginning insert ("In").

The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 clarify that only the tribunals abolished by the Bill should be removed from Schedule 4 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. Amendment No. 135 lists the relevant tribunals whose entries will cease to have effect. I beg to move.

Lord Renton

Perhaps I may refer to just one word. It appears at the top of page 16 of the Marshalled List and is a word I do not recollect seeing before in our statutory provisions. Line 1 states, the following entries shall cease to have effect". We then read a list of statutory tribunals. Is that the right way to describe them?

The Deputy Chairman (Baroness Lockwood)

We are presently debating Amendment No. 134.

Lord Renton

Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 are being taken together. As I see it, Amendment No. 134 is to insert the word "in" and Amendment No. 135 is the amendment of substance.

I know that this is a small matter, but we should try to get the drafting right and to be consistent, so far as it is wise to be so, with what has gone before. I do not ask for an answer now, but, when the Bill is considered on Report, the Government may find a better way of describing the removal of those tribunals.

Lord Hardie

As the noble Lord will be aware, the schedule as it stands is a list of various tribunals. The amendment seeks to remove certain tribunals from the list. However, I take the noble Lord's point. We can look to see whether there could be more appropriate wording to deal with the matter, but I think the noble Lord understands the sense of what is being proposed.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 135: Page 61, leave out line 34 and insert ("the following entries shall cease to have effect, namely— Tribunals constituted in Great Britain under regulations made under section 4 of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979"; Child support appeal tribunals constituted under section 21 of the Child Support Act 1991"; Social security appeal tribunals constituted under section 41 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992"; Disability appeal tribunals constituted under section 43 of that Act"; and Medical appeal tribunals constituted under section 50 of that Act"."). On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 136: Page 61, line 38, after ("qualified") insert ("adjudicating").

The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 136, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 140, 146 and 147. These amendments are purely technical. Amendment No. 136 is required to amend the incorrect reference to "specially qualified medical practitioner" in paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 6. The correct title is "specially qualified adjudicating medical practitioner" which is contained in Part III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Adjudicating medical practitioners and specially qualified adjudicating medical practitioners are among the officers disqualified from membership of the House of Commons.

Amendments Nos. 140, 146 and 147 all relate to provisions in the Child Support Act 1991. Subject to the Committee's agreement, I do not think it is necessary to discuss them in detail. They simply clarify and make minor amendments to terms used in that Act. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hardiemoved Amendments Nos. 137 and 138: Page 62. line 18, leave out ("or 7"). Page 62, line 35, at end insert— (". After section 7A of that Act there shall be inserted the following section—

"Finality of decisions.

7B.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any decision made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Act shall be final. (2) If and to the extent that regulations so provide, any finding of fact or other determination embodied in or necessary to a decision, or on which a decision is based, shall be conclusive for the purposes of further decisions." "). The noble and learned Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 139:

Page 63, line 12, at end insert— ("Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 (c.47) . In paragraph 7A of Schedule 2 to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 (recovery of outstanding community charge by deductions from income support or jobseeker's allowance), for the words "appeals and reviews" in sub-paragraph (2)(a) there shall be substituted the words "appeals to appeal tribunals constituted under Chapter I of Part I of the Social Security Act 1998 and decisions under section 10 or 11 of that Act".

Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c.41)

. In sub-paragraph (2)(a) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (recovery of outstanding community charge by deductions from income support or jobseeker's allowance), for the words "appeals and reviews" there shall be substituted the words "appeals to appeal tribunals constituted under Chapter I of Part I of the Social Security Act 1998 and decisions under section 10 or 11 of that Act".").

The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 148 and 154. These amendments are wholly technical and consequential amendments to other primary legislation as a direct consequence of the provisions in this Bill. The amendments replace references in other legislation to reviews and appeals with reference to the new provisions for appeals, appeal tribunals and decisions under Clauses 10 and 11 of this Bill. I beg to move.

Earl Russell

I have one query about Amendment No. 139. This deals with the collection of arrears of the community charge. It is no doubt a matter of my own ignorance but I did not realise that we were still collecting those arrears. How much longer are we to go on collecting them? Is it not really about time that we stopped?

Lord Renton

I share the ignorance so modestly expressed by the noble Earl. I, too, was puzzled. Each of the three amendments grouped together has the same purpose; namely, to get rid of the words "appeals and reviews" and to substitute the words "appeals to appeal tribunals." This is a little mysterious. I think we are entitled to an explanation.

Lord Hardie

Perhaps I may deal, first, with the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The answer is yes, we are still collecting arrears of community charge. Cases are still outstanding. The answer as to when we will stop is presumably when the arrears have been paid. I cannot give a date because it depends on the arrears being paid.

I turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I shall deal with the amendments in each provision. In Amendment No. 139 there is reference to two statutory provisions: the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which is the English equivalent of the earlier Scottish provision relating to the recovery of outstanding community charge by deductions from income support or jobseeker's allowance. In these provisions, as I explained in general terms in my earlier comments, the reference to "reviews and appeals" should be replaced by reference to provisions for appeals to appeal tribunals constituted under Chapter 1 of Part I of this Act. We are amending the earlier legislation to reflect the situation which is brought in by this Bill. I hope that that explains the position.

Lord Renton

It means that there will be no more reviews. There will only be appeals to the appeal tribunals. That is perfectly clear.

6.45 p.m.

Earl Russell

It is my recollection—I may be mistaken and I have not had time to check—that there was a limitation of actions on the collection of community charge arrears. My recollection is that shortly before the community charge was abolished this limitation of actions was lengthened to six years. It is, I believe, now more than six years since we last collected any community charge. I thought therefore that the period of actions had now come to an end. I may be in error—I am perfectly willing to admit the error: it is only a recollection—but since the collection of arrears, some of them obviously uncollectable, has caused a good deal of hardship, a good deal of trouble, a good deal of labour and a good deal of administrative cost to those responsible for collection, I wonder whether we should look at the case for saying that this has gone on long enough.

Lord Hardie

That would appear to be outwith the scope of the Bill and it would also be a matter for the local authorities charged with collecting arrears. The effect of not collecting arrears would have financial consequences for local authorities. No doubt they will weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of recovering or not recovering, as the case may be.

In relation to the limitation point, perhaps I may write to the noble Earl. I shall check the position and give a definitive response.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hardie

moved Amendment No. 140: Page 64. line 2, leave out from ("State)") to end of line 5 and insert—

1. ("(a) subsections (2) and (2A) shall cease to have effect; and
2. (b) in subsection (3), the words "or by child support officers" shall cease to have effect and for the word "them" there shall be substituted the word "him".").

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 141: Page 64, line 7, at end insert— (. In subsection (4)(a) of section 22 of that Act (Child Support Commissioners). for the words "section 21(3)" there shall be substituted the words "Schedule 5 to the Social Security Act 1998".").

The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 141A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 142: Page 65, line 47, leave out second ("section") and insert ("sections—

"Finality of decisions.

46.4.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any decision of the Secretary of State or an appeal tribunal made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Act shall he final. (2) If and to the extent that regulations so provide, any finding of fact or other determination embodied in or necessary to a decision, or on which a decision is based, shall be conclusive for the purposes of any further decision.").

The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendment No. 145A. These amendments both refer to the finality of child support decisions. Amendment No. 142 amends the Child Support Act 1991 to ensure that, subject to provisions for revision, supersession and appeal, any child support decision taken by the Secretary of State or an appeal tribunal shall be considered final. Such provision has already been made in this respect for commissioners' decisions in the Child Support Act 1991.

Amendments Nos. 142 and 145A allow for regulations to provide that determinations which are part of a decision may be considered conclusive and can be used in other decisions. This means that, for example, questions of fact will only need to be decided once. These amendments cover decisions made by the Secretary of State, appeal tribunals and commissioners.

These amendments enable the Child Support Agency to use its resources in the most efficient manner. Matters which have been investigated in detail will not need to be considered again when they are found to be relevant to another decision. This is also in the interests of the claimant. Decisions can be made quickly, and without the claimant needing to resubmit evidence that he or she provided previously.

These amendments are a step towards our vision for an active, modern social security system, where decisions taken for one benefit can be applied across the whole system to ensure an efficient and consistent service. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 142A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendments Nos. 143 to 145 not moved.]

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 145A: Page 67, line 13, at end insert— ("(2) For paragraph 6(2) of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph— (2) If and to the extent that regulations so provide, any finding of fact or other determination which is embodied in or necessary to a decision, or on which a decision is based, shall be conclusive for the purposes of any further decision." ").

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

Lord Renton

Here we are dealing with people's rights and the desire to help those suffering from misfortune. It is rather sad that the law governing the consideration of these matters should be so very complex. In this amendment we find that a decision, once made, shall be conclusive for the purposes of any further decision". That could give rise to a problem because in further consideration of the matter relating to the same child or other person it might be discovered that the original decision was faulty. Yet under this amendment it shall be conclusive even though it was faulty. I know that the law gets into these situations. One of the reasons why people at large are sometimes puzzled by the way that government and parliament do things is that in what should be simple matters affecting the lives of simple people, we manage to have such terrible technicality which does not always make sense.

Earl Russell

It takes a little time to sort these things out. I imagine that the crucial point that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has raised is the meaning of the word "decision". Presumably what was intended was a narrow and limited meaning of that word and in particular a meaning not ruling out any further decision on appeal. I hope that this is something on which the Minister may be able to enlighten us.

Lord Higgins

This amendment appears to be oddly worded. I am not clear in what way regulations may provide a finding of fact.

Lord Hardie

I can understand the concern of noble Lords about the way the amendment is worded. Perhaps I might explain the meaning behind it and also look at ways of improving the wording at a later stage. I deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. The intention is that regulations will specify the extent to which any finding in fact or determination is conclusive for the purposes of any other decision in respect of other benefits. When I first spoke I said that the intention was to streamline the system so that once one had a finding of fact which affected a particular claimant, that finding would be conclusive for any other benefit that that claimant would be entitled to.

Lord Higgins

So why do regulations have to provide it?

Lord Hardie

The regulations have to provide the extent to which it would apply and to which benefits. I anticipate that is what is intended. Perhaps I may deal with the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton. If there is an error, it will not be entrenched. If the claimant is dissatisfied with the finding of fact he or she may seek a review of that finding or appeal it. But if the claimant is satisfied about the finding, then rather than go through the same process of establishing the same fact for a related benefit, he or she would simply have the benefit of this provision.

Lord Renton

The noble and learned Lord said that there could be a review. But we know that as regards three sets of circumstances mentioned in Amendment No. 139 and two others reviews have been replaced by appeals to the tribunal. So there we have to stick to the prospect of an appeal to the tribunal being conclusive of the matter.

Lord Hardie

I believe that the noble Lord is referring to two different sets of circumstances. As we discussed on the first day of Committee, as regards some benefit claims there is provision for a review. The claimant may ask for a review of the decision within a month. Thereafter there will be a further month in which the claimant can appeal. That is one situation. The concept in the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the earlier Scottish provision is a different one. If the Committee would prefer a fuller explanation of how this provision will be used, I shall be pleased to write to all noble Lords and also put a copy of the letter in the Library. That may be of assistance.

Lord Goodhart

This provision seems acceptable. I think it is simply the application into this Bill of a principle well known in the law technically as "issue estoppel", which is the principle that if something in litigation between parties is decided as a question of fact, the same issue cannot be relitigated. As far as I can see, this is not a matter to cause problems.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

7 p.m.

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 146: Page 67, line 17, at beginning insert ("in sub-paragraph (b),"). On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 146A and 146B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 147: Page 68, line 6. leave out ("subsection") and insert ("sub-paragraph"). On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 147A not moved.]

[Amendment No. 147B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendment No. 147C not moved.]

[Amendment No. 147D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Hardiemoved Amendments Nos. 147E to 147H: Page 69, line 14, at beginning insert ("Subject to sub-paragraph (1A) below,"). Page 69, line 21, at end insert ("by the Secretary of State"). Page 69, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 23. Page 69, line 25, leave out ("by the Secretary of State"). On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 147J had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 147K: Page 69. line 29, leave out ("by the Secretary of State"). On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 147L had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Hardie

moved Amendment No. 147M: Page 69, line 33, at end insert— ("(1A) Section 28ZC shall not apply where the decision of the Secretary of State mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) above—

1. (a) is one which, but for section 28ZA(2)(a) as it applies by virtue of paragraph 4(1), would have been made before the date of the relevant determination; or
2. (b) is one made in pursuance of section 28ZB(3) or (5) as it applies by virtue of paragraph 5(1).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 148: Page 69, line 39, at end insert—

("Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c.53)

. In subsection (2)(b) of section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (recovery of fines etc. by deductions from income support or jobseeker's allowance), for the words "appeals and reviews" there shall he substituted the words "appeals to appeal tribunals constituted under Chapter 1 of Part I of the Social Security Act 1998 and decisions under section 10 or 11 of that Act".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 149: Page 73, line 30. after ("In") insert ("subsection (1) of').

The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 149, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 150. Again, these are technical amendments. They change the wording of an existing regulation-making power in the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which relates to the review of decisions, so that it accurately reflects the new provisions in the Bill for disputing a decision—that is, a reference to "review" is replaced by references to "revision" and "supersession". I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 150: Page 73, line 31, leave out ("paragraphs (n) and (o) of subsection (1) and subsection (4)") and insert— ("(a) for paragraph (e) there shall be substituted the following paragraph— (e) for any such award to be revised under section 10 of the Social Security Act 1998, or superseded under section II of that Act, if any of those requirements are found not to have been satisfied;"; and. (b) paragraphs (n) and (o) shall cease to have effect. ( ) Subsection (4) of that section"). On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 150A: Page 73, leave out lines 35 to 47. On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 151: Page 73, line 48, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(2)").

The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 151, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 152 and 153. The intention of Amendment No. 152 is to clarify the position relating to the redetermination of overpayments of benefits by the Secretary of State, tribunals, commissioners and the higher courts.

The amendment to Section 71 of the Administration Act clarifies that, in considering an overpayment determination on review or appeal, the Secretary of State or a tribunal is required to consider the question of the amount of overpayment which is recoverable under Section 71(1) of the Administration Act. However, when considering the same question on appeal, a commissioner or a court is not specifically required to make findings of fact in that respect, but may do so if it wishes.

As noble Lords will know, the role of the commissioners and the higher courts is to consider whether there has been an error of law in social security decisions. The intention—namely; to relieve some of the burden on the commissioners and the courts—will therefore be achieved, as they will not be required to make detailed findings of fact. The amendment clarifies the position on these matters, and I commend it to the Committee. Amendment No. 151 amends an incorrect reference to subsection (5) of Section 71 of the Administration Act to subsection (2), to take account of Amendment No. 152.

Amendment No. 153 clarifies that the words inserted into the Administration Act by paragraph 84(2) of Schedule 6 are to be inserted after the first reference to "paragraph 6", and not subsequent references. The amendments are technical. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hardiemoved Amendments Nos. 152 and 153: Page 73, line 48, at end insert (", after the word "shall" there shall be inserted the words "in the case of the Secretary of State or a tribunal, and may in the case of a Commissioner or a court". ( ) In subsection (5) of that section"). Page 76, line 14, after ("6"";) insert (", in the first place where they occur,"). On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 154: Page 78, line 30, at end insert—

("Local Government Finance Act 1992 (c.14)

. In sub-paragraph (2)(a) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (recovery of council tax etc. by deductions from income support or jobseeker's allowance), for the words "appeals and reviews" there shall be substituted the words "appeals to appeal tribunals constituted under Chapter I of Part I of the Social Security Act 1998 and decisions under section It) or II of that Act"."). On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 155: Page 83, line 8, at end insert—

("Industrial Tribunals Act 1996 (c.17) . In subsection (5) of section 16 of the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996 (power to provide for recoupment of benefits) — (a) in paragraph (a), the words "adjudication officers or" shall cease to have effect; and (b) for paragraph (d) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs— (cc) provide for the determination by the Secretary of State of any issue arising as to the total or partial recoupment in pursuance of the regulations of a jobseeker's allowance, unemployment benefit or income support, (d) confer on an employee a right of appeal to an appeal tribunal constituted under Chapter 1 of Part I of the Social Security Act 1998 against any decision of the Secretary of State on any such issue, and".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 156: Page 83, line 8, at end insert— (" . In paragraph 10(2) of Schedule I to that Act (supplementary provisions), for the words "section 5(1)(n) of the Administration Act" there shall be substituted the words "section 22(2) of the Social Security Act 1998".").

The noble and learned Lord said: This is a consequential amendment to the Jobseekers Act 1995. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 to that Act refers to Section 5(1)(n) of the Administration Act, which is repealed in the Bill and replaced by the provisions of Clause 22. The effect of the amendment is to substitute for the reference to "Section 5(1)(n)" a reference to "Section 22(2)" of this Act. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 7 [Repeals]:

[Amendment No. 156A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 157: Page 89, line 39, column 3, after ("paragraphs") insert ("20(3),").

The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 157, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 158 and 158A. Schedule 7 details the current provisions which will be repealed as a consequence of the provisions in this Bill. The amendments to this schedule simply clarify the extent of the appeals that are necessary. Subject to the agreement of the Committee, I do not propose to discuss each of the amendments to the schedule, as they are consequential on clauses and schedules which have already been debated. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hardiemoved Amendments Nos. 158 and 158A: Page 89, line 48, column 3, at beginning insert— ("In section I 6(5)(a), the words "adjudication officers or.") Page 90, column 3, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert— ("Section (Transitory Provisions). Schedule (Transitory Provisions).") On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 159 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 81 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 160: Page 52, line 32, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A)").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 160, I believe that it would be convenient to speak also to Amendments Nos. 162 and 163. These amendments appear in the name of my noble friend Lady Anelay of St. Johns and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, who is, I understand, unable to be present this evening. Had he been here I am sure that as the chairman of the Council on Tribunals he would have expounded their virtues with greater authority than I can.

The amendments seek to delay implementation of the major changes proposed to the structure of social security appeals under the Bill. It is felt that the best approach to take is to allow the changes that are to be made to the first stage of the proceedings to settle down before further far reaching reforms are implemented. Effectively, it is a proposal that we should proceed by stages and not reform the entire hierarchy at a particular moment in time. We have done a considerable amount to improve the first tier and there is a case for seeing how that works out. Clearly, a good deal of the pressure on appeals depends on whether or not mistakes are made at the first stage. We believe that to be a fairly convincing argument. We also understand that practical arguments have been put forward by his Honour Judge Bassingthwaighte as to whether it would be possible to recruit the necessary people for these tribunals in the timescale envisaged in the Bill. That being so, we shall listen with interest to the Government's response to this amendment which is designed to ensure that the changed system gets off to a smoother start than would be the case if the whole process were rushed at once. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart

I have put my name to Amendment No. 162 which is also in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I support this group of three amendments. It is possible that under the Bill—it may not happen because the commencement orders may be made at different dates—there will be a big bang. I believe that that is unsatisfactory. The Bill makes very substantial changes both to the first tier system of decision-making in the department and to the system of appeal tribunals. As a practical matter, I believe that it is a good idea that changes to the first tier of decision making should be introduced first, tested out and allowed to settle before we go on to the next stage and change the system of appeal tribunals. Although I understand the Government's wish to bring about these changes, I suggest that it is not appropriate to do both at the same time. It may not be the intention of the Government to do so; if so, I should like to see that spelt out.

Lord Renton

I hope that in considering these amendments, which I believe have a good deal to commend them, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will bear in mind what is said in the first sentence on the first page of the Explanatory Memorandum: The Bill makes provision for the simplification of decision-making and appeals in social security, child support and vaccine damage payments". If simplification is the main purpose of the Bill—although the Long Title is silent on that point—and we are to go fully into all of the complicated changes that are proposed, the Government have a duty to make sure that those changes work. I assume that that is the purpose of those who have put their names to these amendments. It is impressive that the name of a former Law Officer, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, on the Government Benches appears at the top of one of the amendments.

7.15 p.m.

Lord Hardie

I am grateful to noble Lords for speaking to these amendments because it gives me an opportunity to explain why the Government feel that the changes to the appeal system should coincide with changes to the decision making process. To deal with the date of implementation raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, all I can say at this stage is that this issue is currently being addressed but the planning assumption is that the changes will all come in together, probably in October 1999.

I believe that there is general agreement in the Committee that the changes that we seek to make to improve the standards of decision making are necessary and probably overdue. I respectfully agree with the view expressed that the changes that we are introducing to first-tier decision making in the agencies will have a beneficial impact on the appeal system. If one gets the first decision right, there should be fewer appeals. Another change that we are introducing is that the agencies will be able to correct errors in their own decisions without the necessity of the claimant having to appeal. Clearly, that is to the benefit of the claimant and all concerned. A further benefit is the requirement to give better explanations to claimants so that if they understand more clearly why decisions have been made it is to be hoped that some will realise that there is no point in appealing and will accept the reasons, assuming that those reasons are properly and coherently set out.

I understand the concerns of noble Lords who seek to delay the changes in the appeal system in order to see the effect of the improvement in the first-tier decision making. The Government are convinced that the changes that they propose to make to the appeals system are worthwhile in their own right. Our aim is to improve standards from one end of the system to the other. The benefits to claimants and others in their dealings with the department's agencies will be greater if the changes in decision making and appeals are brought in together. Although a relatively small proportion of claimants appeal against decisions made in their cases, the appeals process is an integral part of a fair and impartial system; it is not simply an add-on. Even under the new system there will be those who justifiably wish to appeal and will have a right of appeal. It is important that that should be an integral part of the system.

At Second Reading tributes were paid to His Honour Judge Bassingthwaighte to whom reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I echo the tributes and acknowledge the hard work of the tribunals and the administrative staff within the Independent Tribunal Service. However, there are some key structural changes that are necessary to remove obstacles to further service improvements.

We believe that the time is right to modernise an appeals system which has grown up piecemeal over many years. New aspects of social security and child support have simply been incorporated into the existing appeals system without a fundamental review of whether original appeals models are still appropriate.

Different powers and rules in the separate jurisdictions make the current appeals system complex and confusing for claimants. As an example, the leaflet explaining the rules on appeals and reviews is over 100 pages long, almost half of which are taken up with explaining the differences between social security appeal tribunals, medical appeal tribunals and disability appeal tribunals. I am sure that the Committee will accept that that is unsatisfactory. Furthermore, and what is more unsatisfactory, those who appeal have to wait on average six months for their appeal to be heard. Being an average, some people wait much longer, but the good news is that some people wait less long. That is unsatisfactory. This sort of delay and frustration for claimants is unacceptable and we would be acting irresponsibly if we did not take sensible measures to tackle the problems in this area.

The Committee will recall that the measures we have taken replace the five separate appeals jurisdictions with one unified appeal jurisdiction which will make the system simpler and clearer for staff and claimants alike. Our improvements will enable tribunals to focus their attention on the issue or issues actually in dispute and ensure that they concentrate upon the decision which has been appealed. That will clarify the proper function of the tribunal and improve service to claimants. Our improvements will also enable tribunals to correct errors in their own decisions. That will have the effect of removing a great number of cases which currently go to the commissioners to be corrected.

The Committee may recall that it is not unusual for cases which go to the commissioners to take something in the order of a year. In many cases the matters are merely referred back to a tribunal because inadequate reasons were given. Our system will transfer responsibility for the administration of appeals to the Secretary of State, and will enable her to set targets to reduce unacceptable delays in hearing appeals.

Our system will also remove the requirement for every appeal to be heard by a three-person tribunal. We hope that it will result in an effective and responsive appeals service, where the expertise of members is focused upon the cases which need it. Those are just some of the examples of why we believe the changes to the appeals system are justified in their own right.

There is a further problem with the amendment. I shall point out some of the difficulties which would occur if the amendments were agreed to. The Bill is structured to deliver integrated changes to decision-making and appeals arrangements. If changes to the appeals system were to be delayed, as proposed in the amendments, there would be a number of unwelcome effects for claimants. It may help if I give some examples. I do not propose to give them all, because there is about a page and a half of them. One of the consequences is that there would be no right of appeal against any decision under Clauses 9, 10 or 11 because Clause 13 would not be in force. Schedules 2 and 3, which set out decisions on which there is a right of appeal and decisions on which there is no right of appeal, would have no effect. That is because they depend on Clause 13 which would not be in force. There would be no appeal tribunals to deal with child support appeals under Clause 42, vaccine damage appeals under Clause 46 and recovery of benefits appeals under Schedule 6. Clause 14, which is a new provision for redetermination of appeals by tribunals, would have no effect because there would be no decisions to correct. One of the provisions in Clause 11 is a re-enactment of an existing provision for revising decisions on, for example, a later change in circumstances. The provision would be lost. Similarly, the power to revise an appeal tribunal decision under Clause 41 (child support) and under Clause 45 (vaccine damage) would also be lost. Those consequences cannot be to the benefit of the claimants.

As I said, there are many other examples, but I shall not delay the Committee. I am sure that noble Lords who tabled the amendments would not wish or intend those consequences. For the reasons I have outlined, I would invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Renton

Before my noble friend replies, we should all bear in mind that there is one important matter to which the noble and learned Lord referred; that is, the delays that take place under the present system. I thought that some of the delays were rather frightening, especially bearing in mind that the tribunals and the decisions to be made relate to people's daily needs and: Justice delayed is justice denied". We should bear that in mind.

Lord Higgins

A number of noble Lords have far greater experience in the practical operation of the appeal procedure than I have. The Minister's reply sounded convincing. That being so, in a moment I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment. As this is the last debate in Committee in which I intend to speak, perhaps I may echo the remark of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who said on an earlier amendment what a tremendous advantage it is to have a revising Chamber which can deal with these matters.

The Bill is a substantially better Bill than it was when it started. To what extent the threat of being defeated on these controversial matters when they are returned to the other place may have been an incentive to a co-operative attitude I know not, but at all events we have made a great deal of progress. I should like to express my thanks to the three Ministers for the way in which they have responded to our amendments. There is a long way to go yet. We are faced with Phoenix directors, Budget proposals and a number of other amendments, but I should like to express my thanks. We have done a great deal of good and the Bill is much better than it was. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hardie

moved Amendments Nos. 161 and 161A: Page 52, line 33, after (" 65,") insert ("(Validation of certain housing benefit determinations),"). Page 52, line 33, leave out (" 75 to 79 and this section") and insert ("(Pilot schemes) to 79, this section and Schedule (Transitory provisions) to this Act"). On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 not moved.]

Lord Hardie

moved Amendment No. 164: Page 53, line 4, at end insert— ("( ) section 2 so far as relating to war pensions;"). The noble and learned Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 165. These are minor and consequential amendments.

Clause 81(4) sets out the clauses of the Bill which do not extend to Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 164 adds Clause 2 to the list of exceptions to this provision. The amendment ensures that the provisions of Clause 2 relating to the use of computers applies to the administration of war pensions in Northern Ireland. This amendment is necessary since the war pensions scheme is administered on a UK basis, whereas for other benefits Northern Ireland has its own separate legislation.

Amendment No. 165 is simply an amendment to the drafting of Clause 81(4) in which the draftsman has thought it appropriate to make the wording clearer. These are minor and consequential amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 165: Page 53, line 6, leave out ("they relate") and insert ("relating"). On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.