Lords Sitting of 13 July 1999

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

Baroness Stern
Miss Vivien Helen Stern, CBE, having been created Baroness Stern, of Vauxhall in the London Borough of Lambeth, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Dubs and the Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham
Sir Henry Dennistoun Stevenson, Knight, CBE, having been created Baron Stevenson of Coddenham, of Coddenham in the County of Suffolk, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Dormand of Easington and the Lord Walker of Worcester.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
2.48 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will announce their decision on the future status, as protected areas of landscape, of areas of outstanding natural beauty, and the arrangements for the long-term funding of their management.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government are still considering very carefully the advice on the future treatment of AONBs in England which the former Countryside Commission delivered to them last summer.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, which is almost exactly the same as that given to me a year ago. Does the noble Baroness agree that there has been an extraordinary development in the Government's countryside policy? No decisions have been taken about the future of areas of outstanding natural beauty or sites of special scientific interest, which are of great concern to many. There is no strategy about the decline in farm incomes, which is also a matter of concern to many people. However, a decision has been taken about fox-hunting and the manner in which foxes are to be killed, whether by gassing, snaring or shooting—anything but hunting with hounds. Was that really what the Government meant when they opened the Countryside Agency three weeks ago with the slogan "Everybody's a Winner"? I can assure the noble Baroness that the fox will not be a winner for the Government but a loser.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as the noble Lord points out, the position is exactly the same; no decision has been taken about the process to be adopted for implementing our policy. As to SSSIs, legislation is a priority and we intend to use the first legislative slot that we can obtain to present a Bill to Parliament. The noble Lord is fully aware that there are divided opinions on the future of AONBs. Therefore, the Government wish to give very careful consideration not only to his views but to those of other noble Lords, including his noble friends, that may be somewhat different from his.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, can the Government deal with this matter with greater urgency? As my noble friend said, the situation in farming is dire. The message to anyone who lives in a rural area is that the Government do not care. How soon is soon? We have heard reference to "soon", "very soon" and "coming shortly". Can the Minister enlarge upon that?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Baroness accuses the Government of not caring about the rural communities. The substantial improvement in the provision of rural public transport is but one example of our concrete support of rural communities. We agree that, as with national parks, there is a need to ensure the protection of AONBs. The decision to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, refers is related to future status. At the moment, both are fully protected.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, how will improving rural transport help the plight of farmers?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, those who work as farmers and in agriculture need to travel. Their children need to be able to get to work; and rural communities need that transport. Anyone with the noble Baroness's knowledge of and background in rural communities will know, as I do, that one of the problems facing young people in rural communities seeking to gain employment is what happened to the bus services in rural communities during her government's period of office.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, will the Minister be so kind as to help me? I thought I heard her reply to my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry that no decision had been taken regarding the implementation of government policies in this context. If I heard that correctly, will she be kind enough to tell the House why no decision has been taken, and whether it has anything to do with possibilities for renewable energy in such areas?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am not aware of any connection with renewable energy. Should I find that there is one I shall write to the noble Lord.
The proposition sounds simple when put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. However, to take one example of which the noble Lord is well aware, the Countryside Agency is seeking a statutory

167
conservation board for the South Downs. Others, including the CPRE, Friends of the Earth and the Council for National Parks, hold a diametrically opposing view and support the view of the House reported in 1947. Surely we need to be fair to both sides and give careful consideration to this important issue.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that only during the past two years have the Government sought to do something about the social exclusion of rural communities? Does the Minister agree that there was social exclusion in rural communities earlier than two years ago?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, yes—the social exclusion to which I referred in my reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. There are many difficulties and much poverty within the rural community. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, is a fair-minded woman. I am sure that she would agree that those problems cannot be solved overnight.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, we were interested to hear the Minister's remarks about improvements in transport in rural communities. I do not doubt that the noble Baroness has made use of those improved facilities. Perhaps she can give some details of them to the House.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, local authorities across the country were given access to government funding to develop services. For example, in Wales there are combinations of a localised taxi service collecting people to take them to the nearest main bus connection enabling them to travel. There are new improved services serving rural and remote communities to allow people to get to the shops. Many elderly people living in rural communities do not have access to car transport and need access to rural transport.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that there are many areas of outstanding natural beauty throughout the country which currently receive temporary funding from local authorities and the Countryside Agency. They need to know from where their future funding is to come if they are to stay in being.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, yes, we are aware of that. It is for that reason that specific grants were made available to the Countryside Agency and sums were increased from £2 million to £4.5 million. As the noble Lord is aware, local authorities spend more money voluntarily. That is in addition to a 10 per cent increase in the funding available for the national parks. I am sure that the noble Lord would wish to join with others in congratulating the Government.

Welsh Office: Ministerial Complement
2.57 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the ministerial complement of the Welsh Office after the Secretary of State has resigned his office to become the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, that is a matter for the Prime Minister who will make his decisions at the appropriate time.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, is it not already clear from exchanges in another place, in particular at Question Time on Wednesday last, and as a result of the Speaker's Statement yesterday, that the role in this Parliament of the Secretary of State for Wales and his Ministers is much reduced following the transfer of powers to the National Assembly for Wales on 1st July? Does the Minister agree that it is important that, like Scotland, Wales should continue to have a voice in Cabinet to safeguard the interests of Wales and to help preserve the unity of the United Kingdom?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. It is an inevitable and foreseen desired consequence of the devolution settlement that the duties at Westminster of the Secretary of State for Wales will be reduced. Equally, I agree with the noble Lord that Welsh interests should be fully, coherently and eloquently represented here at Westminster. I understand from the "Today" programme this morning—it is always a useful source of information—that the present Secretary of State for Wales is intending to step down shortly to concentrate his formidable energies on his duties in Cardiff.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, was it not a foreseen consequence that once the devolution measure was through, Welsh Members of Parliament would not be able to ask Questions in the House of Commons about almost any of the issues which most concern their own constituents? Does it not follow that they will have little else to do but to make inquiries about England and help to interfere with the government of it? Will England be happy about that?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my experience of English Members of Parliament and English hereditary Peers is that they are constantly very happy about most things. The Speaker made it perfectly plain that there are significant continuing areas where the Welsh Members of Parliament will have a proper function in questioning Welsh Ministers. There is no reason why that should not continue. A close scrutiny of what she said in another place yesterday would be quite valuable.
Lord Elton: My Lords, did the Minister read in yesterday's Hansard a reply to a Written Question about

169
the management of a serious infestation of the bee population of England, Scotland and Wales which concluded with the comment that in future such matters in Scotland and Wales would be devolved and could not be answered in that way? Can the Minister tell us how anyone interested in such policy will be able to gain a picture of what is happening in the United Kingdom? That must be relevant, because if we had different policies on either side of the borders, the result would be no policy at all as regards the population of this country.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did not see the Question and its Answer because we were otherwise engaged here until about quarter to one this morning on the Immigration and Asylum Bill. I would respectfully and I hope helpfully ask the noble Lord to revisit what the Speaker said in another place. I believe that there are many Questions which are proper to be asked in the Westminster context following devolution. Returning to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, the foreseen consequences post-devolution were that some matters would be devolved and therefore would be the responsibility of the devolved Assembly and Parliament.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me coming back, but my question related to this House and not another place, because we need to develop conventions here as to how to deal with this the difficult matter.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sorry, there was a certain amount of extraneous noise and I plainly misheard the noble Lord's question. It is a matter for the House, but it seems to me that his question has point and purpose. With respect to the usual channels, it seems to be a matter that they should consider and develop.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, while my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is undying, can he assure me that he will not have his workload increased by being made spokesman for the Scottish Office towards the end of the month when the Prime Minister has his reshuffle, and that we will continue to have at least one Minister representing the Scottish Office here as a Scottish Office Minister and not on loan from the Home Office?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is almost the language of asperity. I am pleased to have the undying support of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, particularly as he looks in remarkably good health.

Iraq: Medical Supplies
3.4 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will inquire into the impact of United Nations sanctions against Iraq on the dispatch of medical supplies by post by individuals on a non-commercial basis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, there is no prohibition on sending medical supplies by post to Iraq on a non-commercial basis provided that a licence is first obtained. Security Council Resolutions 661 and 687, which imposed sanctions on Iraq, made exceptions to the prohibition on exports to Iraq. Medical supplies were included within those exceptions. Resolution 666 recommends that governments strictly supervise the export of medical supplies. The Government implement those resolutions by licensing arrangements.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, will the Minister recognise that in Iraq 5,000 children under the age of five are dying each month, many suffering from stunted growth due to chronic and long-term malnutrition? Yet before 1990 Iraq's health standards were among the highest in the Middle East. Will the Minister appreciate that sanctions are a most insidious form of warfare, for they target the poorest, weakest and vulnerable of the population? Even when ordinary citizens of this country, some from Wales with whom I am in contact, try to help by sending medical supplies, toys and pencils for school children, they have to obtain an export licence and are subjected to inordinate delay. Surely the Minister will recognise that whatever the inequities of Saddam Hussein might be, the sanctions are uncivilised and should be ended without further delay?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am extremely sorry to say that I cannot agree with my noble friend. I explained in my initial Answer why the export licences are required. The Government must strictly supervise the export of medical supplies. While my noble friend points to the dreadful number of children dying in Iraq, I ask him to draw to the attention of his friends in Wales who are trying to help the fact that Iraq is selling food to Syria and is trying to sell food to Jordan.
Since January, Iraq has imported more than 5,000 cases of whisky and more than 53,000 cartons of cigarettes. The funds used to purchase those goods could have been used to purchase humanitarian goods, but the Iraqi Government chose otherwise.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, in the light of the consideration of the UK/Netherlands draft resolution by the Security Council, can the Minister confirm that, while allowing the expansion of the oil-for-food programme on the basis of humanitarian need, the Government will not agree to any suspension or lifting of sanctions in the absence of Iraq's full compliance with its obligations under all existing Security Council resolutions?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that I can confirm the position which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, articulates. The purpose of our draft resolution is to be as generous as we can in proposing measures aimed at bringing more revenue through the oil-for-food programme in order to meet the

171
humanitarian needs, while at the same time not sacrificing any of the issues on which we have fought so hard as regards weapons of mass destruction.
The Earl Listowel: My Lords, are the Government at all concerned with the effects of uranium depleted rounds on the general population of Iraq? Has there been any recent research into the consequences of their use?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course the Government are always concerned about the effect of the use of depleted uranium. I can tell the House that the UK Government have not used any such weapons at any time during the recent exchanges with Iraq.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is there a Europe/US divide in Iraqi policy and the need for articulation on priorities and trade off, not least to show solidarity with the Iraqi people?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that it has been noticed that the draft resolution to which I referred was drawn up by us and the Netherlands. We now have five more co-sponsors. The US supports our overall approach. However, the US would like to see some further changes in the text. As with amendments proposed by others, we and our co-sponsors are considering them. I stress that while we often try to ensure that we keep a proper relationship with the US, given the fact that both countries have been engaged in the exchanges with Iraq, there is no question that the United Kingdom is in charge of its own policy as regards that country.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, will the noble Baroness join me in paying tribute to the memory of the late Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham, who personally carried medical supplies into Iraq, as he had already done to the Spanish Sahara? Does she agree that the personal commitment of individuals and voluntary organisations should be encouraged wherever possible when governments are unable to communicate?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am happy to join the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, in that tribute. Many of us heard the heart-rending account that Lord Winchilsea gave to the House of his experiences in a children's hospital in Iraq. That personal commitment and first-hand experience is very important, because it often gives us the human perspective that we need when dealing with such issues.

Britain in Europe Campaign
3.10 p.m.
Lord Taverne Lord Taverne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to support the full aims of the Britain in Europe campaign.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government fully support the setting up of Britain in
172
Europe. We want a successful cross-party campaign. The Prime Minister has confirmed that he will attend the launch. As the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, has said:
"Britain in Europe has concentrated on the need to build a bigger, more productive European role for Britain".
The Government fully support that aim.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I welcome the Prime Minister's support for Britain in Europe and that of senior Conservatives who seem prepared to flaunt the traditional rituals of Westminster by putting country first and party second. I recognise that the argument in favour of the euro should be seen as part of the wider question of Britain's position in Europe, but will the Government give a lead—and recognise the importance of doing so—in arguing for the euro in principle and not leave the Opposition's arguments against the euro unanswered, as they did at the elections to the European Parliament?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in a rather less contentious way may I say that of course the Government recognise the cross-party nature of the group? Its membership already includes the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, Mr Giles Radice and Mr Menzies Campbell. We have already seen such luminaries as Sir Ken Jackson, the General Secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, and Niall Fitzgerald, the chairman of Unilever, lend their support. Support has been expressed not only by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, but by Mr Paddy Ashdown and Mr Kenneth Clarke. There has been no change in government policy. Our position on the euro remains the same as that set out by my right honourable friend the Chancellor in October 1997. That includes the five economic tests that will have to be met before any decision on the euro is taken.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the position of groups such as Business for Sterling is nearer to the Government's position than that outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and his friends, who would like to see us pushed into the euro without any of the considerations that the Government have laid down? Does my noble friend also understand that over the years millions and millions of pounds have been poured into the European movement from the taxpayer and other interested parties, including the British taxpayer? So far that has only made the British people more reluctant to go further into the European adventure, as they showed at the recent elections, when they certainly voted against trading the euro for the pound, which has been a successful currency for many hundreds of years.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government agree in large measure with the major concern of the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, to inject a good dose of rationality and common sense into our national debate. Britain in Europe has never been wedded to the idea of rushing into the euro regardless—far from it. The Government agree on that. We also agree with Britain in Europe that Britain's voice should

173
he heard in Europe, that we need to engage properly in Europe and that, if we are to be heard on such important issues as reform of the common agricultural policy and structural funds, it is sensible for us to engage as fully as possible.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, as a board member of Britain in Europe, may I add my welcome to the noble Baroness's answers? Will she ensure that the Government lay great stress on the huge and various potential benefits to Britain of being able to conduct almost two-thirds of our overseas trade with a market of almost 300 million people in a single, stable currency?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords. I am glad to be able to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, on that. The United Kingdom's prosperity is intricately tied up with prosperity of Europe. The single market has 380 million customers and enlargement will add a further 100 million. Almost 60 per cent of UK trade is with EU countries and 40 per cent of UK overseas investment is destined for the euro zone. Our business community recognises that and so do the Government.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Britain in Europe campaign makes a significant and positive contribution to the vital and long overdue national debate about the future strength of our membership of the European Union?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords. I agree with what my noble friend says. I remind her that the Government will apply five economic tests when deciding whether to recommend the euro to the British people. I also remind her of the triple lock that the Government will have on the process: first, the Government will consider whether it would be sensible and in our economic interests; then Parliament will have an opportunity to decide; and then the people of this country—the ones who really count—will make their decision in a referendum.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, will the Minister use this opportunity to give a special vote of thanks to those former officials from her department, including two former ambassadors to Washington, one former ambassador to Paris and two former permanent secretaries to the Foreign Office, who have cast aside the conventional thinking of the department and said that, far from increasing Britain's influence in the world, joining the single currency or moving further towards political integration in Europe would diminish our standing? As that message does not seem to have reached those in the Britain in Europe movement, will she ensure that Sir John Cole's remarks are widely distributed to them?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, is not it a good thing that under this Government former diplomats feel that they can express their views? I welcome any sensible contribution to the debate from either side, provided that it is based on fact, not
174
prejudice. I remind the noble Lord that not that long ago a former Conservative Foreign Secretary said:
"The European Union is one of the most successful partnerships of the 20th century and we mean to keep it that way".
So do we.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, does my noble friend also welcome the statement made by a number of equally distinguished diplomats that Britain should seriously consider embracing the euro? Does she agree that it would be fair to give equal time in the debate to those who are in favour of the euro and those who are against it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I do. In recent days and weeks a number of distinguished diplomats have made their views known. I should be happy for everyone to feel able to engage in the debate. One or two people have, rather unkindly, pointed out that some of those concerned are ex-diplomats. Nonetheless, if they are putting arguments to us on the basis of their considerable experience, they all deserve a hearing. However, it is not they who will decide. It is not even your Lordships and another place. The people of this country will decide whether we join the euro.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does Britain in Europe consider that the euro is a step towards political union? Is it not true that Mr Prodi believes that, as do most European statesmen? Does Britain in Europe think so? If not, why not?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I really cannot answer for Britain in Europe. I suggest that the noble Lord addresses his question to the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, and others. The noble Lord, Lord Marshall, has made clear that it is important that we should now have a rational, commonsense, national debate. The Government support that wholeheartedly.

Baxi Partnership Limited Trusts Bill [H.L.]
3.22 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Business of the House: Standing Order 44
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable more than one stage of any Northern Ireland Bill brought from the Commons before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess to be taken on one day; and to

175
enable all stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill to be taken on Thursday next.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House whether this Motion is intended to apply to the Northern Ireland Bill set down for Second Reading tomorrow? Is the noble Baroness aware of the great concern over the hasty drafting of this Bill during the past weekend and of the obvious need for properly staged scrutiny if we are to avoid yet more confusion?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, yes indeed, this Motion does apply to the Northern Ireland Bill. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Bill will be considered in another place and, on the present basis of the timetable, should reach your Lordships' House tomorrow. There will be an opportunity for scrutiny, and I understand that the Public Bill Office is now prepared to accept amendments, if that is what concerns the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it true, as we hear on the radio, that the House of Commons is to spend only eight hours on all stages of this Bill? Bearing in mind the implications of the Bill and the whole Northern Ireland situation, is it really sufficient for the House of Commons—which, after all, is sovereign—to have only eight hours to discuss all the implications of the Bill? My noble friend is well aware of the very strong feelings among the Unionists on the whole issue of the Good Friday agreement and what has transpired since. Surely, in the interests of democratic debate, the House of Commons should be allowed to hold more discussion on such an important Bill.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is aware that that is, of course, entirely a matter for the other place. As regards the arrangements for this House—in which I am engaged—I believe that the usual channels have been consulted. In accordance with the undertakings which I gave last week, I understand that the Cross-Benchers have also been consulted on this important issue and that agreement has been reached in your Lordships' House on the timetable which is, of course, the matter which concerns your Lordships.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Baroness has just said that the handling of this Bill is entirely a matter for the other place. Not everyone in your Lordships' House is satisfied that the House of Commons is able to give or accustomed to giving thorough examination to very important measures. This one, which is highly contentious and very speculative, will receive only a short period of review in the other place. One wonders what will happen in this House. There are serious concerns about a measure which has been put forward suddenly, abruptly and without
176
adequate consideration. No one would ever claim that the draftsmanship which goes into the legislation which comes before your Lordships' House is immaculate.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I say, I can only repeat that I understand precisely the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, about the extreme importance of this particular measure. However, the arrangements for the other place are entirely a matter for the other place. As I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, I am sure that there will be adequate time for your Lordships to give their usual scrutiny to this Bill. As I stated, the opportunity to table amendments is already available.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is mistaken in saying that the House of Commons is sovereign? Is it not only one person in the parliamentary trinity?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I always defer to the noble Earl and his constitutional observations.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the noble Baroness explain how we are to deal with amendments if the Bill is to be taken through all its stages in one day? Will there be a Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord is mistaken. The Bill will not be taken in one day. The Second Reading will take place tomorrow. As I stated before, as has been agreed through the usual channels in co-operation with the Cross-Benchers, the further stages will be taken on Thursday.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness elaborate a little further on that? I do not want to trespass on the delicate ground of what the usual channels do in private. But those of us who are not in that circle are concerned, if amendments are tabled and agreed in Committee, as to whether there will be sufficient time to deal with them or indeed to refine them on Report. Therefore, where are the buffers at the end of the line? Are we trying to get away at the end of July or is there a possibility that a Report stage could be held over into the following week?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the buffer on this particular piece of legislation is Thursday evening. As I said, that has been agreed through the usual channels. I agree with the noble Lord that the mysteries of this particular process are not always immediately obvious, but that is the understanding. I am sure that the noble Lord and the whole House are aware of the implications of that timetable for the whole process of devolution which we all very much hope will take place this week.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
3.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): 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.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 51 [Entitlement to Category B retirement pension by reference to new allowances]:
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 91A:
Page 58, line 25, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (7A),").
The noble Lord said: Although this is already on record, I should declare that personal interest which all of us with spouses have, especially if our mortality catches up with us after April next year.
I do not want to detain Members of the Committee on matters on which other noble Lords and the Minister have spoken so eloquently. I shall attempt to be brief in the commonly accepted sense of that term and not as in Chaucer' s Prologue.
In brief, a previous administration used the Social Security Act 1986 to halve the earnings related to the inheritance of spouses with effect from April 2000. That change is now in Section 50(5) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and is reflected in Clause 51(7) of the Bill which we are now debating. The Minister has inherited that poisoned chalice but she and her colleagues have not so far been minded to disown it. What the noble Baroness and her colleagues in another place have done is acknowledge that the suppression of information about the loss of accrued rights under the 1986 Act has created injustices which will have to be addressed through some form of compensation for some people.
My amendment—I recognise its drafting limitations—seeks to require regulations to be made, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Those regulations would, I envisage, give full inherited pension rights to the spouses of those whose contributions span the whole period from 1978 to 1986 before the 1986 legislation came into being to diminish those rights. Using the formula of which I have notified the Minister, they would give a lesser inheritance to the spouses of those who contributed after 1986 during the period when the law had changed, but that change in the law had not been notified to those affected by it.
I propose this approach because I do not want to complicate an already complicated clause and because I am wedded to the principle of justice but flexible as to the detail of what should be done to deliver justice. My approach has, I believe, the potential to secure justice without all the costs of a flood of individual compensation cases.
It behoves lesser mortals to take shelter when the Titans are hurling rocks. I am aware that Lady Sally Greengross of Age Concern has put to the department a legal opinion which challenges the legal opinion quoted by Ministers that the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights allow the inheritance rights of spouses to be reduced. It may well be that this part of the Bill—though not only this part—will have to be reconsidered. I do not want this debate in any way to prejudice proceedings. I am anxious to know whether the Minister is in a position to amend what she said about the legal position at Second Reading.
In conclusion, I should like to make three points which I think are hard to controvert. First, the Government have—and have acknowledged having—a problem; albeit not one initially of their own making. The Government have accepted that money will have to be spent on resolving that problem. Secondly, it really is not acceptable to take away pension rights already contracted for and paid for. No occupational pension scheme would be allowed to act in this way, as we are now aware with the case at present going through the courts. Thirdly, it is not acceptable to take away future rights unless those affected have been notified and have had the opportunity to seek to make alternative arrangements. In this case, not only were people not told; they were assured that their spouses' rights were intact.
I am offering the Government a lifeline. I would go on to say that I stand astounded at my own moderation, were it not that readers of Macaulay might recall that when Warren Hastings made that comment he was refusing to apologise for having appropriated rather large sums of money. In this case, if I may say so, the Government seem to have appropriated rather large sums of contributors' money. I hope that the Minister will be able to express her gratitude for my rescue package and take that which is offered in a spirit of goodwill and with cheated contributors and disappointed surviving spouses particularly in mind. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: There were originally three amendments on the Marshalled List concerned with the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has drawn to our attention. I am sure that the Committee will be grateful for the elegant way in which he put forward the arguments.
We debated this matter last Tuesday, 6th July (col. 141). I moved an amendment designed to deal, in part, with the problem which we now face, by suggesting that the arrangements should not go forward in the Bill until such time as the Government had put forward their proposals regarding compensation for those who were not informed of the true situation as regards the reduction of widows benefits.
It is important to distinguish between the two separate issues raised by the noble Lord. I refer to the reduction by or to 50 per cent of the widows' pension, enacted as long ago as 1986, and to the subsequent problems which

179
have arisen because individuals were misinformed as to the fact that that was the state of the law, or at least appeared to be.
As regards the first matter, there is a significant difference between the amendment tabled by the noble Lord and that which I moved the other day. I was concerned with the problem of misinformation; he is concerned, more fundamentally, with the question of the reduction in widows' pension in the first instance. In 1986 proposals were made which stated that pensions would not be reduced immediately but after a period of 14 years. Time has moved on and that period has virtually expired. The present proposals are that the pensions will be reduced as from April next year.
As I have mentioned, there is a third amendment on the Marshalled List, tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which goes still further. It seeks to reverse the situation created in 1986. We need to clarify the position with regard to all these matters. No doubt the Minister will reply to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, as regards the underlying situation of the reduction in pension and, in particular, to the points he raised concerning the European Convention on Human Rights. Although that was not part of our domestic law in 1986, it is now. I do not wish to elaborate on that side of matters. I want to concentrate on the question of misinformation.
I pointed out the other day, and I repeat now, that it seems to me that this is not a partisan issue. Whatever one may think about the basic question of the reduction, I have looked back on the debate and, surprisingly, there seemed to be remarkably little opposition, in some ways, at the time. However, there were proposals for transitional arrangements, and so on.
Despite the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, the other night regarding the effect of SERPS and the change which was made, as I understand it the Government do not propose to alter the basic situation with regard to the reduction of the pension, although the noble Lord Rix is suggesting, as indeed are the Liberal Democrat Benches, that that should be so.
However, the problem arises from a tactical point of view, if I may put it in that way, as to what should be done about the misinformation. Clearly, this happened under the previous Government and under this Government in a quite extraordinary way. The original proposals for informing people of what would happen after the lapse of 14 years from 1986 did not take place. We run into difficult problems of parliamentary accountability.
The traditional view is that Ministers are accountable, both those of the previous government and the present Government. It is also important to consider the relationship between Ministers and officials. We need to consider the position of the officials involved in this affair. In the light of the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee of some years ago, which I looked up, although there were subtle distinctions made between the actions of officials on the one hand and the conduct of officials on the other, nonetheless, the
180
general doctrine was agreed that if something had gone wrong, Ministers should look into the matter and at least assure the House that something had been done by way of disciplinary procedures.
Perhaps the Minister could clarify that situation for us this afternoon. Obviously there are additional complications, given the change of government in the meantime and the problems of referring back to papers of the previous government. However, clearly the problem arises from the fact that what Ministers said would be done did not take place. This is an important issue.
The other important issue concerns people being misinformed and, as a result, not making provision for their pensions. What evidence will the Government use to establish whether a particular individual has been misinformed or not? I refer, for instance, to phone calls—the noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred to the fact that he had some experience of that—or to correspondence, which, presumably, is more likely to be on the record. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us the situation as regards such evidence as may be produced.
The Parliamentary Ombudsman is considering whether there has been maladministration and he said in a press release that he will report before the change in pension payments is made. That is to happen, once and for all, on a specific date and I do not believe that that is satisfactory. We should be clear about what will happen well in advance of that date and before the legislation is passed. Perhaps the noble Baroness can give us some idea of the timetable.
In the various exchanges across the Floor of the House at Question Time, the noble Baroness pointed out—some months ago now—that she was taking legal advice about the Government's liabilities in the circumstances that have been described by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, regarding misinformation. It is important that we have some idea of the nature of that legal advice. I hope that the Minister will tell us what advice she has received. She must know what it is by now and, if she is unable to reveal it, perhaps the Law Officers should come before us and explain the true situation.
We are unclear about what the Government have in mind by way of compensation. The Minister of State in another place has made it absolutely clear that the Government will ensure—that is the word he used—that those who have incurred loss as a result of being wrongly informed about the true situation will not suffer. That is a pretty comprehensive statement. However, we are not the least bit clear about what the Government propose. We do not know whether they favour the proposal advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in his amendment, whether they will defer the change, or introduce compensation in the form of cash or whatever.
The Government are paying compensation for a whole range of things, not least as a result of the failure of the Department of Social Security's computer. These are important issues, and we hope that the Minister will spell out in more detail than has been provided so far what the Government intend to do. They have had

181
sufficient time to consider the matter. We should be in a position to hear this afternoon what the Government propose to do about compensation and the more fundamental issue of their attitude to the noble Lord's amendment.
Earl Russell: I received this morning a vigorously expressed letter from a constituent of my honourable friend Mr Rendell. After expressing his gratitude to my honourable friend for the work that he has done on this issue—that praise was deserved—he pointed out that he does not have sufficient earning years left to be able to put right the mischief caused by this misadventure. That constituent feels strongly that he has been deprived the opportunity to make adequate provision for his spouse. He has hit the nail on the head.
Fortunately, we have an agreed body of facts. There has been misinformation under both governments. We on these Benches will not attempt to turn inferior opportunity into a claim of superior virtue. Whatever the causes may be, they are fairly deep-seated and institutional and must not be blamed on the faults of any one particular party. Therefore, I hope that, when the Minister replies, she will not suffer from an attack of the pot and kettle disease. We have a problem and we are all responsible for trying to find a solution.
We have tabled our own amendment on this point that is slightly more far reaching than that of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. However, as I am sure the Minister is about to remind the Committee, our proposal is a good deal more expensive. We naturally prefer our amendment, but, were the Minister to be minded to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, we will remember that the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread is an extremely good political principle. In any event, i think that the noble Lord's amendment provides a good deal more than half a loaf.
The noble Lord referred to an opinion that he has obtained through Age Concern about the implications of the European Convention on Human Rights. That opinion is quite far reaching because it suggests that the Government do not have the option of doing nothing. If they do not take action in response to parliamentary pressure—as any responsible government should—they will find that they are forced to do so by international judicial action.
The first point of the opinion is that the entitlement to SERPS constitutes possession within the meaning of Article 1 of the first protocol. I do not think that Ministers are in a position to object to that because the European Commission has already ruled on the matter in another case.
The second question is whether the entitlement to the spouse could be seen as a possession of the contributor. We should note that that concept of possession arises from the contributory principle: an entitlement exists because contributions have been made. The Commission of the European Court of Human Rights has also ruled that, because contributions have been made, an entitlement to the spouse as well as to the contributor arises.
182
The only further question that must be decided is whether the change has a legal basis and has been made sufficiently accessible. We are in no doubt that the change has a legal basis: it is definitely intra vires for an Act of Parliament to do what this legislation will do. However, it is equally clear that the change has not been made sufficiently accessible. I cannot imagine that any Minister—least of all one who pays attention to evidence, and this Minister is famous for that—could possibly be in a position to deny that. If the change has not been made sufficiently accessible, compensation is payable.
The rule is a good one: settle now or pay later. I hope that the Minister will choose the first option.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Like Amendment No. 73A, which we discussed a week ago, these amendments relate to the provisions for reducing the value of inherited SERPS. We discussed this matter fully towards the end of the last Committee day, and the amendments were grouped originally because they deal with the same issue. However, your Lordships have chosen to ungroup the amendments, so I hope that I will be forgiven if, as a result, I say the same thing three times. The situation has not advanced since the previous Committee day and the last amendment that we discussed on that occasion. I must admit that I think most of the speeches made today were virtually the same as those delivered on the previous occasion. So I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I cannot advance the argument much further.
Earl Russell: I hope that the Minister will exempt me from that comment. I relied in my speech on an opinion that I had not even read the last time that we discussed this matter.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As always, I am happy to extend an exemption to the noble Lord.
The intention of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is to phase in the reduction over a period of time. His formula is complex and is intended to compensate fully those who paid employee contributions between 1978 and 1986 and to compensate partially those who paid contributions from 1986 onwards.
All noble Lords—including the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—accept that the changes to inherited SERPS were not handled well. The Government and I are certainly aware that many people are very concerned—and rightly so—about the reduction and the misleading information that some have received. We are considering that issue very seriously. However, as I said when we discussed the previous amendment, the costs of either delaying or phasing in the change are substantial and could run into many billions of pounds. To reverse the change or to introduce an open ended compensation scheme would have the same early effect, but would entail a bill for expenditure in the future that would continue to increase. We are considering the matter. We shall make an announcement in due course.

183
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, raised the point in relation to the nature of the legal advice he took—a point extended by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—and asked whether I was in a position to comment further on what I said in regard to the previous amendment. There is a strong argument that spouses' pensions are not possessions under Article 1 because they are based on contributions paid by another person. In addition, Article 1 gives governments the right to reassess needs in the light of changing social policy. On that argument, the reduction in SERPS strikes the necessary balance between the rights of spouses and the broader public interest. We are therefore acting in accordance with our legal obligations under the convention.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised a question relating to officials. As he knows, this Government, perfectly properly, do not have access to the papers of a previous government. Therefore, we simply cannot tell what happened. He and his previous fellow incumbents—perhaps his noble friend Lord Lamont—may be able to help with regard to what was happening at the time if they have access to their private papers. The ombudsman may be able to obtain access to those papers, in which case the situation will be brought to light and that will be helpful. We cannot tell what happened, as the noble Lord well knows; but the ombudsman may be able to do so.
Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that all governments were equally to blame for this situation. I refuse to accept that. I am not trying to deal with this in a partisan way, but there is a difference between a government who introduced a measure and therefore in my view have a moral responsibility for diffusing correct information about it—and to do so for the following 10 years—and a government who inherited the situation and are trying to address it.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps I can clarify the issue. I did not attempt to apportion shares of responsibility. I said that we are all responsible to the extent of our opportunities.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In that sense, that would by definition he true of any situation in which anyone was placed. There is always truth in tautology and we heard that one today.
I should like to he more helpful to the Committee because the Committee knows that I like to share information as and when I have it. But I cannot advance beyond the situation in the previous amendment. It is an extremely complicated matter. We do not have all the information to which the ombudsman may have access. The financial implications are huge. We are considering the position and as soon as I am able to give the Committee any more guidance, I shall be happy to do so.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister sits down, does she recognise that my amendment provides for the Secretary of State to introduce regulations which can be reflected after the ombudsman makes his findings clear? There is no compulsion in the amendment with regard to the
184
amount of compensation, when it should be paid and so forth; it simply follows the fact that in another place it has been clearly stated on several occasions that compensation is to be paid. Amendment No. 91A gives the Secretary of State the right to pay that compensation by affirmative resolution, but the amount of the compensation can be decided at some time after the ombudsman's findings or after—although one hopes that it does not go so far because it would cause many years' delay—the decision of the Court of Human Rights.
Does not the Minister recognise that the amendment is a helping hand rather than imposing a demand upon the Government and the Secretary of State to provide X amount of compensation for X number of people?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is seeking to be helpful in this respect. If the Secretary of State decides that the appropriate way forward is compensation, I do not doubt that he will have to follow the path outlined by the noble Lord. He is absolutely right. There may be other ways of dealing with compensation but a not-unacceptable or unusual one would be to lay regulations which would allow the Secretary of State just the freedom for interpretation in the action the noble Lord describes. But there are perhaps other ways of dealing with this.
Other Members of the Committee suggested deferring the introduction of the change. So until we know what the Government believe to be the right way forward, balancing fairness to those who have been hurt by this change with the wider considerations of the finite budget and other equally pressing needs, then and only then will the Secretary of State know whether he wishes to follow the path suggested by the noble Lord or a different one.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister sits down perhaps I may ask a further question. Can she clarify the statement made in another place by the Minister, Stephen Timms, that compensation will probably he payable to those who make telephone calls to the Benefits Agency? Clearly if that is so, it will take many years to unravel who did and who did not make phone calls; how it will be proved and so forth. A number of people have been in correspondence with the Benefits Agency, but many thousands, of whom I am one, conducted their inquiries through the telephone.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord is correct, but it is even more complicated. A person may simply have made an inquiry at the counter and no record was kept; that might be considered to be appropriate evidence. I cannot help the Committee any further on this until the Government determine what path, if any, they propose to take in response to this situation. Then, as soon as I can, I shall share that information with the Committee and it will no doubt be open for debate. But we are not there yet.
Lord Higgins: That is a rather strange statement. Of course until the Government decide what to do we

185
cannot move forward, but we are seeking to urge the Government to make such a decision; otherwise the argument becomes completely circular.
We cannot accept what the noble Baroness said about the grouping of the amendments. It is true that the same issue underlies all three, but each one deals with the problem in a completely different way. My amendment merely sought to urge the Government to make a decision and imposed a sanction if they did not. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, would cost an uncertain amount; the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to which we shall come shortly, would probably cost around £5.5 billion. Therefore, it is strange to say that they are all the same amendment.
Perhaps I may pursue the point made with regard to officials. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that there is a problem in looking back at the papers of the previous government. The absolutely watertight convention is that one government do not look at their predecessor's papers. That is right. We therefore have a problem in finding out what was happening in 1986 or thereabouts. I hope that the ombudsman can illuminate that matter.
It is also the case that, under the present Government, officials continued, right up to April, to misinform people. While Ministers are accountable, there is also a responsibility on them—as the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee made clear and it is now accepted doctrine—to look into the matter and assure Members of the Committee that appropriate action has been taken in relation to the individuals concerned. That does not necessarily mean producing the individuals in the light of day, but at least reassuring us; that something has been done; otherwise the kind of inaction which took place under both governments is unlikely to be corrected.
In one sense the noble Baroness helpfully spelt out the Government's attitude to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in relation to the legal arguments. Whether one view or the other is correct remains to be seen. But she did not deal with the question, when the legal issue originally arose, of the position with regard to the misinformation. Having taken legal advice, do the Government now take the view that they do or do not have a legal liability with regard to the individuals who, as a result of being misinformed, did not take action which they would otherwise have taken and who suffered as a result? One must press the Government. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rix, we have tried to be helpful as regards individuals who do not know where they stand. Time is running out. As the noble Earl has pointed out, the longer the matter is unresolved the less chance there is for people to make adjustments.
Given the very clear undertaking in another place by the Minister of State that the Government will ensure that those who have been misinformed do not suffer, we should at least have some idea what form of compensation they have in mind. So far we have had no indication at all other than the Government saying that they cannot say what the answer will be until they have made a decision. We need to have a decision now and not a policy of procrastination.
4 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I listened attentively to what the Minister had to say hoping that the rumour that she was about to announce some substantial concession was true. But obviously it is not because all we have been given is an undated promissory note. The ombudsman is to report, but when? Surely the Minister knows.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not know.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: The Minister does not know. Is there no time limit set to the ombudsman's deliberations?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My noble friend has much greater experience than I have. She knows that the ombudsman is independent of the Government and determines his own timetable.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Yes, of course. But is it going to be this year, next year, some time or never that we shall get a report that will compel the Government to make some compensatory payments to these people? The Government have a very serious share of the liability. I was thinking over how we introduced the widows' pension provision way back in the 1974 government. We did that by analysing the causes of poverty and seeking to deal with them. We found that one of the main causes was a breadwinner on a low income with a large family and hence child benefit. I congratulate the Government in not having had second thoughts about that. We found that the other great pocket of poverty existed among elderly widows. So we devised the most generous provision for widows yet known in our social security system. As we all know, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, reversed that. Mr. Tony Blair's Government was in no hurry to repudiate this total change of Labour policy because he believed in it. That is the truth. That is why the Government were not anxious to publicise the change of what had been Labour's traditional policy. We had a government who said that they were going to be a caring government and do this or that, but they failed for a substantial period of time to rectify the lack of information which the predecessor government had provided. So the Government have a liability at the very least to compensate those who, as many people have pointed out, are astonished to find that widows will be inadequately provided for.
As usual, the Minister said that it would cost billions. If so, does that not mean that they are robbing the widows of billions? Is not that the simple fact? If an error has been made, who should pay for it? Should it be the people who in good faith continued to believe that widows would get the whole of their SERPS pension entitlement? In my view the very size of the bill puts a greater moral responsibility on the Government to compensate and make some adjustment. I am deeply concerned today that we are going away very shortly for

187
the Summer Recess with no indication as to when the country will know what the Government are going to do to lift this shadow from the lives of so many people.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn, has hit the nail on the head. I do not know whether the Minister is a reader of David Lodge's book Changing Places. If so, she will remember the character Howard Ringbaum who could not resist winning even to his own great detriment. I hope that when the Minister finds defects in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, she will bear that danger in mind. She has the choice here between an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Rix, which is cheap but technically difficult and an amendment from me which is workable but clearly expensive. If I were the Minister I would not try to be too persuasive about the difficulties of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
Lord Davies of Coity: I, too, have listened very attentively to this debate. I have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the objective he seeks to achieve. I have spoken on this matter on occasions in the past. But listening to the debate today I find some measure of inconsistency in the question of us all being responsible for doing something about the problem. We have to recognise that only the Government have the responsibility of finding £5 billion in order to deal with the difficulty in full.
As regards the apportionment and criticism that have been levelled, we have to understand that this legislation was introduced in 1986 in both Houses of Parliament and passed. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has demonstrated, that was 14 years ago and twelve of those years passed when the previous government were in power. This Government have been in power for only two years. I suggest that placing blame on this Government for the lack of information or misinformation is a fragile straw to cling to. Quite frankly, even if people were informed as they should have been 14 years ago, many of them would not have made alternative arrangements when they knew SERPS was to be reduced.
We ought to keep a balance. We have the ombudsman and a Labour Government who are extremely sympathetic to the people who will be adversely affected by the present situation. That is sufficient at this stage rather than trying to impose on the Government the enormous burden of a matter which they did not introduce.
Lord Rix: I said in my introductory speech that the Government have chosen to drink from this poisoned chalice. They had the option two years ago to reverse the 1986 legislation or at least make sure that information was being disseminated from the Benefits Agency. Therefore, whatever they have said about the length of time which has elapsed since 1986 when it was the fault of the Conservative government, and now appears to be that of a Labour Government who have taken up the same baton and are running with it, I do
188
not believe that that is an argument against the fact that the government of the day have a duty to put right what was obviously wrong in 1986. I would have thought that any government with moral fibre, background and constitution would do that as a matter of course.
I have two questions for the Minister to add to those put by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. There appears to be some delay. As the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, said, we may have to wait for sometime, never, for the ombudsman to respond. Can the Minister say whether some words of comfort can drip from this Government's publicity machine before 5th April 2000? After that date potential and putative widows are extremely worried as to what will happen from that date onwards.
Could not a letter be forthcoming from the Benefits Agency apologising for the enormous damage which it has caused, and pointing out the detrimental effects that its incorrect information has had on many people, both husbands and wives? Could not such a letter also carry some crumbs of comfort that the Minister of State in another place has said that compensation will be paid to those who are due to be compensated? That would at least be something to hold the fort, as it were, before 5th April next year; otherwise, if the ombudsman has not reported and the matter is referred to the European Court of Human Rights—which could take another five years—what will happen then? Indeed, many widows will be walking around with furrowed brows. Can the Minister possibly answer those questions?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am very sorry, but I cannot take Members of the Committee very much further than what was said on the last amendment, which was debated on the previous Committee day. I know that noble Lords are pressing the matter with three separate amendments, which happened to fall due for debate on two different days, but I am afraid that I am being asked to give information that is not available and to answer questions that I cannot answer because I do not have the relevant information. Indeed, in the course of the process, we have not yet made our final determinations.
In response to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I should remind the Committee that no one has yet suffered any financial loss as a result of these changes because they do not take effect until April 2000. The noble Lord is absolutely right to say that the Government must have their position and their response clear by that time. We said this not only on the last Committee day but also during Question Time in this Chamber; indeed, we have made that clear.
The Government have also made it clear on several occasions that they would consider claims for compensation from individuals who have received incorrect information, which has either subsequently acted to their detriment or failed to act to their benefit. I am sure that all noble Lords accept just how complicated the evidence in that respect will turn out to be. The other option available to the Government is some possible staged deferral. However, we have not yet determined what our response should be. We do not know where the problems originated because we do not have access to the previous government's

189
paperwork. Clearly a Statement will be made before April 2000, and I am very happy to give the noble Lord that reassurance. I hope that it will be helpful.
I wish that I could take Members of the Committee further, but we could continue such discussions for a few more hours and all I would be able to stand up and say is, "I cannot take noble Lords any further". When I have information that I can bring to the House, I shall be delighted to do so. As my noble friend rightly said, many widows or widowers have obviously made provision on a misunderstanding of what the situation would be. In so far as that has caused them stress or potential financial detriment, it is not a situation that we would wish them to be in. The Government will do their best under the circumstances, while balancing the pressures that we face. As soon as I can give noble Lords any further information, as I said, I shall be very happy to do so. With that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rix: Obviously I had hoped that the Minister would assure us that at least the Benefits Agency would send out a letter to people who are likely to suffer under this SERPS arrangements at present. Clearly, SERPS is being widely reported in the media and, judging by the letters which I have received—certainly by the thousands of letters which Age Concern has received—many people are extremely worried at this moment. They would like some assurance that due attention is being paid to the situation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall obviously take note of the noble Lord's suggestion and consider it. I do not know whether the noble Lord is inviting us to write to everyone in this respect, including those who know about it or are unaffected by it; or, indeed, those who have never been given any misleading evidence. However, I shall read Hansard carefully and consider what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Rix: I thank the Minister. Leaflets have been incorrectly printed over the years and have been sent out in their tens of thousands—indeed, probably millions—from the Benefits Agency. I am merely asking for a round robin letter to all those who are likely to be in receipt of SERPS, stating the present position and, possibly, the future position. That might clear many people's minds before 5th April—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should point out to the noble Lord that there is no way that the Government could send out a letter stating a future position which has not yet been decided. However, I take the noble Lord's point that there is concern in this respect. Obviously, the Government will seek to ascertain whether there is any way in which we can allay the concern between now and the point at which we can bring our proposals to this and the other place.
Lord Rix: I am very happy with that assurance. I had contemplated seeking a Division on this amendment. However, in view of the possibilities of complicating any judicial findings or later findings of the ombudsman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 91B not moved.]
[Amendment No. 92 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 92A not moved.]
Clause 51 agreed to.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 92B:
After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill

  RETIREMENT PENSION OF NON-RESIDENTS
  ("(1) After subsection (1) of section 113 of the Contributions and Benefits Act there shall be inserted—
  "(1A) Subsection (1) shall not disqualify a person absent from Great Britain from receiving a retirement pension under Part II of this Act."
  (2) At the end of section 119 of the Contributions and Benefits Act there shall be added—
  "(2) No order made under this section may provide for any uprating under section 150 of the Administration Act of retirement pensions under Part II of this Act to be excluded or reduced by reason of the absence from Great Britain of the person entitled to the pension."").
  The noble Earl said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Goodhart, who is attending the freedom of information committee, I rise to move this amendment. The proposed new clause deals with the situation of pensioners who have moved abroad, most commonly to Australia, Canada and other countries, and whose pensions are no longer uprated once they have left this country. Therefore, they become nugatory very quickly. Clearly in such cases this leads to fairly considerable hardship and, obviously, there is very strong feeling on the matter. I believe that the matter has been debated in this Chamber on and off many times during the past 11 years—indeed, that is all the time that I have been here—and, I imagine, for a good deal longer.
  Of course, governments always respond with the question of cost. It is quite right that they should do so because it is significant. However, the key principle here is reciprocity. Obviously no country wants to be responsible both for its own pensioners living abroad and also for other countries' pensioners who are living within its territories. Moreover, it is a good thing that everyone drawing a pension should have someone who is responsible for uprating it. If that is not the case, the pension very rapidly becomes so small that it is really not of very much use. That, in turn, tends to become a charge on means-tested benefits in the host country. Therefore, if people do not accept the principle of reciprocity, we will have a situation of "beggar my neighbour" out of which everyone loses.
  It is my understanding that the Government of Australia do accept responsibility for uprating the pensions of Australian pensioners who live in this country. I believe that the Government ought to follow the principle of reciprocity. If it takes time, they should undertake a certain amount of negotiation; but they should not simply leave the matter as it is. The Minister may remember that, under present law, a good many of

  191
  these people have votes in this country and they may well cast them. I hope that that will concentrate the Minister's mind wonderfully. I beg to move.
  Lord Higgins: Debates on this subject certainly go back a great deal longer than 11 years; indeed, I would hesitate to say quite how long they go back—probably almost as long as the national insurance pension has been in existence. This amendment was drawn to my attention by Mr Paul Lewis who was writing an article for the Weekly Telegraph. He asked me whether I had noticed any amendments on this matter. I said that I would consider any amendments which were tabled. He reported the matter fairly in the article on 6th July 1999. Alas, all journalists are victims of their sub-editors' decisions and I do not believe that the headlines which were attached to the article reflected the views in the article. None the less, I have said that I shall consider this matter. I think we are agreed that this matter has caused considerable concern over the years. We should consider the principles involved.
  We have to consider the exact nature of the national insurance pension, as we have done on a number of occasions on this Bill. I think we are all agreed that it is based on the contributory principle; that is to say, in exchange for making contributions one receives some benefits, in this case the national insurance pension. However, I believe that it is also broadly accepted—certainly if the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, were here, he would stress this point—that it is not an insurance scheme and that the system is not funded. In reality, almost the moment Beveridge introduced the scheme there was a degree of inflation and although part of the pension was covered by contributions, it certainly was not the case that all of it was covered by contributions. It was largely made up by the taxpayer. Historically, that is probably the reason that the then government—and indeed all successive governments—have taken the view that they ought not to uprate those pensions which are drawn overseas in the same way as they uprate pensions at home for the reason that the difference between what was covered by contributions and what was not—certainly the vast bulk of it now is not covered by contributions—was paid by the taxpayer, and the people overseas were no longer paying tax into the general pool out of which the pension was financed.
  The other reason was that rates of inflation, to which the uprating is related—if there is no inflation, there is no uprating—differed considerably between the country of origin, the United Kingdom, and wherever individuals migrated to. There are sound reasons of principle here although I understand that the position has been modified in some cases with regard to reciprocity. I hope that the Minister can clarify that position. I believe that reciprocity applies in some countries but not in others.
  I hope that I have not misrepresented the article. I have received no formal representations about amendments but I have received a number of letters from people overseas, most of whom stressed the role which they played in the war before they emigrated. Presumably, therefore, they are stressing their military rather than other pensions. I do not know what the position is with regard to uprating
  192
  military pensions. The noble Earl is right to raise this matter and no doubt the Minister can spell out exactly what the position is. However, despite the remarks which the noble Earl made about voting, I think that people might be rather surprised if I did an immediate U-turn on this issue because of that point. This is a difficult matter and many people who have gone overseas nevertheless retain a great feeling of loyalty to this country and may have fought in its defence. They therefore feel that this issue should be tackled. As I say, no doubt the Government can spell out the position.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was trying to encourage my noble friend to join this debate but I was not successful.
  This new clause has a single and familiar purpose; namely, to attempt to redress the situation where more than half of all UK pensioners living overseas do not receive annual cost-of-living increases in their retirement pensions. I am aware of the importance that some Members of the Committee and pensioners abroad attach to this issue. In return I believe that noble Lords know this Government's position. It is not dissimilar to the position of the previous government and therefore I do not think my response will surprise the Committee.
  UK pensions are paid anywhere in the world and we pay some 840,000 pensioners in more than 150 countries. About half of those—some 450,000 of those pensioners—have what is commonly referred to as a "frozen" pension. That means that the pension remains fixed at the rate payable when a person ceases to live permanently in the UK, or at the rate initially awarded on retirement if a person is already resident abroad.
  Upratings are paid only within the European economic area (EEA), in the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and in about a dozen other countries where certain long-standing—I think mostly pre-1970—social security agreements exist. The policy on pensions abroad has been followed by successive governments ever since retirement pensions and widows' pensions became payable worldwide in 1955. We have made clear—as did the previous government—that changing this policy would not be a priority call on scarce resources. The Social Security Select Committee came to the same conclusion in 1996 when it considered the matter.
  We also know that the total likely cost of uprating would be something like £275 million a year for all those affected countries. We do not think that it is a priority call on resources. I am afraid that we do not therefore propose to unfreeze those UK pensions paid abroad.
  Earl Russell: I presume that figure of £275 million is a gross cost. I presume it does not include any saving to means-tested benefits arising from reciprocal uprating by other countries. Were we to include that figure, I imagine that it would be extremely different. I do not expect the Minister to enlighten me—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I can give the noble Earl the figures he wants, but the problem (particularly as regards Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada) is the disproportionality between the number of UK pensioners living there as opposed to the number of

  193
  their pensioners living here. The figures are approximate which is why I think the noble Earl's argument is not valid. According to my latest information, we have something like 205,000 UK pensioners receiving the frozen rate pension in Australia, but only about 17,000 former Australian residents—some of whom may be ex-British servicemen—live in this country under the current arrangements. There is that degree of disproportionality and I understand that it is even wider in South Africa and some other countries. Therefore, although there may be a reciprocal arrangement, that does not necessarily mean that there is equity in payment and that therefore there can be an offsetting with regard to income-related benefits.
  Earl Russell: I not only thank the Minister for that answer, I congratulate her on having it at her fingertips. I find that impressive. I accept the point she makes; its justice is, of course, obvious. However, the fact that the netting effect is smaller than perhaps I might have hoped does not mean that that effect is not there. I accept that it is extraordinarily difficult to get a genuine net cost. But were one able to do it, that would be the figure for cost.
  Of course I understand the point about scarce resources. But I also understand that it does not improve the reputation of politics as a whole—here I make no party point whatever because it applies to all of us—that we so often see a real mischief and simply do nothing about it. I do not know whether any noble Lords here read Matthew Parris's column about a week ago on Wormwood Scrubs. It dwelt on precisely this point; namely, how discouraging it is that people saw the mischief but did not really feel the impulse to do something about it, and so it continues. It is an old impulse. There is a case in 1628, to which I have referred before, when it was reported that troops who were unpaid were in danger of mutinying. The Lord Lieutenant said that there was no danger of mutiny as the troops were too naked to be seen marching in public. It is a great deal too easy for us to look at something like this and simply say, "Oh dear, it is awfully difficult". Of course it is extremely difficult, but if we want the trust of the people who elect us—and we all do—then we cannot leave too many of these issues unresolved. I hope that the Government will at least give some attention to addressing this problem on an international basis, with reciprocal agreements, possibly bilaterally with each country in turn. It would redress a mischief and it would do something to restore trust in politics. That needs to be done. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 92C not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 92D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Clause 52 [Claim or full entitlement to certain benefits conditional on work-focused interview]:
  Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 92E:
  Page 59, line 9, at beginning insert ("Subject to commission and publication of research into the actions and income of those disentitled to benefit,")
  The noble Earl said: In rising to move Amendment No. 92E I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 108A, 162A, 163A and 164 which stand in my name.
  We come now to the single gateway, the interviews which people are to have before being admitted to benefit. It is my understanding that if they do not have those interviews they simply do not get any benefit. I should be glad if that issue could be clarified because the press material on it has not been entirely consistent. I should hope to hear that there will be a loss of benefits for not attending the interview according to the words of the Labour Party manifesto and not according to the wording of the Prime Minister's speech in Amsterdam of February 1997. I should be very glad to hear that.
  We have some fairly big questions arising out of the single gateway and some fairly technical questions that follow on behind. The big questions are about the nature of entitlement to benefit: how far the obligation is—as Mr Frank Field has been suggesting for some time—a contractual one and how far it is an entitlement arising from the state's duty to protect the population of the country. Is it an absolute entitlement or a conditional one? If conditional, how severe are the conditions that may be imposed?
  We on these Benches have discussed the matter at considerable length. We hold the view as a party that it is not right for people to set out to draw benefit simply for doing nothing. At the same time we also hold the view both that total disentitlement is liable to have quite severe and possibly, in some cases, disproportionate effects, and that disentitlement is something which should be done with extreme caution, especially with numerous categories of vulnerable people. The purpose of the amendments is to put a string of conditions on the use of the disentitlement under the single gateway.
  Amendment No. 92E seeks to insert a commencement clause—a condition precedent, as it is called; something which must happen before the disentitlement comes into force; namely, the commission and publication of research into the actions and incomes of those disentitled to benefit. I will come back to that in a moment.
  Amendment No. 108A is a fairly straightforward provision of hardship allowance. I do not think that it needs too much explanation. Amendment No. 164 comes to the purpose of Amendment No. 92E by a different route. It requires a series of pilot studies of the effect of disentitlement to benefit; those studies to be commissioned and reported before the commencement clause comes into force. Amendment Nos. 162A and 163A are the new commencement clauses which are consequent upon these amendments. So we have two separate routes of pursuing the same objective.
  The question of what happens to people disentitled to benefit is crucial to any cost-benefit analysis of how far disentitlement to benefit should go. The Minister knows that I have pressed her on this matter frequently. Research has only recently become available. The Demos report Destination Unknown deals with the very large number of people who are not entitled to benefit, not in education, not in training and not in employment. Most unwisely, I picked up the wrong pile of notes when I came in this morning, having been in the Chamber until one o'clock last night, so I do not have

  195
  the exact figures with me. But among 16 and 17 year-olds the figure was, I think, 65,000; and for 18 to 24 year-olds I think it was a six-figure figure.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It was 161,000.
  Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister. It was 161,000, so my recollection was at least ball-park accurate.
  That is quite a lot of people. The report has done a certain amount of work on their housing; it has done none whatever on their source of income or visible means of support. The majority of these people are not dead; clearly they must be making a living out of something. It is material to assessing the effect of what we are doing to know whether these people are sponging on friends; whether they are begging in the Strand; whether they are, as some people do, pushing drugs in order to make a living out of that; whether they are selling their bodies; whether they are taking part in crime. Among 16 and 17 year olds disentitled to benefits in South Glamorgan, the word "shopping" normally means "shoplifting". I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, once reproving me for being "shockingly cynical" simply for quoting that factual observation. But if that is their situation, that is their situation. Shoplifting concerns not only them but adds on average 1 per cent to supermarket prices. So if we do not all pay for it one way, we all pay for it another. That is a principle which applies to a great deal of legislation.
  I have no idea of the respective scale of these various ways of coping with disentitlement. I do not know very much—I hope the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, with his Centrepoint experience, may tell us a little more—about what happens to disentitled people in the way of houses. The CHAR report on youth homelessness was not particularly encouraging in that respect.
  There is substance in the point made by the Demos report that if people are marginalised, especially in youth, it takes them a very long time to work their way back again; the disadvantage lasts all the way through life. There is a possibility that apart from any hardship—to which we should not be indifferent—there may be a severe loss to the Exchequer.
  The Department of Social Security has always said with some pride that it monitors the effects of all its policies. In general it lives up to that claim. However, on the effects of disentitlement, I do not understand how the Department of Social Security can monitor the effects of its policies if it does not know what those effects are. That is the central thrust of the amendment.
  I admit that the methodology of the necessary research will be extremely difficult. However, if we look at some privately commissioned research—the South Glamorgan TEC study; or the Nottingham young people's benefit campaign report; or some of the studies published by the Bridge project in the University of Edinburgh; or the MORI report on 16 and 17 year olds published in 1991 by the DSS—the methodological difficulties can to an extent be overcome. Before we go
  196
  ahead with a measure like this it would be a good idea to try. We really should know what we are doing when we do something like this. I beg to move.
  Baroness Buscombe: I have considerable sympathy with this group of amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. In principle, the single work-focused gateway is welcome. It builds on the principle behind the jobseeker's allowance, which we instituted when in government. However, with the Government's present proposals, there remains a huge question mark over whether in practice they will achieve what they set out to do.
  This group of amendments in essence asks the Government to hold back this Bill, pending an opportunity to discuss and review the pilot schemes. Will they be a success or a failure? Can we really assess within the time-frame the degree of success, or otherwise, of these pilot schemes? How will they work, particularly for the disabled, who will need an enormous amount of support and reassurance in order to cope? How will the training of personal advisers develop over the long term and how will the Government realistically resource people who are suited to this level of responsibility as personal advisers in sufficient numbers for the long term?
  On these Benches we believe that we should all have the opportunity to discuss and debate the results of the pilot schemes before the "one" process, which is now referred to, is fully implemented for the long term. If we do not properly analyse where this process is going and how the pilot schemes are working, we believe that the Government will run into serious difficulties for the long term, in the same way as they are now finding themselves in difficulties with the New Deal for lone parents. In that regard, after two years the New Deal for lone parents still has a success rate of only one in 10. Each job created by the scheme costs nearly £15,000.
  This clearly shows that at present the Government's Welfare to Work programme is simply not working. Although compelling people to attend interviews is welcome to some degree, it will not be the "magic bullet" that Ministers pretend. These amendments also deal with what lies on the other side of the single work-focused gateway. What happens if claimants fail to attend an interview? Is an interview all that is required before settling back into the benefits system, for some, for the long term? What happens to those who fail to turn up and have their benefits reduced? And reduced by whom and by how much?
  As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has said, there are a number of questions and technical points which need to be addressed. Do those who do not turn up or remain outside the system end up on the street? Is that the Government's intention? We think not—in which case it makes sense now to pull back and reconsider while the pilot schemes are under way. We are now reading in the press references to a wish and a will on the part

  197
  of some members of this Government to now—and I quote from the Independent of 5th July 1999,
  "undertake a wholesale review of welfare",
  with a pledge from Mr Robin Cook to "look again", for example, at the way in which disabled people would be interviewed at job centres. If that is the case, we welcome it, although we question why the Government have gone this far if they are still so uncertain about the sensitivity and the fairness of the single gateway process. Perhaps after considering for 18 years in opposition how they might change our welfare system, they now feel under pressure after two years in government to move ahead without enough consideration of the likely consequences.
  We ask the Government to think again about these processes. Indeed, I shall be returning to some of these points, and others, in connection with later amendments. We urge the Government to proceed cautiously and to listen carefully to the arguments that are being put forward, both as regards further clarification of the process and for making proper allowances, in particular for the disabled, at every stage of the process.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Davies of Coity: This is a Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, and that, of course, requires reform of welfare. The cornerstone of the Labour Government is to take people off welfare and into work. I see this interview process as supporting that. People will be interviewed and will be given some opportunities of finding jobs which previously seemed out of reach. It is a question of providing them with choices—not threats—and with opportunities. Of course, it is a not a golden bullet and the Bill will not be a magic wand, but it is a start to taking people away from dependency into independence and finding them jobs.
  There are lots of disabled people out there who are currently claiming benefit and who would like to work. Opportunities are not available to them. If the interviewing system will provide them with opportunities they never thought they would have, that has got to be good. Lone parents and single parents, mainly women, would like to have a job but they cannot find work which also enables them to cater for then-home responsibilities. This interview process will give them that opportunity and there is no suggestion here that, if you do not get a job arising out of the interview, you will lose benefit. There may be some related discipline as regards taking the interview and putting some of your benefit at risk, but that is only for the purpose of the interview. It seems to me right and proper, if we are to get people off dependency on welfare and into work, that every opportunity is explored. That has to be a very good thing.
  Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: Like my noble friend Lady Buscombe, I welcome the principle of the single gateway. On this occasion I shall confine myself to speaking in support of Amendment No. 164, which was the last of the batch of the amendments to which the noble Earl spoke.
  198
  Its effect is to ensure that the new gateway interview pilot schemes are fully and properly assessed before the regulations are finalised. I commend the Government for taking part in pilot schemes. It is always a brave government who do such things. When I was a member of the Social Security Advisory Committee, I was always pressing some of my colleagues to take part in pilot schemes and was very relieved when they did so. I am also aware that people like me, who press governments to take part in pilot schemes, often then go one step further and make a government's life difficult by saying, "But now we want to see the results of the scheme". That is precisely what I intend to do today.
  The pilot schemes are intended to last for three years. We were told that in June, last month, four were to be launched. I wonder whether the noble Baroness the Minister can tell us whether they were launched and, if so, in which particular areas, so that we know which types of claimant are benefiting from those schemes. Have we any news of them so far? Of course, after such a short time progress is bound to be limited, but I am aware of the diligence with which the Department of Social Security monitors pilot schemes. The call centre and the private voluntary sector pilots, we were told, will be launched in November 1999. Can the Minister confirm that is still the target date?
  The Royal National Institute for the Deaf is asking why the Government are rushing into national implementation as early as April next year. At that stage it thinks that we will have only preliminary findings on the basic model pilots. The initial findings of the call centre and the private voluntary sector pilots will not be available until next summer, and the final evaluation reports on all the pilots naturally cannot be published until 2002. In that interval one is aware that the Government are pressing ahead with more than one model of single gateway system, so that different people will be subject to different methods of interview. In some areas, it will be the generalist adviser model, despite at the same time running pilots with dedicated personal advisers for lone parents and disabled people.
  Will the Government consider accepting the RNID recommendation that the national implementation of the single gateway should be delayed until the Government have been able properly to evaluate whether the specialist or the generalist personal adviser model is the more effective?
  Lord Haskel: I was rather worried that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, expressed concern about the value of interviews. Interviews have been standard practice in the private sector for many years. It is the way in which the private sector sets about empowering its people. Staff are interviewed regularly to find out what is necessary as regards training, prospects and people's needs. Over the years it has been found that, as a result, people perform much better and receive far better satisfaction from their work.
  I welcome the Government's attempt to introduce this practice into the public sector. The Government are trying to encourage people to move from welfare into work. This system is well tried in the private sector and over the years has been shown to work. There is no

  199
  reason to believe that it will not work in the public sector. I applaud it. It enables people to make informed decisions and has been highly successful. It is common practice in most well run companies in this country.
  Baroness Buscombe: We are not against the principle of interviewing. Indeed, in principle, we are supportive of the whole process. However, we are deeply concerned about the detail of this provision. We should be looking to see how the pilot schemes "pan out" before the scheme is fully implemented. That applies particularly to people who have multifarious problems, especially the disabled. As presently drafted, the Bill does not take account of those people. That is what we want to discuss in some detail.
  Lord Haskel: The disabled and those with particular problems are the very people who probably need the interviewing process most.
  Earl Russell: If I may save the Committee some time, what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has said for her Benches, I say for these Benches too. No objection is raised to the principle of the interview. The concerns about the practice will be addressed shortly by my noble friend Lord Addington. The amendment addresses our concern about what will happen to those who do not attend an interview. The amendments request no more than information. I hope that that clears the air a little.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is a helpful addition to the debate.
  The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the worrying loss of young people who are not in work, not in education or training, and not on benefit. He therefore suggested that given that they will, as he told the Committee, insist inconveniently on living, they will find their source of support elsewhere. The noble Earl also agrees—I am glad that he does—that people should not be entitled to draw benefit, in his words, simply for doing nothing. As my right honourable friend said in the other place, there comes a point with wilful non-compliance when people must take responsibility for their actions.
  I share the noble Earl's concern about such young people. We know the background that they are likely to come from. They are more likely to come from fractured homes, to be in care, and to have a school record of truanting. That suggests that if we are to rescue them, intervention has to occur at a much earlier stage than merely at the point of entitlement to benefit. That is one of the reasons why the Government are currently investing—I use the word advisedly—£540 million in the Sure Start programme, so that children do not start school ready to vote with their feet if they come from the kind of background I have described.
  As the noble Earl will be aware, Clause 52 deals with every group that may come before the Benefits Agency except young people; those come within JSA. In other words, it deals with those who are disabled, lone
  200
  parents, widows and the like. It does not deal with the young people to whom the noble Earl refers. The noble Baroness—
  Earl Russell: If the Minister will forgive me for intervening, I was drawing on evidence from young people simply because there is more available. The problems, the alternatives for those who have no benefit, are general.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was merely saying, in so far as this has become almost a clause stand part debate, that the clause does not affect young people who are JSA claimants; it affects the other groups.
  I welcome the thoughtful speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. It was an impressive debut on this subject. The noble Baroness referred to the New Deal for lone parents. I contest her figures. She mentioned a success rate of one in 10. That is not true. The scheme is voluntary; therefore, people do not have to reply to an invitation to attend for interview. But of those who do, 88 per cent—not one in 10—join the programme. Figures up to March 1999 indicate that some 12,700 jobs have been found by them as a result.
  This is a new programme. Inevitably, the costs are front-end loaded and therefore they will inevitably be high at the beginning. There will be a formal evaluation in autumn 1999 which will indicate the cost-benefit figures. By that stage we should have a more realistic assumption of the actual costs.
  The programme is a success. I know that, having met many of the lone parents and their advisers. As many have said to me time and again, the New Deal programme has turned their lives around. Without it, they and their children would have been much worse off.
  Many of the points I proposed to make were eloquently made by my noble friends Lord Davies of Coity and Lord Haskel. On the wider issue of interviews, I am glad that the notion of the interview as part of the process of first claiming benefit has been widely accepted by the Committee. This group of amendments seeks to delay the introduction of mandatory work-focused interviews or, I am afraid, to dilute their impact. Amendment No. 108A would ensure that a person who failed to take part in a mandatory interview would remain fully entitled to benefit if the impact of any penalty would cause the claimant or his or her family any hardship. Amendments Nos. 92E, 162A and 163A would delay the introduction until further research has been conducted on the action and income of those disentitled to benefit. Amendment No. 164 would delay introduction until the voluntary phase of the pilot schemes had been properly evaluated.
  Before turning to evaluation research, perhaps I may first deal with Amendment No. 108. I share the concerns that have been expressed about the impact of the provision, particularly on groups of disabled people. But, as my noble friends rightly said, this is not a threat; it is an opportunity. It is not about being forced into work or being disentitled to benefit; it is about providing people with the help that they need: possibly to help

  201
  them plan to return to work; to claim benefits that they may not know about; or, for example, to engage the support of organisations of which they may not be aware.
  Perhaps I may give one example. Research suggests that some 60 per cent of people who use the social security system, who are unemployed, disabled or whatever, believe that if they were to go to work they would lose their housing benefit, full stop. Therefore, they are not willing to risk going to work. However, that is not true. They will not lose their housing benefit. Their housing benefit will be adjusted accordingly. The opportunity of an interview during which some of those concerns can be explored and addressed is vitally important if we are to ensure that people know what are the opportunities for work; what benefits they are entitled to but are not currently claiming; and what support organisations, advice and help may be available to them. That is what we are doing.
  The regulations under Clause 52 would simply impose a requirement to participate in a work-focused interview. We do not believe that to be an onerous requirement. We are only asking people to participate in the interviews so that they will know what they hitherto possibly did not know.
  There will be sanctions for those who refuse to participate. But we believe that if they do not take part in the interview, they will not, so to speak, have signed up for their benefit. To avoid any penalty, a person who has refused to participate without good cause has only to change his behaviour to become entitled again—in other words, attend an interview. The provision is not about penalising people; it is about helping them. But we believe that the interview is the gateway through which they should pass in order to receive their benefits.
  I should like reassure Members of the Committee that we have put in place numerous mechanisms to protect the most vulnerable claimants. I do not doubt that they will be explored during our debates today. We believe that we have the mechanisms in place to ensure that everyone has an ample opportunity to participate, and to protect them if they have good reason not to do so.
  First, "one" service staff will be able to postpone the requirement to have an interview where it would be inappropriate to expect someone to have an immediate discussion about work with a personal adviser. The individual may be recovering from an operation or perhaps has recently had a child or been bereaved.
  Secondly, where a claimant is required to have a work-focused interview, it can take place in the claimant's home where that is more appropriate. If he or she wants to have an advocate at the meeting, that is perfectly acceptable. The claimant is entirely within his or her right in that regard.
  Thirdly, we shall not cut off benefits arbitrarily. Only after a third failure to attend and take part in an interview will benefit be withdrawn. Claimants will have clearly explained to them the consequences of failure to participate and they will be encouraged to take part.
  202
  Fourthly, there will be a comprehensive, and non-exhaustive, "good cause" provision to ensure that claimants are not penalised if there are reasonable grounds for failing to take part.
  Finally, where a decision is made that a claimant has not taken part in an interview, he or she will have the ability to appeal it under the new dispute resolution procedures introduced by the Social Security Act 1998. The claimant will also have a further right of appeal against the decision to an independent appeal tribunal. We believe that that balances rights and responsibilities.
  I deal next with Amendments Nos. 92E, 162A and 163A. These amendments seek to delay the introduction of compulsory interviews until further research has been conducted on the actions and incomes of those who are disentitled to benefit. The noble Earl made clear that he was talking primarily about young people because that was where there was the greatest evidence to that effect. I have a great deal of sympathy with the focus of the amendments on research and evaluation I agree that we must evaluate the pilots properly and take account of research before taking decisions about national roll-out. We want to provide the best possible service to claimants. For that reason, we shall see what works and the effect of our policies on the development of the service.
  We have already spent considerable sums on evaluating related policies and have published the research. I refer to statistics on the New Deal and research into the operation of JSA, which includes data on those who are disallowed, for, for example not meeting labour market conditions. The research was designed to provide a detailed understanding of the attitudes of disallowed and sanctioned people, their knowledge of the benefit rules, and the consequences of disallowance and sanctions. Some of that research, which I have read recently, shows that what clients particularly want is the opportunity to have face-to-face contact and better information about what is expected of them and to be talked through the implications of what happens if they do not follow a particular path. In the light of that research, that is precisely what we aim to provide through the "one" service. We hope that the first qualitative findings on non-compulsory pilots will be available by the summer of next year. Information on the compulsory pilots will come somewhat later. The quantitative findings from the compulsory schemes will be available from the summer of 2001.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked me where the schemes were taking place. We are starting with four basic model pilots in south-east Essex, Warwickshire, the Clyde coast and Renfrew and Lea Roding. Together, they involve some 147,000 people respectively. In November, we expect to enter into the two other kinds of scheme, one concerned with the private and voluntary sectors and the other with the call centres. They will deal with 164,000 people and 174,000 people. In that way, we can learn from the telephone responses and the involvement of the voluntary organisations in comparison with the basic model run by BA/ES and local authority staff. Those schemes started in late June. Therefore, we hope to have the qualitative findings by

  203
  the summer of next year. Given the number of people involved, reliable quantitative findings will not be available until the summer of 2001.
  I turn to Amendment No. 164. We are spending a substantial amount on the evaluation of the pilots which do not merely count the numbers who go in to work but look also at qualitative research. We shall follow it through carefully. I understand the concern of the noble Earl that failure to meet the entirely reasonable requirements as a condition of claiming benefit could lead to disentitlement, crime and social exclusion. However, we are placing numerous safeguards in place. We believe that the impact of penalties will be properly monitored during our evaluation of the "one" pilots. We are satisfied that the requirements of Clause 52 are reasonable. If, on the basis of the pilots, we believe that we should not go ahead with national roll-out, we shall not do so. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay said, that is the point of pilots. We want to see whether this works and whether we can get a loop of learning back into practice and process before any decision is made on how to go forward.
  At the core of it is our belief that for too long the benefits service has been a passive service in which people have not been given the opportunity to have the information they need to make informed choices, particularly if they are disabled, lone parents or have been widowed. We want to provide that information, and to that end we want them to attend interviews. As my noble friends have repeated, for disabled people and lone parents no action needs to be taken following that interview. The only requirement is to turn up at the interview itself. But we want to be sure that people know what the options are so that when they come to make choices, they are informed ones. We shall evaluate this matter both qualitatively and quantitatively under the "one" scheme. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  5 p.m.
  Earl Russell: This has worked as a Committee stage should. A Committee stage should be a negotiating process, and we have been doing that to very good purpose. Before I turn to the remarks of the Minister, many of which I found extremely helpful, I should like to refer to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Haskel. There is nothing in those speeches which is incompatible in any way with these amendments and, therefore, nothing on which I need take issue.
  We on these Benches do not in any sense object to the process of interviews or the idea that people should do something in return for benefits. We are concerned with what happens if they do not. Once one says that as a matter of moral principle they should attend these interviews when asked to do so, the decision as to what to do instead must depend to a large extent on assessing the consequences of any action that is taken.
  Lord Davies of Coity: It may be that the concept of an interview does not recognise the reality of the circumstances. People who claim benefit are involved in
  204
  an interview anyway and an assessment of their circumstances is made. They have to initiate the exercise by making a claim. It is not as if this process is a separate part of it. I believe asking what happens if people do not attend the interview makes too much of the reality of the circumstances.
  Earl Russell: I am grateful for that contribution which factually I believe to be extremely fair. But the fact remains that we are contemplating the possibility of a benefit penalty. The one matter on which I did not hear from the Minister—perhaps she can enlighten me—was with regard to an indication of the size of penalty.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is exactly as my noble friend expressed it so clearly. If someone fails to attend the interview as a result of which he or she will draw benefit, no benefit will be paid because the individual has not signed up for it, as it were. The interview is an integral part of the claim. If the individual has not claimed, he or she cannot get the benefit. However, if someone who is already drawing benefit fails to turn up at a trigger point or periodic interview, say, six months, two years or five years down the line, there will be a sanction. Drawing an analogy with the social security system, the sanction will be either 20 per cent or 40 per cent.
  Earl Russell: I am grateful for that helpful answer. One comes back to the problem of consequences. We have no objection to the requirement to attend the interview or to the idea that something should happen to the claimant if he does not turn up. However, as to what that "something" should be, I believe that we must take account of consequences. To assess those consequences we need information, which is what these amendments seek to achieve. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Buscombe and Lady Anelay of St. Johns, for their extremely thoughtful and interesting speeches. In particular, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her support for Amendment No. 164.
  We have a real question here. In order to decide what is the right thing to do, we should know the consequences. I do not see how we can know the consequences unless the research is done. If the research is not undertaken, it will be extremely difficult to decide the right thing to do. Inevitably some people will fail to attend the interviews. That may be because they are bloody minded (if the Committee will forgive the phrase).
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene. How does the noble Earl distinguish between that situation and one involving an individual who is theoretically entitled to a benefit that he does not claim? All we say is that if someone does not come for the interview, he is not claiming the benefit. That is his right. He may choose not to do that. If he does not know about the interview, it is our responsibility to make sure that he knows about it. The position is no different from the present situation

  205
  where someone is theoretically entitled to a benefit he does not claim. My noble friend rightly says that the interview is embedded in the claim process.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: Can the Minister clarify the provision in the Bill which refers to,
  "a requirement to take part in such an interview as a condition of that person continuing to be entitled to the full amount which is payable to him"?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If a new entrant to the benefits system seeks to claim a benefit, the interview is an integral part of that claiming process. It may well be that for decent reasons, at which we have hinted but may wish to probe further, that interview may need to be deferred on grounds of the individual' s health, sickness, disability, or his personal circumstances. If that person then fails to come for an interview in order to change from temporary to permanent benefit, that benefit will stop.
  Equally, if there is what we call a periodic call-hack—perhaps requiring a lone parent to come back when his or her youngest child is five or 11 and he or she fails to do so—the penalty sanctions there are analogous to the existing penalties in the social security system, which can be sanctions of 20 per cent or 40 per cent depending on the circumstances. That is being looked at.
  We seek to say that if a person does not attend for the original interview or we have deferred that interview for decent cause, then he has not established his claim to entitlement to the benefit; therefore the benefit does not flow.
  We keep talking about sanctions. If the noble Earl, Lord Russell, accepts the description offered by my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity, it should not be seen as an issue of sanctions. It is about giving people the opportunities for information, face-to-face contact, and the named personal adviser that lone parents, young people, and disabled people tell us, in the research undertaken, is missing from the current social security system and which they very much want to have. We are giving them the opportunity for that face-to-face help which will allow them to make informed choices about their work, benefits, the support they may need and how they see their future life. It allows people to regain control over their own lives; to re-own them. But they can do that only if they have the information on which to base it.
  I hope that we shall not view the issue as negative, as sanctions. It is positive. It is opportunity. It is quality service from which we hope people can again have autonomy over they own lives.
  5.15 p.m.
  Earl Russell: I think that the Minister is trying to entangle me in the problem of the St Lawrence/Mississippi watershed. From my use of that example, she may remember that that watershed is in ground so flat that any slope is invisible. Yet the rain that lands on one side of it goes into the Gulf of Mexico; and the rain that lands on the other side goes into the
  206
  North Atlantic. I accept that there is a very flat area in the middle here. But we are being given a new condition of entitlement to benefit; and the Bill spells that out.
  Also, the language of sanctions has been introduced by Members of the Government themselves. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has used that language, for example, when he spoke on "On the Record" a couple of weeks ago. The Prime Minister has used that language. If the language is inappropriate, the Ministers who have used it might be wise to say so. But if it is used, I am tempted to take it seriously.
  I wonder whether the difference may be in the letter which goes out to a person who has not attended an interview. In the past, in the course of an occasional campaign, such a person might have received a letter saying, "You are probably entitled to benefit". He might now receive a letter saying, "You have not met a condition of benefit".
  We are all familiar with small differences which cross a watershed. I think that this probably does. All I am asking for is information. I am still asking for information. However, I do not think that I shall get it today, so meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 93:
  Page 59, line 14, at end insert ("save where a person has a mental illness diagnosis")
  The noble Lord said: We now turn to the specifics of the rather general debate that we have had. Amendment No. 93 refers to,
  "a person [who] has a mental illness diagnosis".
  Amendment No. 94 refers to,
  "a person [who] has been an in-patient of a mental illness hospital within the previous three months".
  No matter how well the interview is conducted, it may put undue pressure on this group of people. The amendments do not address the question of trying to get the person to an interview, or how it should be conducted, but of whether that interview will extract the information to which the Minister referred.
  I think we can accept that properly conducted interviews can potentially do far more good than harm. However, these individuals may not be able to handle the concept of an interview. A severely depressed person who is worried about the fact that he cannot function as he should or used to do will regard an interview as a form of torture. If he regards it in that way, it does not matter what one does in the interview, one will not gain the correct information. Someone who is manic will give false information. He may say, "I can do everything. Wonderful—life's great". A manic depressive will go through those two cycles.
  That is why I suggest that these two exemptions should be included in the legislation, or that they should be provided for in guidance. There is a grave danger that one will obtain the wrong information. One will not have the interchange which allows the system to be honed to the needs of those individuals. I beg to move.
  Baroness Buscombe: I support Amendments Nos. 93 and 94. Following debate on the previous amendment,

  207
  it is important that I clarify that while we and disability organisations believe that engaging disabled people—engaging all people—in the gateway and encouraging them to find work is important and right, it is also crucial to ensure that genuinely disabled people are not pushed into interviews which they do not feel well enough to attend. The amendments address a genuine concern with regard to those caught by this clause. We do not believe that they should be forced to attend this "one" process in order to receive their benefit. We appreciate that there is a provision for some people not to have an interview, or to have it deferred because the interview would not be helpful or appropriate.
  We understand that the circumstances will be set out in regulations. The Minister has already stated that a number of people would not have an immediate interview: those who are recently bereaved; and lone parents with very young children. I think we all agree that people with heavy caring commitments have to be considered, and those suffering from acute illness, or a severe mental illness. In such cases people would be given an adviser who would follow up the question of possible work at a later stage. But we are concerned with the prospect of making the personal adviser interview compulsory and linking it to the claim process. We believe that people should have access to advice and support and be free to use it at a time when it is most helpful to them; otherwise, people will feel threatened, especially those with an invisible disability, such as mental distress. It could be damaging to their mental health and there is a real risk that the claims of some vulnerable people will fall by default if they are not well enough to deal with calls to an interview.
  It is perhaps worth noting at this point the possible number of claimants who may be affected by this clause and who may find the "one" process immensely stressful and too difficult a hurdle to surmount. One in four of the adult population will experience some form of mental health problem in any year.
  If the noble Minister were not minded to accept these amendments, then a related concern—that of the training of personal advisers—must also be addressed. Realistically, can personal advisers be trained to such a degree as to be competent to respond to the very special needs of these people? If people are already receiving incapacity benefit and/or severe disablement allowance, they will have already been assessed, probably with the benefit of medical reports, perhaps numerous reports, and certificates confirming this inability to work. Indeed, I will turn to this very point under our Amendments Nos. 101, 102 and 103.
  There is also a problem of accessibility for interviews for the disabled in particular. May I suggest that the home is not necessarily the panacea? It can be felt to be intrusive and uncomfortable for a claimant to have such an interview taking place in his or her home. We shall return to this and other matters raised in connection with these amendments in later amendments on this clause.
  Regard should be given to the cost of this whole process: training of advisers, administering "one", where, for example, the home visits are preferred and for those with certain ailments where the claimant is
  208
  subject to relapses and remission. There is no doubt that the whole interview process will be prolonged, often over an unforeseeable period of time, placing a considerable burden upon personal advisers. The cost of administering multiple interviews necessary to respond to changing and unforeseen needs must be considered.
  Taking the specific wording proposed by these amendments, while we are supportive of the principle that they address, that of protecting those who are clearly not equipped to deal with the "one" process, I question whether they would achieve their aim as drafted. In other words, are the right criteria being applied where a person has a mental illness diagnosis and/or where a person has been an in-patient of a mental illness hospital within the last three months? Surely it would be much simpler and probably less expensive to apply a straightforward test: is the claimant already in receipt of incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance, and invalid care allowance, in which case they will already have been assessed and therefore it would be much more straightforward and much easier to assess. I shall return to this point under our proposed Amendments Nos. 101, 102 and 103.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I have much sympathy for the amendments in so far as they apply to mental illnesses and I declare an interest, having been associated with the National Schizophrenia Fellowship (NSF) for many years. It and three other organisations concerned with mental illness have made clear their comments on this part of the Bill. They recommend that people with mental illnesses should not be subject to compulsory interviews but that the interviews should be voluntary. That seems very sensible. Voluntary interviews might well be extremely helpful in their cases.
  It is not possible to generalise about people with mental illnesses. Cases can be very different, as can the symptoms, some of them not visible, and the circumstances can also be very different. I agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lady Buscombe about the incidence of stress in the circumstances of being summoned to an interview. Therefore, I would ask the Government to consider very carefully whether, in the categories of cases which I and the noble Lord have indicated, the interviews should be voluntary and not compulsory.
  Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I should like very strongly to support this amendment. I think that the case of the severely mentally ill, especially schizophrenics, puts them into a totally different category. There is no way by which they can be fitted into the existing system as it stands. The noble Baroness has explained that there are very many safeguards and provisions for discretion and so on, but I do not see how the severely schizophrenic patient could possibly be fitted into this system.
  I speak, as I think the noble Baroness is aware, from considerable personal experience of care for a severely schizophrenic case. I cannot imagine how my son would have been able to go through this system without creating very great embarrassment for everybody

  209
  concerned in the interviewing process. If in the Bill there were a separate category, a separate compartment, into which the severely mentally ill—in particular those diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia—were put to be dealt with by advisers who had received considerable training for dealing with the mentally ill, that would be rather a different matter. But I cannot see that it is even fair to the interviewers to expect them to be able to handle such people.
  The noble Baroness is aware that the kind of patients to whom I refer are really very difficult to deal with. One simply does not know how they will react. They are also, as one of the symptoms of their disease, highly irresponsible, and they usually find it impossible to deal with correspondence of any kind. I do not wish to suggest that there is a real danger of violence, because this has been so much overdone in the press, but there is a residual possibility of violence, so I should like to appeal to the noble Baroness to treat this amendment as a special case.
  The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I too should strongly like to support this amendment. I sit in on assessments for young homeless people and my concern, which goes rather beyond this amendment, is that some of these, while not exactly classifiable as having a mental illness, are obviously very distressed. We are talking now about older people, but I imagine those too may well be distressed. When I attend these interviews sometimes the interviewer is very sensitive. He will say something like, "I appreciate this must be a difficult experience for you." He may say, "I know sometimes it is difficult for you to leave home", and the person being interviewed will say, "Yes. Sometimes I just do not want to leave the house".
  Sometimes there are sensitive interviewers who try to make the experience, which can be distressing, easy on the applicant. Sometimes the interviewers are not sensitive. They may be falsely jokey about the procedure and the applicant, who is stressed by the experience, is made to feel worse. I agree with the amendment and ask the Minister to explain how she will ensure that people who are mentally ill or in a good deal of distress are sensitively treated when they attend the interviews.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Rowallan: I support the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I believe that from the point of view of mental patients, Clause 52 is frightening. The Bill prevents thousands of people with severe mental illness accessing the financial support that they require to regain and sustain their mental health.
  Even worse, in some cases changes create additional barriers and stress. I am concerned that the effects of the interview will cause great problems for the mentally ill. The lack of understanding of severe mental illness and its effects was eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. It is a serious problem which needs to be considered most carefully. There is an extreme likelihood that some people will be so unwell
  210
  that they will be unaware of the impending interview and too ill to attend on the day. They will have a fear of losing their benefits as a result.
  Amendment No. 93 does not prevent them attending on a voluntary basis and therefore I believe that the Government should be able to support it. Amendment No. 94 is also important. It, too, has a voluntary basis, but it is essential that on leaving hospital a mental patient is given time to settle down at home. The time when such patients first arrive home is the most stressful of all. They do not have immediate access to nursing staff and perhaps their medicines are beginning to wear off or have side-effects. It is an extremely stressful time and the time when the highest number of suicides occur. That must be considered. I believe that the interviewing of mentally ill people must be seriously considered, as should the whole of Clause 52.
  Lord Haskel: I share the concerns of Members of the Committee about the dangers of the interview for mentally ill people. However, there is another danger; that of stereotyping people. Tonight, we are stereotyping and assuming what their reactions will be. With too many exceptions, that is exactly what happens and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will bear that in mind.
  Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: too, have great sympathy with Amendments Nos. 93 and 94. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, I have never been a carer; nor do I have experience or working with organisations which represent the mentally ill, as do my noble friends Lord Rowallan and Lord Campbell or Croy. I have only been a lay member of appeal tribunals considering incapacity benefit. In that capacity, I was always keenly aware of the importance of not stereotyping anyone who came before the tribunal and of the dangers of so doing. As a layman, I was also aware of the difficulty of making assessments on behalf of people who have mental illnesses, some of which express themselves in different ways at different times and in different ways to different people. I am sure that we shall return to that issue when dealing with Amendment No. 106 relating to the training of advisers.
  My noble friend Lord Rowallan spoke effectively of the difficulty facing people who are recently discharged in-patients who have received some form of treatment. As he said, the risk of suicide and self-harm is particularly high at the point of discharge. Almost one-quarter of the suicides covered by this year's national confidential inquiry into suicide and homicide by people with mental illness occurred within three months of discharge from hospital, with the highest number in the first week. The suicide risk after discharge is 213 times greater than that of the general population for men and 134 times greater for women.
  That evidence was provided to me by MIND and MACA. As those organisations point out, the evidence provides the strongest possible case for people nor to be approached for a compulsory interview which may be

  211
  perceived as threatening within at least three months of discharge. I hope that the Government will look favourably on Amendment No. 94.
  Lord Davies of Coity: I am extremely sympathetic to the arguments advanced in protection of people with mental illness who may be subjected to greater stress. However, I must return to my earlier remarks, recognising that we are concerned with people in receipt of benefit. They will have made an application and undergone an interview for benefit. The range of mental illness is enormous. Perhaps at one end there will be the schizophrenic and at the other the educationally subnormal. Anyone conducting an interview—
  Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was about to make a better point than I, but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, may not have meant to refer to those who are educationally subnormal in the same range as those who are mentally ill. Perhaps the noble Lord was grouping two things together at the same time.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In terms of classification by category for invalidity benefit, they are indeed grouped together.
  Lord Davies of Coity: I apologise if what I said was offensive. I wanted to point out that the range of mental illness can be such that some people can fulfil occupations and go to work. Indeed, they want the opportunity to have work presented to them. However, at the other end of the spectrum, someone else would not be in that position. We must give credit to those who will be conducting the interviews; those involved in providing benefit for people with mental illness. At the risk of stereotyping certain classes of people, it is not necessary to express that intention in the Bill.
  Lord Rowallan: Surely the whole point of the amendment is that such people can attend voluntarily. We do not insist on compulsory measures, but are saying that someone who is mentally incapable of attending an interview at a particular time should be respected and not lose his benefit as a result of ill health.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The debate has been most thoughtful and at times moving. Our difficulty is that we are not dealing with a particular category but with a range of people who may have moved on to incapacity benefit for reasons of stress or depression, which is alleviated once they leave the job, through to manic depression, schizophrenia and severe states which even with drug therapy do not permit a person to re-enter the labour market.
  We are dealing with a wide sweep of people, which is why I find the amendments difficult. I want to support their intention, but I do not believe that they can do what they seek. Mental illness may range from relatively mild stress, which makes it impossible for someone to work, to severe schizophrenia. The full range of people, including those with modest learning difficulties, would not be expected to attend an interview.
  212
  We are trying to avoid categorising people or stereotyping them on the basis of the benefit that they would normally get or their type of disability or handicap. We want to move away from that rigid categorisation because it does not give us the capacity to treat people holistically.
  When a claim is first made, we will not necessarily know whether the claimant falls into the relevant category. As my noble friends have rightly said, mentally ill people who currently want to receive benefit have to engage with the claim process for incapacity benefit or disability living allowance. They have access to the support of their carer, their family or their advocate if they need it. We are not requiring anything different in their interface with the social security system. Through the single gateway we are developing support, based on an interview with heavily trained staff. They will have undertaken seven weeks of training, including input from mental health groups. That opportunity will allow us to discuss with the claimants their opportunities for returning to work if they are well, fit and able. Only 11 per cent of those with mental health problems are in the labour market, but when I met representatives of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship I discovered that such people were desperate to return to work and that their chief obstacle was not their own inability to enter the labour market, but overcoming the stereotype in employers' minds.
  Disabled people who have a mental health problem already have to interact with the social security system. We are giving them the advantage of the support offered by the single gateway. Even if it does not necessarily take them into work—although many of them desperately want to work—it will give them information about benefits and contact groups.
  If a claimant is in poor health at the time proposed for interview, it can be deferred or waived altogether if appropriate. Some of the situations that we have heard about could well come into that category. It would not be appropriate for the small number of people who are acutely ill to come in for an interview, but that does not mean that the opportunities of the single gateway should be denied to the much larger span of people who may be suffering phobias, stress or depression. With the help of drug therapy, support, mentoring, buddying and the backing of the disability rights procedures, many of those people would like to re-enter work. If we accepted the amendments, those people would never get the opportunity to explore what they can do and what support mechanisms might be available for them.
  The amendments would exclude from the initial work-focused interview people who have been diagnosed as mentally ill or who in the previous three months have been in-patients at a mental illness hospital. It is wrong to approach the issue stereotypically and to exclude large numbers of people from the interview. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said that one in four of the adult population had suffered from a mental health problem at some time. I have checked the statistics. In 1978, 9 per cent of people on incapacity benefit claimed it because of a mental health or behavioural problem. Ten years later that had nearly doubled to about 16 per cent. The figure

  213
  is now nearly 30 per cent. Should those people, who have had a job in the past, be denied the opportunity that we are offering?
  The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, said that the system could be voluntary, but that would put us in the same loop that we found with the New Deal. If people do not know what they are going to get from the interview, they do not come. One of the difficulties is to ensure that people have the full knowledge and information that they need. The interview can be deferred if it is inappropriate at that point, or it can be waived. Advocates or carers can also be present, or the interview can be held at home if that is helpful. We do not want to exclude 30 per cent of IB claimants from the reach of the single gateway, because it is in their best interests at least to have the opportunity to come within the system. The amendments are not appropriate because the range of people affected is very broad.
  Staff will receive appropriate training and skills, with the help of groups such as MIND, Mencap and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. It is right to approach the issue flexibly, supportively and decently by bringing those who already claim from the system to a sensitive and well handled interview. After that we can ensure that they have the necessary support, opportunities and information. They and their carers cannot know until they have been through the interview.
  I have given assurances about what the interviews are intended to do. People with a mental health problem already have to engage with the social security system, but without the benefit of face-to-face support. The interviews can be deferred, or even waived, and they can be conducted in the presence of an advocate or in the person's home. The staff will be trained and skilled. Their approach will be sensitive and they will work with voluntary groups. We shall learn from the pilots whether we need to make our procedures more helpful and supportive. With those assurances. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will not press his amendment.
  5.45 p.m.
  The Earl of Listowel: Before my noble friend sits down, may I check something with her? Is she talking about in-patients alone or out-patients as well?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was trying to suggest that many people who have been mental health in-patients may have gone to the hospital voluntarily with a relatively mild illness because they do not have support from their families or because their condition has made it impossible for their families to support them. Others with more severe mental health illnesses are able to lead rich lives in the community in half-way houses supported by other carers. The test of whether someone is an in-patient or under the support of some other mental health organisation is not an appropriate benchmark by which to judge whether someone should come within the single gateway.
  Lord Addington: I have listened to the debate with considerable interest. I am surprised by the amount of agreement in principle. The Minister agreed that there was a problem but said that the amendments were far
  214
  too broad-brush. A reference to severe or acute mental illness in the amendments might have been more appropriate. When it comes to drafting, if I ever get anything right it is more by luck than by judgment. I accept that there is a problem.
  The group whom we are talking about is different because the idea of the interview may be the primary problem. I have already said that it is not the idea of the interview that most of us are worrying about.
  How many of us have heard examples of regulations being made; for example, in education, and the staff being inappropriately trained because it would take such a long time to get round to dealing with those who were already in place? That approach raises a frightening number of questions.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord on that point. There are 200 advisers in the field who have gone through an average of 200 hours of training—and in some cases 300 or 400 hours—working towards established qualifications such as NVQ3. No one will be working as a personal adviser without being fully and properly trained. We are making a huge investment of staff.
  Lord Addington: I thank the Minister for that, but the problem will be getting the right member of staff with the right training to the right person at the right time. Anyone who deals with specialist support services knows that. Demographic trends may cause problems. We have all had experience of that.
  As I said, I appreciate that these amendments are rather widely drawn. I do not feel that the subject has been exhausted and we must look at it again, particularly in the light of what the Minister said. Much of that was helpful as regards the principle. Therefore, I shall now withdraw the amendment and return to the issue, having considered what has been said in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
  Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 95:
  Page 59, line 16, after ("benefit") insert (", save where a person is severely disabled")
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 114. Amendment No. 95 deals with the effect of removing the requirement for a work-focused interview from severely disabled claimants who need to access social security benefits. Amendment No. 114 deals with the need for advocacy support.
  Many of the arguments written down in front of me have already been rehearsed during our discussions on the previous amendment. However, once more, I should like to amend, as it were, thoughts about different incapacities. Mental illness and learning disability are not the same conditions. It was unfortunate that the expression "educationally sub-normal" was used in your Lordships' House. Regrettably, that categorises people with learning disabilities back to the bad old days.
  There must be a way in which to remove the requirement for interview from the benefit claiming process for the most profoundly and multiply disabled people. Incapacity and disability benefits often provide those claimants with their sole source of income. We cannot run the risk of that income being jeopardised if the claimant cannot legitimately attend an interview on grounds of severe unchanging disability.
  The Secretary of State and the noble Baroness have both told me of their reluctance to exempt categories of people. I acknowledge that there are people with higher rates of disability living allowance who are indeed working. But case-by-case discretion exercised by a junior officer seems to be an unsatisfactory and unreliable way in which to address the reality that people so severely disabled should not face a compulsory work-focused interview in order to obtain benefits.
  I am aware that it is not in the interest of anybody—neither the claimant nor the Government—to place unrealistic requirements upon severely disabled people or personal advisers, who are predominantly there to signpost work-ready clients into the labour market. But I shall be sufficiently reassured, as I am sure will other Members of the Committee, if the Minister will give a commitment to issue guidance on advancing the claims of those permanently unfit to attend an interview. That guidance should be developed in consultation with relevant specialists. If I am given such a commitment, I suspect that I shall not press the amendment.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 114 which refers to advocacy support. To interview or not to interview will rarely be a straightforward choice, particularly when determining the value of conducting "one" interviews with clients with moderate learning disabilities. For although an interview may be theoretically possible for some, it is likely to be counterproductive unless appropriate support is provided.
  Many people require support in order to express their own views, and that will undoubtedly be the case within the context of "one" interviews. Without such support, clients with a learning disability may not fully comprehend the process, what is being required of them and what choices they are entitled to make. Some people with learning disabilities may have difficulty taking in new information, handling complex material such as benefit claim forms and communicating effectively. They may need support to help them with what they want to say. They may need encouragement to answer a question. They may also derive considerable emotional support from the presence of an advocate who is in an independent position.
  A skilled advocate can support all those functions and, through facilitation, ensure that an interview is constructive for the claimant and for the personal adviser. If the "one" scheme is really about providing a service to claimants, there is no reason why claimants should be denied the right to advocacy support and provision made, where necessary, for appropriate support. I presume that that advocacy would stretch long beyond the realms of learning disability.
  Perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to assure the Committee that all claimants will have a statutory entitlement to advocacy support, which will be made available without cost to the claimant if the absence of such support makes a work-focused interview untenable.
  A simple way to achieve that would be by advising claimants of their rights to advocacy support on their letter inviting them to a work-focused interview, setting out a structure for the reimbursement of costs. I beg to move.
  Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Disabled people face many barriers to education, training and employment. In principle, personal advisers could bring a much-needed individual approach, provided that the adviser has the appropriate training, qualifications and resources. As I have already stated in connection with the previous amendments, making the personal adviser interview compulsory and linking it with the claims process risks undermining any value which the interview could have for claimants and may also worsen their health.
  Clause 52 requires all claimants to participate in a work-focused interview as a condition of receipt of benefit. The Disability Benefits Consortium and ourselves believe that the term "work-focused" is misleading and does not reflect the full objectives of the interview or the range of support which should be offered to claimants.
  Much has been said on previous amendments about raising fear in people's minds. In practice, much of that fear stems from the terminology used in the Bill. The description "work-focused interviews" is raising alarm among many people who are terrified of the prospect that if they cannot come up to speed in an interview which is aimed at work, they will somehow be penalised and their benefits diminished. Therefore, I suggest that consideration should perhaps be given to the words "work-focused".
  The severity of the condition of claimants with severe disabilities will rule out paid employment. Those are not, by definition, people who are unemployed and available for work but people who are incapable of work and have been so for at least six months. Disabled people who can work may require welfare, either in support of independent living or to top up low earnings. But tying the interview into an incapacity benefit claim means that people are being required to discuss work prospects—that is a problem—before their capacity for work and, hence, eligibility for benefit has been assessed; at a point when they are seeking help precisely because they are not well enough to work and when they may be very ill and distressed; and at a time determined by when they make the claim rather than when they may be able to make best use of job advice.
  If the amendment is not accepted, we believe that the following consequences can be expected. Claimants will feel undermined, harassed and burdened by the requirement and will be likely to perceive the interview as a hurdle in the benefit claim rather than a genuine

  217
  offer of help, with any existing anxiety or depression exacerbated. In addition, in particular, claimants with an invisible impairment, such as mental health problems, chronic fatigue or pain, will feel under extra pressure because of their disability, which will not be obvious to the adviser. They will be faced with having to justify and explain their incapacity one more time.
  We believe that claimants may he steered into ill-advised courses of action if the emphasis is on work regardless of its consequences for health, or if they think that the advice they are given has to be followed. Further, some people will not be able to cope with attending for an interview; for example, because of their mental state and the anxieties generated by the process of claiming benefits. In that case, their claim will not go forward unless there is support to enable them to take part, to show that they are exempt or have good cause not to take part. We believe also that the interviews could become a formality, especially if advisers are seeing the majority of claimants, not just those who can make best use of the interview. Therefore, we question the value of interviews.
  I turn to Amendment No. 114, which concerns advocacy support for a claimant during the interview process. We recognise, as does the Disability Benefits Consortium, that interviews will be unworkable for some claimants with intellectual and sensory impairments or claimants with mental health problems unless they are permitted to be accompanied by an appropriate advocate. I think I am right in saying that the Minister made reference in her opening statement to the ability of claimants to take with them an advocate, and I appreciate that.
  We believe that there should be a statutory provision for all claimants to have a right to advocacy support. The Disability Benefits Consortium supports us on this point, further suggesting that it would welcome a commitment that interview-related expenses incurred by advocates would be met by the agency. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred to that. However, in that regard, one might question the level of advocacy, and the level of expenses, which could be added to the support of this initiative. We therefore support both the amendments.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Addington: We, on these Benches, support the thrust of the amendments. I strongly agree that to call in for interview a person with a long-term unchanging disability, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, may ultimately be a waste of time.
  That applies especially if, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, the interviews are work focused. I believe that the terminology here has led to a great deal of worry. I suspect that the number of amendments to this clause might have been halved if that term had been changed. Many people who have tremendous difficulties in work have been extremely worried by the emphasis on everything being work related.
  The noble Baroness mentioned advocacy support during the interviews. Further enlightenment on that point would be helpful. Such support is essential if the interviews are to he of any use. I believe an amendment
  218
  has been tabled concerning the deaf-blind. Such people have all normal means of communication denied to them. Without advocacy support, they will be totally and utterly helpless in such situations. If information cannot be extracted from them or given to them, the Bill will be irrelevant and meaningless to them. I ant sure that the noble Baroness will say that such people are already covered, but it will not hurt to have it said again. Even if the noble Lord, Lord Rix, does not intend to move the amendments, I suggest that an answer now would be helpful to us at later stages of the Bill.
  Lord Davies of Coity: I am in some difficulty as regards the description of "severely disabled" in the same way as I was with the previous amendment and the description of "mental difficulties". It seems to me that the term "severely disabled" covers a range, unless there is just one category, of which I am not aware. Of course, if a person is severely disabled and bedridden, obviously he or she would not be able to attend for interview. Someone else would, quite rightly, claim the benefit on his or her behalf.
  I would say that someone is severely disabled if he or she is in a wheelchair. However, the opportunity for such people to undergo an interview, with an opportunity to work, which they may want, is available to them. I am sure that all noble Lords will be able to think of many situations in which people who are described as "severely disabled" are still able to fulfil some employment function, which they would want to do. At the end of the day, it will be voluntary and their choice. The whole exercise here is providing choices, opportunities and information to enable people to exercise the right and entitlement that we think is theirs.
  Therefore, I would have some difficulty in supporting an amendment which refers to "severely disabled" but which does not define the people about whom we are talking.
  Lord Addington: Perhaps I may briefly follow up that point. I am afraid that the answer has to be either regulations or a much longer Bill to try to achieve more definition, as I am sure everybody involved in this field will know.
  Lord Milverton: I hope that the Minister is able to respond positively to the two amendments. They put forward an important point of principle. I am sure that there are cases in which severely disabled people would need somebody to assist them when it comes to an interview.
  Lord Rix: Perhaps I may be permitted to interrupt briefly. I expressed the view that I would be more than satisfied if the Minister were able to give an assurance that guidance on both the interview and advocacy were spelt out very clearly. I would consider that to be adequate at present.
  I agree that there is a difficulty in describing a severe disability, particularly one which would render an interview useless. I hate to quote again the case of my daughter, which I have done previously, but she is one of probably a quarter of a million people with a very

  219
  severe learning disability who would not benefit in any shape or form from an interview. She would not know what the interview was about. She would not recognise the interviewer. She would probably use incoherent or offensive language, if she responded at all. She might well be stark naked in bed and unable to be moved out of her room when the interview takes place. She might change her clothes eight, 10, or 14 times a day. She might well be enjoying herself getting through in a wheelchair to a specially-constructed seat.
  However, I think we could safely say that she, and probably another quarter of a million sons and daughters like her, are quite incapable of attending an interview or being interviewed. I cannot believe that it is not beyond the wit of the Government to issue guidance in this direction.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I rise briefly to support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on Amendment No. 95. I could not possibly hope to expand upon his speeches tonight. I should also like to register my support for Amendment No. 114 with regard to advocacy support. I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Rix, when he comes to reply after the Minister has replied to the Committee.
  The Minister referred to the fact that she anticipates that it will continue to be a right of people at the gateway interview to take along an advocate who is able to assist them on their behalf. I welcome her commitment tonight. I also note that in another place the Minister, Andrew Smith, gave the assurance that people who need help will be able to take someone with them, whether that person be a friend, a parent or an advocate in whatever sense.
  He went on to argue that it was not necessary for the right to advocacy to be put on the face of the Bill, simply because in a sense one could replicate the procedure at present.
  I am advised by MIND and MACA that unless the right to advocacy is enshrined in the Bill there could be occasions when individuals are not aware of the possibility of taking someone with them to an interview. They are concerned that the staff might not make that known to them or might refuse permission for an advocate to be present. Perhaps this is a matter on which the Minister could give further assurances tonight which would satisfy the Committee.
  My mind was opened further than usual this morning when I was fortunate enough to attend a parliamentarians' seminar on deaf awareness training. That made me far more aware than I had been—I regret that I had not been aware before—of how important it is for advocates to appear on behalf of a wide group of people with hearing problems.
  I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I thought that I would be able to support him entirely—as is my habit. However, I was concerned by his remarks at the very end of his speech when he referred to some form of advocacy support system. I had anticipated that his amendment would amount to a nil cost to the Treasury and that one could take along a
  220
  McKenzie friend to act on one's behalf without there being any green-form scheme or payment from the Treasury. I hope that is what the noble Lord means. Perhaps I misunderstood him, but I thought he suggested that the Government should provide a group of people, who would be paid for by the DSS or some other government organisation, to play an advocacy role. I hope that I am wrong about that.
  Lord Rix: At the end of my brief speech about advocacy, I expressed the hope that the Minister would take this opportunity to assure the Committee that all claimants will have a statutory entitlement to advocacy support, which will be made available without cost to the claimant if the absence of such support makes a work-focused interview untenable. I am afraid that we are at opposite ends of the argument.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for teasing that response out of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I had similar concerns about his comments.
  In his second or third intervention, the noble Lord asked me to assure the Committee, first, about guidance and, secondly, about advocacy. He asked me to confirm that there will be a statutory entitlement—that is, a right—to advocacy. The answer to the noble Lord's questions is: yes and yes. I could now sit down—which would speed up the proceedings—but it may be appropriate to enlarge upon this point.
  I believe that I must emphasise, as my noble friends have done, the fact that we recognise that people who are severely disabled and who want or need representation must and will be treated with particular sensitivity. However, we must treat people as individuals, not as categories. It is relatively arbitrary whether people receive DLA, SDA or IB. We do not want to suggest that people are treated according to the category in which they are placed. We believe that under the "one" service and face-to-face contact, we will have the opportunity to identify the areas where extra support is needed.
  People may say that that is a waste of time. I was told only a few days ago of a case involving a man living off his redundancy payment who brought into the office his wife, who is severely incapacitated by virtue of a stroke and who is receiving DLA. He was told about—and will now take up—invalid care allowance, his wife will receive SDA and they may be entitled to HB, which may mean a worthwhile increase in their income of £100 per week. That man need not have come into the office. People will be able to seek help under the "one" service in future and we will ensure that a full range of support and assistance is made available in difficult situations.
  It is appropriate to consider whether the interview should take place at the time of claiming or be deferred to a later date. As I have said, personal advisers will have the discretion to waive the interview altogether if that is what the individual circumstances dictate. Guidance will be made available to personal advisers, in association with professional voluntary organisations, to ensure that they are aware of the circumstances in

  221
  which an interview should be waived. That guidance will include references to those who are so severely disabled that work is never likely to be a realistic prospect. I hope that I have answered the noble Lord's first point.
  I repeat: it is not a question of harassing vulnerable people, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, suggested. It is a question of ensuring that people are aware of the support that is available. I wish to make a wider point, on which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will support me. We should not make an easy reading across from the severity of disability to the capacity for work. It is too easy to assume that the most severely disabled are the least likely to work and that those with the least disability are the most likely to work. All of our research and evidence compiled over the past few years confounds that myth. I know of people who are paralysed from the neck down and who, none the less, run businesses. We know of people who have been blind from birth, who have been recruited by major companies because of their affinity with technology and who are holding down senior jobs. We know of people in your Lordships' House and in the Government who have severe disabilities and who, by any definition, would qualify as severely disabled. Yet they are participating fully in your Lordships' debates and one is a serving Cabinet Minister in Her Majesty's Government.
  I know of someone in receipt of SDA who has ME. She keeps in touch with the labour market in the hope that her ME will burn out or be corrected and she will be able to re-enter the job market. She wants to ensure that she keeps her options open. On good days, she wants to be able to read appropriate material, come into the office, talk to people, make contacts and so on. Let us not assume that somehow a severe disability equals incapacity for work. We know from experience that mild to moderate degrees of mental illness and mental health problems may be more incapacitating than some extremely severe physical health problems.
  Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will not attach too much weight to the words "severely disabled". Some of the most severely disabled people I know are most urgent in their desire to return to work. Quadriplegics, the blind and the deaf seek to work, and are working. Yet those people are automatically put onto incapacity benefit without needing to do the all-work test. Such people are holding down jobs, and many like them wish to return to the labour market. That is why we must ensure that we do not write off people, irrespective of their potential, by virtue of some label.
  We must also ensure that people receive the help they need in a positive way. That is why I have a great deal of sympathy with the aim of Amendment No. 114, which seeks to ensure that people who attend work-focused interviews may be accompanied by an advocate when they believe that is appropriate. I am happy to assure noble Lords that a person may be accompanied by a third party. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, suggested, we do not think that it is necessary to put such a requirement on the face of the Bill. If your Lordships believe that there is a serious issue as to whether people know about their right to
  222
  have an advocate, I shall consider whether that should be mentioned in the original letter or whatever. That may be a more appropriate way of handling the matter.
  We want to ensure that people know about their right to advocacy. We are considering whether we should examine the cost of fares and so on when an advocate is necessary for someone who has learning difficulties, for example. There is a similar question when an interpreter is needed and staff cannot provide the necessary translation service. In those circumstances, we will arrange for those services to be provided.
  To return to where I began: I think that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Rix, the assurances that he seeks. Yes, there will be guidance to staff and, yes, there will be a right to advocacy. We will reflect on how best we can ensure that those rights are made known. Behind that lies our insistence that we are seeking to ensure that everyone receives the help and support that they need. For some, that support may be work focused and for others it may be benefit focused or more general support, such as putting people in contact with relevant organisations. Please let us not write off people according to the nature or the degree of severity of their disability. The experience of your Lordships—any of whom have a long history of working with disabled people—is that that is not the right and appropriate way forward. Given those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  6.15 p.m.
  Baroness Buscombe: Before the Minister sits down, I stress that there is no question of us on these Benches suggesting that we write off anyone. I agree entirely that many people with severe disabilities want to work.
  Does the Minister agree that the terminology "work focused" is one of the reasons why many of us are being inundated with letters from numerous organisations and individuals expressing considerable fear and anxiety about this clause? Perhaps I may suggest the use of the term "personal development interviews" or similar wording. It may seem to be a small, insignificant point, but it would be enormously valuable and beneficial to many thousands of people. We must get the wording right so that people do not feel that they must attend an interview and somehow show that they are capable of working when many of them, sadly, are not.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Those reasons were well expressed by the noble Baroness. That is why we now refer to the scheme as "one"; that is, that it suggests an integration of services.
  The vast majority of people coming through will be those on jobseeker's allowance, lone parents, or other groups who have been on income support who may be able to work. It is not unreasonable, therefore, that the focus should be on work. Where we are dealing with issues of disability, it may be more appropriate to focus on benefits and the like.
  I repeat again that, following the "one" interview for any disabled person, their benefit, if they are on incapacity benefit, is protected irrespective of what that

  223
  interview in terms of a subsequent personal capability assessment may throw up. They do not have to follow any course of action following that interview. On the contrary, they may choose not to take part beyond attending that interview.
  From my experience, the problem arises on the other side. People want help; they want face-to-face interviews; they want to go back into work. The complaints I received in the past as a Minister with some responsibility for disability issues were that we have so far not met a need and are beginning to do so. The problem is not pushing people into work who do not want it; it is helping those who want to work to get into work where they can, and giving people the information, opportunities and knowledge that they currently do not have where work is not the appropriate option for them. Disabled people asked us to provide that service and that is what we will be doing.
  Earl Russell: Perhaps I can assist the Minister. We should not get hung up on arguments about whether people want one thing or another. There are all sorts of people. I understand the Minister's argument about the giving of opportunity. That is not at issue. But many people are afraid of the loss of benefits. If the Minister could consider the possibility of distinguishing between attending the interview and the penalty for not doing so, she might find that there is a way forward on a number of these amendments.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We went through that in detail a while ago. Anyone receiving a benefit must make a claim for that benefit. In future, that benefit will be embedded in an interview; full stop. It does not mean that, following that interview, those who have a disability will have to do anything further. However, the interview is part of the process of obtaining that benefit.
  Lord Rix: I am delighted with the assurances given by the Minister in regard to severely disabled people and how they will be affected by guidelines to be issued, also for those who will seek to have advocates present. I am delighted that detailed guidelines will be offered on both subjects. With that in mind I have the greatest pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 96:
  Page 59, line 16, after ("benefit") insert (", save where a person has caring commitments of thirty five hours per week or more")
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 96 concerns caring commitments. The Government are clearly interested in getting carers into paid employment as soon as it becomes feasible once their caring commitments have come to an end. The work-focused interview—perhaps it should be called the "work-focused, benefits-focused interview"—is designed to get individuals thinking about their skills, training requirements and employment aspirations in
  224
  advance so that they are in a strong position to find work when their circumstances change. That is a sensible strategy for the economy, and indeed for some carers who find that welfare ends abruptly when their caring responsibilities come to an end.
  But the Government also hope to encourage some carers to consider the option of part-time work concomitant with their caring responsibilities. Again, that is not inconceivable for some carers who may find scope for work during periods when the disabled child or adult is away from home, at school, college or a day centre. Combining employment and caring responsibilities should make carers at least marginally better off, even though typically carers work in low-skilled, low-paid positions just to make ends meet.
  However, caution must be exercised to ensure that it is not taken for granted that carers can plug a perceived gap in their daily routine with paid employment. Invalid care allowance recipients are, by definition, working 35 hours a week or more. To what other group doing socially useful work would any government dare to say, "Since you are only working 35 hours per week, you should be doing another job as well"? My primary concern is for carers who will never be able to combine caring and work and are likely to spend their lifetime as carers, most notably lifelong, full-time carers of people with severe disabilities. Their contribution to society cannot be underestimated. They already do a full-time job. They save the Treasury millions of pounds in care costs and deserve, as I am sure Members of the Committee recognise, unquestioning support.
  At Second Reading I offered the illustration of the difficulties that a work-focused interview might present to a full-time carer, so I need not go over old ground. None the less, it is important to emphasise that some carers will start off and continue to be full-time carers over a lifetime. A person who gives birth in their twenties to a child with profound physical and intellectual disabilities may have 40 years of full-time caring ahead. A work-focused interview is not likely to be appropriate or convenient, either now or in the future, for people in those circumstances.
  Amendment No. 104 is consequential on Amendment No. 96. Invalid care allowance recipients, by definition, have caring responsibilities of 35 hours per week or more, as I said, and therefore should be excluded from the provisions of this Bill which prescribe that full entitlement to benefit should be conditional on participation in work-focused interviews. I am not advocating a passive welfare state. I do not believe that faceless bureaucracies benefit carers any more than any other client group. By all means provide full-time carers with the opportunity to have a discussion with a personal adviser to chat about benefits and so forth, but do not coerce them into doing so with the sting of benefit withdrawals or reduction. I beg to move.
  Lord Addington: Very briefly, the tone of the noble Lord's speech is one to which I hope the Minister can respond favourably. An interview to see how the state system can help a person to enhance their lives is

  225
  something which people will happily attend. But the idea of withdrawal of benefits is something that will probably sting these people very hard.
  Baroness Pitkeathley: I have some sympathy with these amendments. If I had the temerity to correct the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I would say that carers save the Treasury billions, not millions of pounds. I also have sympathy with his view that not all carers wish to work or can possibly be expected to work.
  However, it is important to understand that for many carers the offer of an interview, especially an appointment with a personal adviser, could be of benefit, particularly as carers constantly say that nobody recognises their position or takes any notice of their difficulties. But that will depend entirely on how the interview is conducted and on the skills and training of the personal adviser—a course we have already been round several times this afternoon.
  First, there is the issue of how the carer can get away to the interview if it is to be conducted somewhere other than home; and if it is to be conducted at home, how will it be conducted in private and in a confidential manner? While the mass of strategy for carers has put extra work and money into respite care for carers, there is no doubt that many carers still suffer the difficulties of having no break from their caring. Even when arrangements have been made for a carer to attend an interview, the unexpected always happens.
  As a carers' national association we are committed to enabling carers to speak up for themselves in meetings with Ministers, at conferences, with the media and so forth, but we always know that we have to have not one carer scheduled to do that, but at least two because the unexpected will happen and the carer will not be able to fulfil the commitment even when all the arrangements have been made, perhaps because of an unexpected worsening of the condition of the person for whom they are caring, or a simple refusal to accept the substitute care. I look forward to having the Minister's assurances that the personal advisers will he trained specifically in these particular issues to help people not only as regards work-focused arrangements but also to help them to gain access to other sources of information and other services.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Rix: Perhaps I may underline a statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. I once went to Manchester to see our people in what was then our PRMH, now PIMD (profound intellectual multiple disability project), which is a Mencap project. It was taking place in Piper Hill School, Manchester. There was an exhibition of work for profoundly multiply disabled young people and middle-aged people.
  Therefore, I totally support the idea that meaningful support from an interview for mothers, fathers or carers generally may be of the greatest possible use. At that function, I was horrified to see a man of 34 in a wheelchair with a profound multiple-intellectual impairment whose mother told me that she had never
  226
  received full benefits until she came to our project in Manchester after 34 years. Up to then, the best she had ever achieved were nappies for his incontinence.
  Baroness Buscombe: I support this amendment. What the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has just said amplifies the need for it. It has the effect of removing compulsion from the work-focused interview for carers. That means that for these groups the receipt of benefit will not be conditional on participation in a work-focused interview. It is important to stress that this amendment does not exclude people in this category from the interview process, thereby ensuring that in principle an interview is available for any claimant who might think they would benefit from it.
  The amendment protects the income of the most overworked carers, if I may put it so strongly, looking after children or disabled or elderly adults. We in the Disability Benefits Consortium lend full support to Amendments Nos. 96 and 104. If implemented properly, personal adviser interviews could provide benefit claimants with much needed information and assistance. For that reason, we would not want to see anyone denied an interview if they believe it appropriate.
  However, there are some people with caring responsibilities for whom an interview is simply inappropriate given their personal circumstances and their existing caring commitments. It is also important that benefit income should not be put at risk for people in this group because they have particular problems in attending interviews, for example, at times specified by the Benefits Agency.
  For some carers, day and night care-work and little sleep leave no possibility of paid employment or, may I suggest, even socialising. Research by Mencap reveals that over 40 per cent of carers of people with learning disabilities have not had an evening out in the past six months. Some carers normally get fewer than three hours sleep a night; others are having to cope with a norm of six hours of washing clothes and bed linen in addition to attending to personal care. Therefore, I believe that it is unrealistic and insensitive to penalise. carers by reducing or taking away what is often their only source of income because their commitment to care-work makes it impossible to honour an interview commitment with the Benefits Agency.
  The Government's affirmation of the work of carers in the recently announced National Carers Strategy could well be undermined if carers are required to justify their role in the Government's drive towards getting people off benefit and into paid employment.
  Compulsory work-focused interviews for carers are inconsistent with the Prime Minister's view that carers are,
  "the unsung heroes of British life".
  In his foreword to the National Carers Strategy the Prime Minister claimed that:
  "What carers do should be properly recognised and properly supported—and the Government should play its part".
  This amendment also safeguards the benefit of claimants who have responsibility for children below school age. That gives lone parents and families the

  227
  choice of looking after children without placing a requirement on them to discuss taking up work. The Disability Benefits Consortium is concerned by the statistics of the Benefits Agency which reveal that many children live in families whose single source of income is social security. It is particularly concerned about the position of low-income families caring for disabled children. To sanction benefits on account of non-attendance at an interview, even for a short period, could have a detrimental effect on the child. Indeed, it may well be the case that arranging suitable childcare is problematic, particularly for the parents of disabled children, and that missing an interview is unavoidable. Therefore, we speak in support of these amendments.
  Lord Davies of Coity: I believe that each of us will be sympathetic to the arguments that have been advanced in support of this amendment; but I fear that it presents one or two difficulties. The first is that it says,
  "thirty five hours per week or more".
  Why not 32, 30 or 25 hours per week? In fact, there may be people caring on a shared arrangement and working very much harder and having greater caring responsibilities, but who may not be working 35 hours per week. That presents an anomaly which would create difficulties for people in caring situations.
  The second problem is that if we put into the Bill the provision that anyone with caring commitments of 35 hours per week or more—
  Lord Rix: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am sure he is aware that one cannot be in receipt of the invalid care allowance unless by definition one is caring for more than 35 hours per week.
  Lord Davies of Coity: I certainly understand that. But I believe that if this amendment is put into the Bill, it could create difficulties. It would discriminate between different carers as regards the interview process.
  The second problem is that if the amendment is incorporated into the Bill, presumably someone will say to the benefits office, "I am caring for a person for more than 35 hours a week". Does the matter remain there and is accepted, or are further inquiries made to see whether or not that is correct? It seems to me that the arguments that have been advanced on behalf of carers would come out very clearly and plainly at the interviewing process. They would demonstrate clearly that the person would not be available for employment.
  Earl Russell: I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said what she did about the effect of this amendment. I understand that its effect would not be to deny an opportunity of an interview to someone who wants it. The amendment deals only with the compulsion. That is the theme to which we keep returning. We on these Benches—by that I refer to my honourable friends as well as my noble friends—have accepted the principle of the interview in the single gateway, subject to a very considerable concern about exceptions for vulnerable people of various sorts.
  228
  We do not seem to be having much success as regards the exception for vulnerable people. Perhaps I may stress again that it is not our intention at any stage to exclude them from the opportunity; it is our concern to protect them from compulsion. If that concern is not to be at all satisfied, we shall have to reconsider our attitude to the whole process. I would not wish to predict what the outcome of such consideration might be, as it will involve many people other than myself who have not yet had the opportunity of finding out what has taken place in this debate.
  Before we leave this subject, I would like to ask the Minister to do a little more thinking about exceptions and about whether she really wishes to move quite so much in the direction of work conscription. It is beginning to look rather perturbing and the language of opportunity, which we have heard and with which we agree, is beginning to look increasingly disproportionate to what is actually being done.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall deal with the noble Earl's remarks in a moment. However, I have to say that his choice of the word "conscription" was both misconceived and inappropriate, especially as I spent a considerable time when responding to the previous amendment explaining that disabled people, lone parents and the like are entirely free, following the interview, to do nothing at all.
  As the noble Lord explained, these amendments seek to exempt from the requirement to attend work-focused interviews people claiming invalid care allowance and others providing care for more than 35 hours a week. Perhaps I can explain why the Government think it right to include carers within the "one" service. In no sense is there any challenge to the extraordinary and valuable role performed by carers who, very often, impoverish themselves and break their own health in the very process of caring, as my noble friend has explained to us on many occasions. Indeed, quite the opposite.
  As I am sure all Members of the Committee will agree, the six million carers—only some 300,000 of whom are entitled to claim ICA—make a vital contribution to the well-being of this country and, above all, to the well-being of our people. The Prime Minister has already announced the allocation of £750 million over the next three years to promote independence through the prevention of illness and disability through rehabilitation. Carers and those they care for will benefit from this. In addition, we are making £140 million available to allow carers to take well-earned breaks from their caring responsibilities. At this point, I should like to pay tribute to the Carers National Association and to the work of my noble friend in achieving that response.
  The proposals in this clause will, of course, require those carers making claims to social security benefits, including the main carers' benefit, ICA, to take part in work-focused interviews both at the point of claim and at various points thereafter. All they will be required to do is to take part in an interview, which is designed to be of real assistance to them.
  There will be three main purposes for carers. First, as I emphasised previously, the interview will not deal exclusively with work-related issues. The personal

  229
  adviser will be able to offer a wide range of advice and support that can be valuable to the carer. This will include advice about other benefits to which he or she may be entitled. In addition, the personal adviser may be able to provide information on other organisations which support carers, in areas such as respite care. Such links may be crucial in helping carers avoid the isolation which often follows the onset of their responsibilities.
  Secondly, as I am sure Members of the Committee will acknowledge, some carers may be able to do some work despite the fact that they have heavy caring commitments. To receive ICA, someone must have caring commitments of at least 35 hours a week. Even so, around 10 per cent to 15 per cent of those who claim ICA do some work. So caring duties and part-time work are not necessarily mutually exclusive. We want the opportunity to discuss with carers whether they wish to consider part-time work, and, if they do, to give them the full range of help and support that they deserve to allow them to realise that ambition. However, I should like to stress again that we will not be forcing carers to follow this route, or any other.
  Thirdly, caring duties do not last for ever. Over one-third of those on ICA care for less than a year. The median length of claim for ICA is two years. Many carers move straight from ICA to jobseeker's allowance with its full range of work-focused conditions. We want to ease that transition by helping carers take what steps they reasonably can to stay in touch with the labour market or improve their employability throughout their period of caring responsibilities. Again, this will be subject to what is feasible, given the extent of their caring commitments.
  These are sensible proposals and ones which we hope many carers will welcome. However, for many people who have spoken today, the argument seems to hinge on the issue of compulsion. Members of the Committee have again suggested that the "one" service should be on an entirely voluntary basis for carers, as with others. I can understand why the noble Lord and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have made that suggestion, but I am afraid that I simply do not agree with them philosophically.
  As I said on Second Reading—and I hoped then that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, actually agreed with me—a key issue here is that you do not know what you do not know. If the noble Earl really believes that the interview can be valuable and helpful, I should point out to him that very often the people who will be in need of that help will be precisely those who will not learn of that help if the interview is voluntary. Therefore, they will not be available to take advantage of such assistance. The whole point about making the interview compulsory is that it is a way of actually empowering people to go on to make subsequent choices. If they do not have that first exposure to appropriate information, support and help, they will not be able to go on and make other choices, which may be more satisfying to them in their lives. That is the reason for it.
  If, following the interview, we were saying to carers that they must work even though they are caring for 35 hours a week and even though they are disabled and receiving incapacity benefit, I could take the noble
  230
  Earl's point. However, people do not know what they do not know. Unless we empower them through the compulsory interview, they will not have that information and will not be able to make such choices. People cannot choose if they do not know about the choices available.
  Earl Russell: I hear what the Minister says. If she will not give up the compulsion, will she consider a reduced penalty for those in vulnerable situations?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If someone is claiming benefit for the first time, the interview is part of that benefit claim unless it is deferred or waived in certain situations following guidance. If that person has had a repeat interview and failed to attend—for example, a trigger interview where the child is five or 11—obviously we are talking about sanctions of 20 per cent to 40 per cent. But people are coming into the system at the point at which they claim benefit. We are embedding that benefit claim in an interview. Indeed, many noble Lords will be quite surprised to learn that people can get benefit without actually having an interview.
  I really do not understand why the noble Earl is so resistant to the notion of a compulsory interview when he values the interview. Indeed, those it would most help would be those least likely to take advantage of such assistance were the interview not to be compulsory.
  Earl Russell: Has the Minister ever known any bureaucratic power which was infallibly exercised?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No. As I tried to explain earlier, that is precisely why anyone seeking to come for an interview would have three repeated contacts through letters or telephone calls. No one would lose benefit in this situation unless he had been personally contacted and was fully aware of the implications of his action. No benefit would be cut off by administrative error because no benefit would he cut off without personal contact having been made, based on home visits or the like. Although I cannot guarantee it, we have put in as much "belt and braces" as is conceivable or feasible under the present system.
  Perhaps I may turn from the point about what people do not know and move on to deal with some of the points raised by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley. The requirement to attend an interview is not an onerous one; indeed, we are talking about an interview which may last, say, an hour in the course of about a year. Those interviews will be arranged at times which fit in with a claimant's caring responsibilities. It can take place in the carer's home if that is appropriate. However, where it is not appropriate to expect someone to have a discussion with a personal adviser because, for example, the person being cared for is seriously ill, the interview can be deferred. My noble friend also asked about the training of staff. I can tell her that the Carers National Association is involved in the training of staff.
  We are approaching the concept of the interview based on the "one" programme as an opportunity for people. We want them to learn about their entitlement

  231
  to benefits; we want them to learn about support; and we want those carers who have come out of the labour market, and who may very quickly go back into it, to stay in contact with the labour market. However, we know that those who have had the least education, those who are most isolated and who have the most severe disabilities are those who have the least knowledge about their entitlements.
  If we rely on people coming forward voluntarily, we know that those who are already well educated and sharp are able to come forward and that those who most need help do not. That is why we are embedding the benefit claim in the interview. But following that, once people are informed and can make informed choices, the choice is theirs. They have the freedom and the right to make that choice. In the light of that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
  Lord Rix: Can the Minister assure me that the department will issue guidance on the service provided to full-time carers through the "one" process, and that guidance of a most detailed kind—as she said on the previous amendment—will be available for the offices taking part?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Guidance will be sent to personal advisers on how best to respond to all these situations—those of carers, severely disabled people and the like.
  Lord Rix: Does that include guidance on home visits as an alternative to having to go to an office?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, of course.
  Lord Rix: With that assurance, and with the slight proviso that I feel I must consult again with the Disability Benefits Consortium, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 97:
  Page 59, line 21, at end insert (";and such regulations shall not have effect unless they have been laid in draft before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.")
  The noble Earl said: The purpose of Amendment No. 97 is to use the affirmative procedure for regulations under Clause 52. It embodies a recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. That committee states in paragraph 11 of its report,
  "These are important new powers, and the Committee considers that wherever the Government's intention for the use of these powers is already certain, for example not requiring retired people to attend work-focused interviews, then this should be stated on the face of the Bill and not left to regulation. We also consider that the first instance of the use of these powers should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure".
  All governments have a good record on accepting the reports of that committee. The committee is a valuable servant of this Chamber. Indeed it has been suggested
  232
  by people of some importance that what it does is so important it might well be imitated elsewhere. That is not for me to say, but it shows that its work is recognised and respected well beyond the confines of this Chamber. The fact that the committee has made this recommendation is itself a serious reason for this amendment.
  Anyone who has heard this debate will, I think, understand that there are reasons for use of the affirmative procedure. We have found a good deal of uncertainty about the extent of the powers. We have found a good deal of room for dispute about the details of how the powers shall be exercised and a good deal of concern about the nature or extent of penalties. All these are matters which should properly be the concern of the Chamber. I admit that one must be wary about not applying the affirmative procedure to too many issues. We need to keep the affirmative procedure for occasions when there is likely to be a considerable body of people in the Chamber wanting to discuss the issue because it is of general concern and because the issues which it raises are extremely various. I think this debate has proved that that criterion is here wholly satisfied. Therefore the case for the affirmative procedure under the regulations under Clause 52 is a strong one.
  We are having a new condition of benefit. How much change that will mean is a point which I think remains open to discovery. The discovery will in part come from seeing those regulations. It will concern everyone. If we are to tease out exactly what the meaning is, we need the issue brought forward in open Chamber where we can all have a look at it. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was hoping that the noble Earl would feel able to withdraw this amendment because he has had a copy of the letter to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee accepting its proposals. I can give a full answer if he likes but, given that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee asked that the first set of regulations should be subject to an affirmative resolution procedure, we have written to the committee saying that we are happy to agree to that. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has received a copy of that letter, as has the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I wonder whether, in the light of that, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Baroness Buscombe: Before the Minister sits down, would she in those circumstances be prepared to publish the draft regulations to which this Bill refers prior to the Report stage?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall have to take advice on that but I would hope so.
  Earl Russell: I think that I owe the Minister an apology. I think the Minister knows that the Chamber sat late last night. One o'clock in the morning is not the best time to start opening post; it does not make one particularly popular at home. I hope that under those circumstances the Minister will forgive me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 98:
  Page 59, line 21, at end insert—
  ("(1A) A work-focused interview for a person receiving or applying for or having applied for incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance, or disability premia in income support shall only take place once the personal capability assessment provided for in section 171C of the Contributions and Benefits Act has been made.")
  The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, we ask simply for clarification as to the processes for assessing a claimant's ability to work or not, and the work-focused interview. In another place it was said that the two processes—the personal capability assessment and the work-focused interview—are separate but related. But how are they related? We believe that the personal capability assessment should be a prerequisite for a proper work-focused interview. I suggest that it would not make sense to have a work-focused interview before the capability assessment has been made. To have a capability assessment after a work-focused interview would be illogical and possibly an expensive waste of money. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This amendment seeks to stipulate on the face of the Bill that claimants of incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance and income support with a disability premium will all have their initial "one" interview deferred until after they have had a personal capability assessment (PCA).
  I know that the relationship between the "one" service and the personal capability assessment was discussed at length in another place, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has raised some of the same issues today. But, although I can appreciate the intentions behind the amendment, I do not believe that it would be right to accept it.
  As the Committee knows, Clause 56 of the Bill replaces the current all-work test with the personal capability assessment. The all-work test determines whether people are incapable of work for the purposes of entitlement to incapacity benefits. The PCA will still do this, and the criteria for entitlement to benefit will remain the same. However, we want to add value to the assessment process, by using it to collect additional information about people's work-related capabilities.
  The "one" service aims to help people from the outset of their claim, changing the culture of the benefit system. The earlier support is given, the more likely people are to focus on planning a route to a fuller life, and the less likely they are to be left stranded on benefit, often against their wishes. That is why we feel it is important for as many people as possible to have an interview immediately at the point of claim.
  However, as I say, for most people, taking part in an interview is not an onerous requirement—we are not requiring anyone to do anything unreasonable. The interview is not a test of eligibility for benefit. The PCA is a medical test which achieves that. The "one" interviews, on the other hand, will offer practical and welfare-related support, and a chance to talk about whether any work or training would be appropriate. They give us a chance to show what help we can offer. For these reasons, I do not believe that it would be right
  234
  to automatically defer the initial "one" interview until after the PCA. This would also run counter to the aim of the "one" service to treat people as individuals. it is important to bear in mind the range of disabilities, circumstances and barriers to work that affect claimants of incapacity benefits. In addition, the nature, stage and progress of their condition may be quite different. For example, some people come onto incapacity benefit after spending up to six months on statutory sick pay, and some come straight on to IB at the start of their illness or disability. Many people may, therefore, benefit from an interview at the outset of their claim.
  Of course, as I have said several times—I must be boring the Committee—we recognise that for some people an immediate interview would not be appropriate. For example, it would not be appropriate for us to interview immediately someone in the early stages of recovering from a major operation. However, the decision to defer the interview will always be made on the basis of individual circumstances. We have always made it clear that we will respond to people's needs in a sensitive way, but we do not believe that it would be right automatically to waive or defer the interview for specific groups.
  As I said, we believe that the interviews and the advice and support of a personal adviser are helpful. We want the interviews to be positive. It would be quite wrong for certain groups of people who could benefit from getting that help to have to wait, often several months, until a PCA comes through. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
  7 p.m.
  Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for that explanation. However, I may not have entirely understood it. What happens if a claimant attends a work-focused interview and then, at that interview, is found to he incapable of work?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Claimants will acquire the entitlement to incapacity benefit by virtue of their score on the all-work test. As the noble Baroness will know, we are not changing anything on that issue; for example, if a person scores 15 points or more on the all-work test for physical disability, he will be entitled to IB; if he has a mental health incapacity, the score is 10 points. That is not changing. There is a Chinese wall between a person's entitlement to benefit and a personal capability assessment.
  One of the big criticisms of the all-work test—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I were shoulder to shoulder on this when it was first introduced—is that it concentrates on the negatives. It concentrates on the things that people cannot do—they cannot put a hat on their head; they cannot lift a bag of potatoes; they cannot do this and they cannot do that—and they score points accordingly. One of the criticisms that has always been made by the disability groups—and which I was making on behalf of those same organisations when I was sitting on the Benches opposite—was that the test did not show what people could do. It did not show whether they had

  235
  the capacity to do other things and could move on to other areas of work with appropriate support and training.
  If someone in a HGV driving job developed major back problems, for example, and could not continue driving, it is possible that with retraining there may be some other, more clerically based jobs that he would like to do and be happy doing. The all-work test will simply ensure his entitlement to IB; the personal capability assessment will, given the nature of his situation—his disabilities and so on—discuss with him what he may be able to do. Whether he chooses to take up any of that advice remains entirely up to him.
  Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I wish to consider the matter a little more. Perhaps I may suggest that it will be referred to again under Clause 56. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 99:
  Page 59, line 21, at end insert—
  ("() Regulations shall provide that a refusal by such a person to undertake work proposed at such an interview shall not, of itself, lead to a loss of benefit entitlement.")
  The noble Baroness said: I should say at the outset that I have no quarrel with the general concept of a single gateway into the benefits system. I accept that it remains a complex system, even after attempts to simplify it. Many claimants have no idea of their entitlement, particularly older claimants. If a single gateway implies the establishment of a proper counselling service designed to ensure that claimants are fully aware of all the options open to them, including benefit entitlement, it can only be a welcome development. Of course, I also agree that people should be encouraged to take suitable employment. This would, of course, imply a fairly sophisticated training programme for the staff who will have to operate the scheme. I hope that arrangements will be in place for that to happen. I welcome the noble Baroness's assurances in that respect.
  However, it seems to me that there may be problems. If there is an agenda at the back of all this designed to get as many people as possible off benefits, the temptations for the officials operating the scheme would be to pressurise people into taking employment, no matter how unsuitable or underpaid. I am particularly concerned about lone parents of young children. In fact, I wonder whether mothers of children under five should be expected to attend for interview at all. During one of our debates in the House about lone parents, an assurance was given on behalf of the Government that lone parents would not be compelled to take up employment.
  Given what appears in other parts of the Bill, I sometimes question whether those who think up policies believe things have changed for women far more than they actually have. In a recent pilot scheme
  236
  aimed at getting lone parents into work, which was conducted in Cardiff, it was noticeable that the only women who pronounced the scheme a success were those with professional training, for whom well paid jobs were available. The majority, who were not in that category, could see nothing in it for them.
  Noble Lords have spoken about the disabled. I agree with the concerns that have been voiced. Again, I welcome the assurances given by the Minister in regard to some of those concerns.
  As I read the Bill, it seems to me that people already in receipt of benefit could be summoned for a work-focused interview. Many people may feel scared or intimidated by the invitation to attend such an interview and may possibly not attend, thus risking the loss of benefits. The middle classes are used to dealing with officialdom and, generally speaking, are not intimidated by it. It is not always the same, I fear, for the ill-informed or the ill-educated.
  If, therefore, the scheme is, as the Government have so often described it, a move to try to show claimants the range of options—and not to pressurise people into taking any sort of job, whether unsuitable, ill paid, perhaps a long way from home or with inconvenient hours and various other drawbacks—and if it is not a move to get people off benefits no matter how, it would seem reasonable to include something like my amendment on the face of the Bill.
  I should not like to see this country moving in the direction of the United States' workfare system. Although I am sure that much can be learned from America, it must be recalled that it seems impossible for it to do anything about the increasingly dangerous underclass which exists in most major cities and which has become totally alienated from normal society. The Government have rightly proposed policies aimed at avoiding that kind of social exclusion. They should continue that philosophy by supporting my amendment, which stipulates that the regulations shall provide that a refusal by a person to undertake work proposed at an interview shall not of itself—I emphasise that—lead to a loss of benefit entitlement. I beg to move.
  Earl Russell: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said. We understand the point the Minister has made many times that there will not be compulsion but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I remember some of our exchanges on the issue of single parents. There is a middle ground—a very undistributed middle—between being compelled to work and being allowed to continue to receive benefit. There is an area for feeling under pressure, under encouragement, under constant suggestion, under the instillation of a sense of guilt. All these things make a difference to people.
  I do not know whether the Minister saw an article in the Observer just over a week ago about the missing millions. These are people who have disappeared from the benefit rolls and from most else as well. One of the people the Observer talked to said that he had gone off benefit and disappeared—he did not explain how he made his living; one might wonder—because he was

  237
  tired of being made to feel a drain, no good, a burden on society and so forth every time he drew benefit. That is a wonderful example of the law of unintended consequence. The noble Baroness's amendment draws attention to that danger.
  We need an assurance not only that people will not be compelled to work, but that it will be recognised that in the end they themselves—especially those with young children and if they are exempt from the actively seeking work rules—are the best judges of whether or not they ought to be working. That is a vital point of recognition of individuality, without which bureaucracy can become extremely burdensome.
  I am very glad, too, that the noble Baroness said what she did about the United States. The United States has achieved a great deal of saving on its welfare rolls. I believe that 3 million people have disappeared from those rolls. We do not know what has happened to those people but we do know, when we consider the costs to the United States' and state treasuries, that the prison budget has taken up the slack left by the welfare system. That is a very expensive system. Concern for the taxpayer, if nothing else, would make it quite important to avoid it. So when one is thinking about pressure one ought to think about all these possible unintended consequences.
  Where one is dealing with people with physical handicaps, who have occupied a great deal of our debate today, one should accept that very often they can judge what they are capable of doing when others cannot. To take as one example back conditions, there are many people who on some days can do a great deal of work. On other days they really cannot. No outsider can really judge that, and unless there is this recognition of people's individuality the whole thing will be a misery. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for drawing attention to precisely these points.
  Lord Rix: I welcome this amendment because it would require any government considering a more radical approach to compulsion to bring forward primary legislation in order to introduce such a change. We may be aligning ourselves a little more closely to our European neighbours in terms of monetary policy, but when it comes to social policy transatlantic influences are clearly evident, as underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. There are a number of more radical US models of compulsion which I am certain that Parliament would want to scrutinise very carefully before their introduction in the United Kingdom is even contemplated.
  7.15 p.m.
  Baroness Buscombe: I rise to speak in strong support of this amendment. We accept that people should be encouraged to take up suitable employment but we question, as have the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the pressure that may be put upon people to take up work, remembering that we are talking about a single gateway,
  238
  which has that emphasis on work. In particular we have referred to lone parents with young children, those who are disabled and those recently bereaved.
  Reactions to the Government's proposals for the single gateway from pressure groups has largely concentrated, as we have heard earlier, on the measures to compel benefit claimants to attend interviews as a condition of claiming benefit. I suggest also that it has to do with the pressure which may follow naturally on attendance at an interview. In an article for the Independent responding to an earlier article by Alistair Darling on the single gateway, Martin Barnes, Director of the Child Poverty Action Group said:
  "The benefits regime is tough already, don't make it tougher. CPAG agrees that for those who want to and are able to work, paid employment is a route out of poverty. But work is not, Hid should not be made to be, an option for all—there must also be genuine security and dignity for those without paid work. The issue of tie adequacy of benefits should be addressed by Alistair Darling, not ignored. Benefits can help prevent poverty, even if the causes are many and complex".
  Also, in a press release responding to tile Bill, Gingerbread, a pressure group representing lone parents, welcomed the fact that lone parents would have access to accurate information about work, training and work-related benefits. Gingerbread, in a press release on the welfare reform Bill on 10th February 1999, expressed its concern over certain aspects of the proposals for the single gateway, and in particular whether the interview would be carried out by an adviser with expertise on the specific needs of lone parents, such as childcare and training needs.
  Gingerbread also argued that for lone parents who had recently been through a separation pressure could add to an individual's stress. On the issue of lone parents and work, it argued that lone parents should be able to make a choice about whether or not they work, based on the needs of their children. They said that parenting was important work, with a long-term benefit to society. Ii must be made clear that lone parents will not have to work. They will only attend an interview to receive information.
  That point brings us to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said in relation to compulsion in connection with interviews. It should also be impressed upon personal advisers that there has to be a really careful balance struck between the need to encourage people to feel positive about work and also about the need to accept that there are many people on benefits now who, for good reason, wish to remain so, particularly lone parents, the disabled and those recently bereaved.
  A number of examples have been raised this afternoon as to why compulsory interviews should not take place. I think there are many more examples. I would particularly refer to multiple sclerosis, where sufferers from that disease can often go through a long period of remission. When in remission they would be perfectly capable of taking up a job, but I would hope that the Minister can give reassurance that the personal advisers would understand that such remission is for an unforeseeable period, and that the patient, though feeling well at the interview and able to take up work, may within days or weeks, or overnight, have relapsed

  239
  into a state in which he or she is simply not capable of working. Therefore in supporting this amendment, we are asking for an enormous degree of sensitivity in relation to the whole interview process. As has been said earlier, we thoroughly support the principle of the interview but we would want to be reassured that nobody would be put under pressure to accept a job where that would be unreasonable.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If I may begin with that last point, I am very happy to give that assurance. I will not deal with the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as he is not in his place at the moment; but my noble friend Lady Turner raised this matter in terms of whether a lone parent, for example, should be expected to work if there is a child under five, or even to go to an interview at all, on the assumption that anyone with a child under five would not want to work and should not come for an interview.
  Under the new deal for lone parents, I have been startled to find that nearly a third of those seeking to come on to the new deal have children under five. I think we accept too easily and too freely the assumptions, often of a different generation, of what women themselves say that they want. Our intention with these interviews, as the noble Earl said, is to empower people who are the best judges of what they should do to make that judgment in an informed way, if they are lone parents or have a disability. Lone parents were telling me, even those with children under five, that they did not see that going into work was an inferior way of bringing up children; they actually thought it was the best way of bringing up their children, providing that the hours and the pay were right and that childcare was available.
  As my noble friend has explained, this amendment is intended to ensure that the provisions in Clause 52 cannot be used to force benefit claimants to take up employment against their will. I can assure her that no such intention lies behind the taking of this path. The Government have made their position very clear, both in the other place and in this Chamber. We wish to introduce into the benefits system a requirement that clients of working age take part in the "one" interviews. We are not introducing into this clause any further conditions. We do want people to attend the interviews, to talk about the barriers that stand in their way and to discuss the help and opportunities that are available to them. They will then be free to decide for themselves whether to take up those opportunities. It will be a matter of choice, but it will be informed choice. So I am happy, as I have said, to reassure my noble friend. I hope that as a result she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for the assurances she has given this afternoon. I am very glad that they will be in Hansard and that we shall be able to look at them again. However, I still wonder, since that is so, why there would be any objection at all to including my wording, or something very similar to it, on the face of the Bill. As I said
  240
  earlier, people can feel intimidated by a requirement to attend for interview. I have evidence of that, as I am often approached by women seeking advice on these matters. If that is the case, I do not see why there should not be a provision on the face of the Bill stating positively that if a person turns down an offer of employment, that does not, of itself, disqualify the claimant from benefit. However, in view of the noble Baroness's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, although I may return to the matter on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 100 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 101:
  Page 59, line 26, leave out paragraph (d)
  The noble Baroness said: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 101, and respectfully suggest that it might make a great deal of sense to speak next to Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 together.
  Amendment No. 101 relates specifically to widows and widows' bereavement benefits falling within Sections 21E and 21EA of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act. This amendment is important. We do not believe it appropriate to engage people in the gateway process and encourage them to find work in certain circumstances. This matter has been discussed; however, it is important to make reference to bereavement benefits.
  We are concerned that in certain circumstances, at a very difficult time, people should not be forced to take part in a "one" in order to receive benefit. Although there are to be exceptions to compulsion, we believe that regulations regarding those exceptions should be carefully crafted to protect those who may, for example, be suffering considerable, albeit invisible, mental distress.
  We also question the skills of the personal advisers and the extent of their training to deal with such cases. In addition, account should be taken of widows with dependent children. It is fair to say that women, particularly those who make what is often a difficult choice to stop work in order to care for their children, lose considerable confidence when they do so. They need an enormous amount of support to face the world of work again; and they will be doing so without their spouse to support them and help them to regain that confidence. I can speak from personal experience. When I stopped work to have my three children, I found that my confidence in the workplace was considerably reduced. It has taken some time to find it again.
  Further, we believe that we should respect the fact that many widows, and indeed widowers, will possibly have spent many months, even years, caring for their partners and are simply not in the physical and mental good health that is necessary to seek work. The Bill includes an exemption for those with "good cause". We ask: who is the arbiter of that cause? Again, the personal carers will have an enormous responsibility placed upon them. There is also a question as to whether they will be able to understand people's sensitivities. We heard

  241
  earlier from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that some interviewers are simply not sensitive. We must confront that fact. People are human, and some have failings in that sense. So we are asking for reassurance, if the Minister is not minded to accept the amendment, that as part of the training for personal advisers considerable regard is paid to the very sensitive period that widows and those in receipt of bereavement benefits go through. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps the noble Baroness can help me. I understood from her introductory remarks that she intended to group all three amendments together.
  Baroness Buscombe: I should like to speak to the next two amendments together.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: So this amendment is separate and the next two will be taken together. I misunderstood the noble Baroness.
  Amendment No. 101 seeks to exclude widows and widowers from the requirement to participate in a work-focused interview. I have every sympathy with the intention that those who have recently experienced bereavement should be treated with respect, consideration and sensitivity. I do not believe that excluding people from the "one" service is the right way to do it.
  The noble Baroness will recall that when we discussed widows' benefits the other evening, I tried to make the point that many widows or widowers are already in work when their spouse becomes ill; they become carers, possibly for only a fortnight, for a month, or for two or three years; and although they want to return to work, they may need help to do so. Others will move back into work very speedily. As I said, in that case, women often find it easier to return to work than do men. Others, particularly those who find themselves with childcare responsibilities, will want to stay in touch with the possibilities and to explore what they might do in future. The "one" service will enable them to do so, by providing each individual with a personal adviser who will help them to gain access to the help and support that is available to them. Personal advisers will receive guidance and training to help them to relate to clients in an appropriate and sensitive way. An immediate interview is not necessarily appropriate, in which case personal advisers will be able to defer the requirement and pay the benefit as soon as possible. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I listened with great care to the recent debate on the question of widow's bereavement benefit. It is important to stress the difference between many women of our generation who are in the world of work today and, in contrast, women of my mother's generation, were she to be alive today; namely, women in their 70s and 80s. There are many women who, although they are still of working age, are not used to working or have become unused to it. We believe that
  242
  enormous sensitivity should apply in such cases. I hear what the Minister says in terms of the training of personal advisers and her reassurance that sensitivity will be an important part of that training. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 102:
  Page 59, line 29, leave out paragraph (e)
  The noble Baroness said: As I suggested, it would make sense to speak to Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 together. I shall be brief. Much of what I had intended to say has already been covered in considerable discussion. However, I make no apology for repeating that, although we and the disability organisations believe that engaging disabled people in the gateway and encouraging them to find work is important and right, it is also crucial to ensure that genuinely disabled people are not pushed into situations and interviews for which they are not well enough.
  In that regard, particular reference must be made to those who feel almost an innate sense of fear in terms of the compulsion to attend a "work-focused" interview rather than, as I have previously suggested, a "personal development" interview, because they feel that they will not be capable of responding properly to that interview.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rix, gave some straightforward and moving examples, with particular reference to his daughter, as to why the whole interview process should not be compulsory for certain people.
  I support the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who again and again has pushed for the removal of any words that express compulsion in relation to the work-focused interview for those in receipt of incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance. We do not believe that that is a positive way forward. Many disabled people want to work, and they should be encouraged to have work-focused interviews. However, there are those for whom this proposal is unrealistic. If the interview is compulsory, fine: the person will turn up for the interview or it will take place in the home. But in the end how much will be gained from making those interviews compulsory? Those who want to work and seek information can do so by choice. We very much hope that through that process they will be guided in the right direction, supported and will find work, which is laudable. However, we suggest that for those who are incapable of work and do not want to attend an interview compulsion will not take the process any further, in which case the whole cost of the process will not justify making it compulsory. If it is optional most people will take it up, but there is a significant group of people who will not do so. I beg to move.
  7.30 p.m.
  Earl Russell: I offer my support for this group of amendments. If I do not explain why it is only because I would be repeating either what I or the noble Baroness have said, or both.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: These two amendments would remove claimants of IB and SDA

  243
  from the requirements of the Bill to participate in the "one" interviews. I do not accept that. There are 1.6 million who receive IB, all of whom once had a job. Nearly 400,000 currently receive SDA. They have very different conditions and needs and range from people who are off work for a few weeks with a bad back to people who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness. It is vital that we should be able to treat each person as an individual and take steps towards meeting each person's needs, as the "one" service is designed to do.
  The personal adviser will consider each case individually and decide whether there should be an interview now, whether it should be deferred or waived altogether or whether it should take place in the home. The advisers will be extensively trained with the support of the professional voluntary organisations that relate to the area of our debate this evening. Where the client will not benefit, for example if he or she has a terminal illness, the interview will be waived; where it is not appropriate at the particular time, perhaps because the individual has just come out of hospital, it may be deferred until he or she is ready to think about the future. But in all these cases there is a real role for the personal adviser to sort out benefit claims and support and advise on a future plan of action to help out the individual and the carer, if there is one.
  The crunch point between us is whether the interview should be compulsory or optional. The noble Baroness believes that most people who would benefit from an interview would take it up. That is not our experience in relation to the New Deal for lone parents where about three-quarters of those concerned do not respond to an invitation. However, of those who do respond, 88 per cent take up the invitation. That is a new voluntary scheme which is not well publicised and is still in its infancy. However, those who take up that invitation benefit from it. We are concerned about those who do not know what they do not know and miss out on the opportunities to learn.
  Earl Russell: Does not the noble Baroness offer us the classic case of the pre-selected sample?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes. Where it is voluntary those who already are fairly knowledgeable about the help on offer come forward, whereas those who are not fail to come forward. The latter are the ones in greatest need. The noble Earl makes my point better than I could myself.
  Earl Russell: Has the Minister any reason to assume that the same success rate will be scored for those who do not come forward voluntarily?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is not a success rate judged by whether somebody goes to work but by whether somebody is able to make an informed choice as to what to do. For example, based on experience under the New Deal, someone who fails to attend an interview, perhaps because of poor educational qualifications or because he or she lives in a poor and isolated estate and is unaware of the opportunities,
  244
  remains the most disadvantaged and handicapped. One either accepts that people do not know what they do not know or that there is an open choice. I believe that the true way to help people is to empower them to make informed choices, which is the purpose of the interview.
  If, following the interview, people choose not to go to work because it is not appropriate for them, we agree with that choice; that is their choice which they have every right to make. But they cannot make that choice if they are not informed of the basis of it. For that reason, we believe it is right that, unless there is good reason either to defer or waive the interview, people should attend as part of the claims process. In that way, the remaining steps that they may want to take will be based on an informed choice which otherwise they may not be able to make.
  Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her explanation. It will probably be difficult to reach an agreement on this matter. We firmly believe that certain people should be given the choice whether or not to attend an interview. That will relieve stress and fear and create a much more positive environment to help people to cope. We may return to this matter at a later stage. However, on the basis that the Minister has given a number of assurances this evening, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments No. 103 and 104 not moved.]
  Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

Prisons
7.35 p.m.
The Earl of Longfordrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the latest annual report from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons; and what developments there have been since the report was published.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have 10 minutes. That does not seem generous but it is far longer than the time allocated to the distinguished speakers who follow me, apart from the time available to the most eminent of all, the Minister. I am sorry that the other speakers may have to indulge in a series of soundbites when they have so much wisdom to offer us.
If I had been able to table this Motion a month ago, I would have been able to pay an almost unqualified tribute to the approach of the Government and the prison department under its new director. I would have had to qualify it to the extent that the size of the future prison population was, and still is, uncertain. I believe that it has been held down in recent times, but no one knows.

245
Only the official predictions provide any guide to whether there will be a big increase in the prison population in the years ahead.
If I had been speaking a month ago, I would have said that the Government had the full confidence of the Chief Inspector of Prisons. I take this opportunity to say that the Chief Inspector of Prisons is one of the men I admire most in the country; another is his predecessor Judge Tumim. If I say that the present inspector is a man of the same quality, I cannot praise him any higher. However, he has the additional advantage of being a soldier, which means that people do not believe that he will be soft on crime. They might have thought that the other one was perhaps an artist. They are both wonderful men.
If I had been speaking a month ago, I would have paid an unqualified tribute. A good deal of tribute must still be paid. However, I should have had to point out the problem of the increase in prison population under the legislation now passed; no one knows what it will be. But that is all speculation.
In the past few weeks, we have been faced with something very unpleasant: the report on Wormwood Scrubs by the chief inspector. I warned the eminent Minister that I should refer to Wormwood Scrubs. Indeed, it comes under the scope of the Motion. I think that we can all agree that it is the most lamentable report on a prison that has been produced for many years. It is certainly the worst during my 50 years' experience of prison visiting. Are we to blame anyone in particular? In the House and elsewhere blame has been freely distributed and justly received. The department comes under censure, as do prison officers. But the Home Office has got off rather undeservedly lightly. When President Nixon was disgraced, he said that he would not grovel. I do not ask the Minister to grovel, but I think that a few humble words would be appropriate considering what a wretched show this is. The Home Office cannot avoid full responsibility.
Two years ago, the Chief Inspector of Prisons announced that that the situation in Wormwood Scrubs was deplorable. Two years later, he announced that it was rather worse. Someone is to blame in the mean while. One can blame the prison officers or the prison service, but the Home Office and Ministers cannot escape blame. It would be as well if they recognised that.
I take up one point. After the first report, there was a gap of six months when there was no governor in Wormwood Scrubs. Who was to blame for that? You may say, the prison governor, but one cannot absolve the Home Secretary from such a serious lapse. That is plain enough.
I recently praised highly the Home Secretary for a new approach, although I would not have done so a year earlier. That was before the Wormwood Scrubs report. I said that the moment for canonisation—treating him as a saint—had not quite arrived. In view of the report, there is even more reason to say that it has not yet arrived.
246
What are the Home Office and the prison service going to do? I believe that they will set out to do a lot of good things. All that they have said is excellent. I believe that the new chief inspector was given almost a standing ovation when he addressed prison officers recently. So a new mood has taken root. All that is encouraging, but let us at least admit past failures and do not let us try to put the blame on someone else.
What about the future? I must say one thing which will not make the Minister any fonder of me, but I have to risk that. Like everyone else who has been concerned with prisoners for any length of time, I am passionately opposed to privatisation of prisons. It seems to me that the Home Secretary and the Minister in this House are toying with moving in that direction. That is a total dereliction of duty on the part of those who seize people, rightly. The courts rightly convict people and lock them up, perhaps for years. Responsibility for those people remains with the Government. One cannot say to a prisoner, "I say, old chap, why don't you see the error of your ways and behave better?" He would say, "You're just acting for some commercial interest". It defeats the whole purpose of the prison system.
Perhaps I may commend the words of the poet to our much respected Minister, who is rightly successful here:
"Turn again oh my sweetest
"The beaten ways are treated as hell's own track".
For God's sake, let us rule out privatisation. I give one reason for ruling it out. If one asks any people in the prison service why they do not trust the present Government, they say that it is because the Government are toying with privatisation and bypassing them. That is not very nice, is it? It is not good Labour Party policy, I should have thought. The problem is the bypassing of the POA and doing without a trade union within the business. I think that it is a disgrace. I hope and believe that that will be repudiated, if not tonight perhaps later.
I have sought to be constructive. I have given the Minister a few hours' notice of this point. Is it not possible to try to establish a better relationship with the Prison Officers' Association? Alternatively, do the Government despair of them? Do they feel, "We can't do anything with the POA. We'll go for commercial interests"? I hope that the Minister will consider this point. I ventured to place it before him a few hours ago. There should be a representative of the Prison Officers' Association on the new strategic board. I think that that might be the beginning of a better relationship. I do not ask for an answer tonight.
I spoke recently too quickly and too crudely when I said that to be a prison officer was an appalling profession. It is an appallingly difficult profession, but, when all is said and done, I agree with what the Minister said: the great majority of prison officers approach the task in a noble spirit. I would rather leave that thought tonight.
The Home Secretary and the revered Minister here have a heavy responsibility. Few of us would be capable of discharging it. Years ago when someone had the idea of my being Home Secretary—it was not likely; I was in the House of Lords—my friend Evelyn Waugh wrote that it would be fatal if I were to become Home

247
Secretary; we would all be murdered in our beds. I do not say that there was ever any chance of my being Home Secretary. I say only that few of us would feel able to tackle the job. The Home Secretary has to win and maintain the confidence of the public and, above all, those responsible for order. But he is a good, strong Christian socialist and I am sure that these words are very familiar to him. Jesus Christ said,
"I was in prison, and ye came unto me … Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of my brethren, ye have done it unto me".
7.47 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Earl for introducing the debate this evening. I am sure that I would not have read this annual report without having the target of speaking in the debate.
It is important for us to realise that, while many failures of the system are highlighted in the report, some good practices are being introduced. It was encouraging to see that. Some prisons are being run very well, although others are not.
I should like to ask the Minister questions on three specific points. I start with a restructuring proposal on page 21 of the report. My motive in asking the question is purely altruistic. This change would make the life of the Minister responsible for prisons immeasurably easier. I refer to the appointment of one director over one type of prison such as women's prisons or young people's prisons. What is the Government's view on that proposal?
Secondly, I turn to the subject of education, work skills and training for employment, a subject about which noble Lords have frequently talked over many years and which many of us believe is key to the future of the prison population. On page 11, one prison is mentioned which provides only 7 per cent of prisoners with education on each day. It is appalling that only 60 out of 860 prisoners can receive education. Bearing in mind that literacy and numeracy levels of the majority of people in prison are way below average, education is crucially important. The report also points out that 97 per cent of those leaving prison will be unemployed. It makes the valuable point, with which I fully agree, that securing a job, coupled with a home and a stable partnership, is the best combination for avoiding recidivism.
What are the Government's present plans for improving education and training for employment? In particular, should all prisoners at the outset, immediately after sentencing, complete an aptitude test similar to that taken by New Deal young prisoners? I feel that this would be very beneficial. Although it would cost money, it would make the training in prison much better focused. That should be additional to the education needs assessment which is recommended for each prison, but the results of these aptitude tests would surely contribute substantially to that needs assessment.
Thirdly, I should like to mention youth. I welcome the appointment of an Assistant Director of Regimes for young offenders who can look at programmes in each
248
relevant institution. Does the assistant director need more authority and greater responsibility? On page 14 reference is made to having one person responsible for all aspects of the imprisonment of young people and being given authority over allocated resources. Should that be this assistant director and would that help the situation of the young?
I should like warmly to commend Thorn Cross Youth Offenders Institution. It provides a 16-hour full, purposeful and active day, and young prisoners are responding to that regime. This will make an enormous difference. I want to end on that cheerful note.
7.51 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, there are two aspects of the Chief Inspector's report to which I wish to draw attention. One is the matter of chaplaincy and the other is that of family centres in prisons for women. Both are emphasised by him and both are naturally of interest to the churches. I wish to refer to the ecumenical work which the churches are doing in both these areas.
First, there is the matter of chaplaincy. Sir David says that
"the contribution of the Chaplaincy is wholly positive, and an important factor in the life of every prison".
He mentions the way in which the chaplains work in multi-faith teams and the fact that the vast majority of governors encourage the work of chaplains wherever possible. The churches are most grateful for that encouragement.
In some prisons, such as Bristol, the chaplain has played a major role in dealing with bereaved relatives following a suicide, and that work is commended in the report. In my own city of Gloucester the review of the chaplaincy speaks of their
"excellent work in reducing the unsettling effects of moving prisoners between jails".
The overcrowding in prisons is a major cause for concern and this has a bad impact on the life of families. The chaplaincy does what it can, but it is not always easy.
Secondly, there is the issue of visit centres. On page 40 of his report Sir David uses strong language about the way in which visitors are handled. He says that it is "frankly appalling" that at some prisons there are no facilities for visitors. He praises the way in which the voluntary sector, including, I might add, the Mothers' Union and the Bourne Trust, provides facilities for visitors, but he asks why it should be up to the voluntary sector to fund this. That question is echoed in an excellent new publication which was published recently by the Catholic Agency for Social Concern and entitled Women in Prison. I urge noble Lords to read this very good document. It calls for family visiting areas where families can stay overnight.
Two-thirds of women prisoners have children under the age of 16. In many cases these children have to make a very long journey to see their mother. After a visit which is often stressful and maybe to a prison with very few facilities, those children then have a very long return journey home on the same day. That, in effect, is

249
a punishment of the child as well as the mother. I hope that the words of Sir David and the recommendation of this Catholic report are taken very seriously indeed.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, in his report Sir David Ramsbotham has a number of passages on young prisoners and the new Youth Justice Board that I chair. I wish to address my remarks to these aspects of his report.
In my judgment, Sir David has performed a notable public service in drawing our attention over a period of time to the poor conditions and regimes which far too many young offenders have been experiencing in recent years. He cites in his report episodes at Werrington and has drawn attention to some of the problems experienced by juveniles in Feltham. They reveal that reform is badly necessary. I should like to say a little about what the Youth Justice Board has been doing since Sir David wrote his report.
The Home Secretary—and I do not know whether this will qualify him in his bid for canonisation—has agreed in principle that from April 2000 the board should become responsible for the commissioning and purchasing of all places in the juvenile secure estate. That includes the 2,400 or so places used by juveniles in the Prison Service as well as those places occupied by young offenders in local authority secure accommodation and the secure training centres. This means that the board will actually hold the budget and let contracts for a specified number of places in particular facilities.
These contracts will relate as far as the Prison Service is concerned to facilities that are part of its new discrete juvenile secure estate within the service. The contracts will make detailed requirements of each facility on the standards to be met, including the types of regime to be provided. Without going into a great deal of detail, I can say quite unequivocally that those standards will be much higher than has often been provided in the past. The board's approach is to use contracting to ensure that individual facilities provide good quality education and training programmes for all young offenders, together with programmes that tackle effectively their offending behaviour. All young offenders need to spend far more time engaged in well-run programmes that provide a better prospect of them returning to the community without re-offending.
The board has provided Home Office Ministers with advice on how the new commissioning and purchasing arrangements would work in detail. My right honourable friend the Minister has been his usual helpful and supportive self in this process. My understanding is that our proposals are broadly endorsed by Ministers and will be published shortly for consultation. Taken together with the new national standards that the board has prepared for the new detention and training order that comes into operation next April, I believe that these new arrangements will produce far better outcomes for young offenders than in the past.
Sir David Ramsbotham's annual report also draws attention to the experience that his team has had in Thorn Cross which has already been referred to by
250
another noble Lord. This points the way forward for the Prison Service, showing how it can provide very productive regimes for young offenders. The report gives a picture of how programmes like the high intensity programme at Thorn Cross can be used to change young offenders' behaviour for the better in the future.
At this point I should like to pay tribute to the way in which the new Director General of the Prison Service, Martin Narey, has shown tremendous personal commitment to improving the regimes for young offenders. He has worked very constructively with the board in bringing forward these new arrangements.
I want to conclude with a quotation from the Thorn Cross report which demonstrates the situation for which we are aiming. It states:
"Young prisoners felt safe and all were actively engaged in meaningful work for most of the day. Both they and the staff were justifiably proud of their achievements.".
That is our vision for the future for juvenile offenders.
8 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for introducing the debate and for his admirable persistence. Between 1992 and April this year, the number of women in prison more than doubled to over 3,000. In 1997, the thematic review by the Chief Inspector of Prisons concluded that only 30 per cent of women prisoners posed a security risk and needed to be in a closed prison. The majority were sentenced for non-violent offences. In the opinion of the CASC Report, already quoted by the right reverend Prelate, they could reasonably be punished in the community. Many reach prison because of previous personal problems including placement in care, poor education, debt or addiction. The chief inspector found that many had previously suffered physical or sexual abuse.
It seems that a high proportion of women prisoners have urgent need of rehabilitation, yet the thematic review showed that 55 per cent received no help while in prison and that more than 70 per cent of those women considered that prison had a negative effect on them.
What is worse is that the negative effect on the children of women in prison must be even more severe. Almost two-thirds of the women in the 1997 survey had children under 16, with an average of just under three children each. The situation for mothers is aggravated by the location of women's prisons in the central, eastern and home counties. There is not a single women's prison in Wales or the four south-western counties. I therefore ask the Government: what is the result of their consideration of much greater use of suspended sentences, whether by themselves or in combination?
I also urge the Minister and his colleagues not to rule out day, night-time or weekend detention for women, not only mothers. When will the Court of Appeal issue new guidelines on the sentencing of women, as is its duty under the 1998 Act? Will the court distinguish between women who have the care of children and other women offenders? When will national guidance be issued following work by the Hereford and Worcester

251
Probation Service to define the most effective forms of supervision in the community? Will the Government increase the use of parole for women, together with releases on resettlement licence and home detention curfews?
Foreign nationals are an important category among women prisoners, amounting to some 15 per cent at the end of last January. I suggest that the maximum use be made of the European convention and of the bilateral arrangements so that as many as possible can serve the balance of their sentences in their countries of origin. Communication with their families overseas is always crucial. Therefore, it is important that governors should use their discretion to the full over free telephone calls and airmails.
I turn to a point which I understand will require legislation. In the Netherlands, a woman who has the care of dependent children can defer the start of any prison sentence while she makes the best possible arrangements for the care of those children. If the Dutch can do it, why cannot our courts have a similar discretion? The Minister knows that a simple one-page Bill has already been drafted for that purpose. Can he confirm that such a provision will appear in the earliest possible piece of government legislation? In that context, how is the Prison Service review of mothers and children in prison progressing? When will it be published?
I return to my starting point. The number of women in prison needs to be reduced as there is scant evidence that the increase in sentencing has reduced crime. Alternatives to custody need to be developed, and rehabilitation both inside and outside prison should be greatly improved. I welcome last year's appointment of an assistant director of regimes for women and the establishment of a women's policy group. I trust that the Minister will give us further good news tonight about the much needed humanising of the present unsatisfactory state of imprisonment for women.
8.4 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, it is an honour to take part in a debate led by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I agree with his view that privatisation is not the best way forward.
It is clear from the chief inspector's annual report that having found much inconsistency in the treatment of prisoners he favours major changes to the structure of the Prison Service. As my noble friend Lord Brentford says, he believes that a better service would be delivered if directors were appointed to groups of like prisons. He cites the dispersal prison directorate in support of his view. He looks for a greater commitment to line management delivering cost-effective outcomes and much less emphasis on area staff functions. Will he carry the day? I doubt it. For deep is not calling for deep.
Sir David values management whereas the service values administration. Where he looks for results, it pursues processes. How otherwise do we explain Feltham and Wormwood Scrubs? That divide is evident in the contrasting styles of his reports and theirs.
252
In seeking a better way forward, we need again to face up to the question: can we have within the public service a division between the responsibility for policy and that for day-to-day management? Herbert Morrison certainly believed that we could, but now we seem to have lost it—although not with the BBC. There are other public sector examples; the heritage Act institutions having their incorporated boards of trustees. However, those examples did not persuade the Home Affairs Committee whose conclusion, which gained the Government's agreement was:
"It is not possible to lay down a rigid dividing line between the roles of Ministers and the Director General of the agency. The needs of accountability and responsibility will require some measure of ministerial involvement in the operational process".
Yet later in the same report, and somewhat wistfully, the committee looks for greater independence from Ministers for the service.
We cannot have it both ways: either we want to find a dividing line or we do not. Either Ministers play an integral part in management undertaken by their department, or Parliament delegates that responsibility to a separate incorporated body.
As I see it, there are now three options: first, to leave things as they are, which is not the chief inspector's choice and I agree with him; secondly, to watch the steady transfer of prisons into the contracted-out system, which I see as an admission of defeat although the dividing line is very clear; and, thirdly, to legislate for a clear division between policy and day-to-day management by the creation—or is it the re-creation?—of a statutory Prison Service separate from the Home Office. That would meet Sir David's views, realistically improve the Government's accountability to Parliament and enable the Prison Service to manage its own future. Even the Prime Minister's current frustrations might be assuaged. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he is indeed a supporter of the third way.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, not for the first time the House is indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for being given the opportunity to revisit problems which have been well discussed. I am a supporter of the chief inspector. He has produced an authoritative report. It is full of information and details many good and disturbing issues. It provides a timely opportunity for all sides to reflect on the situation. I urge co-operation rather than confrontation. My noble friend the Minister has an opportunity to put at rest some uneasy minds on the Home Office's view of its future relationship with the prisons.
I visited 32 prisons during my seven years as a consultant to the Prison Officers' Association. The overwhelming majority of prison officers are decent, professional and humane. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to this year's annual meeting of the POA, which I attended because it was the 60th anniversary. I endorse the excellent reception given to Martin Narey, who made a big impression not just on the members, who listened to his speech soberly and carefully, but on my good self.

253
Many prison officers are frustrated and exasperated by recent events. They want no part in many of the allegations that have been made. It is grossly unfair to support the tendency that tars all prison officers with the same brush. Society deals with criminals fairly, humanely and justly. However, once the prison doors are closed, both people who have committed the most heinous crimes and feckless unfortunates are locked in and the prison officers have to live with them for many hours of the day. Prison officers should be congratulated on doing one of society's dirty jobs.
I welcome the fact that the Government view imprisonment as an integral part of the criminal justice system. That is vital. I also support the Home Secretary's five objectives for the creation of a coherent prison strategy: to house the prison population safely; to protect the public; to develop constructive regimes; to use resources more efficiently in the public and private sectors; and to improve the effectiveness of the organisation. That signals a welcome change of attitude to enable the staff to be more involved in shaping the future of the prison service.
I am not making a plea, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reassure many people outside the House that this could be the beginning of a dialogue involving prison officers, prison governors, prison visitors and prisoners to help the Government to create a better penal estate. We are indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and to the chief inspector and I wish my noble friend the Minister well in his difficult task.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, how fortunate we are to have such a good director general of the Prison Service in Martin Narey and such an outspoken and independent chief inspector of prisons in Sir David Ramsbotham. To spare his blushes, I should also like to add that we have a remarkably good prisons Minister in the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
Sir David's 1997–98 report was more optimistic than many in recent years. His optimism was; based partly on the Government's encouragement of the greater use of community sentences and the release of prisoners under electronic tagging. Sir David said that those moves could have a real impact on overcrowding in prisons—a scourge with which the Prison Service has been afflicted for too long. He was also encouraged by the Government's plan to improve the treatment of juveniles in the prison system and by the additional £660 million to be made available to the Prison Service over the next three years as a result of the comprehensive spending review.
We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who identified the present level of the prison population and some of the associated problems. We hope that the Government's plans will lead to improvements in the prison system, including a reduction in the pressure of numbers. Even though the prison population has fallen from its peak of 66,550 in July 1998, it still stands at nearly 65,000, which is 60 per cent higher—and in the case of women prisoners 137 per cent higher—than at the end of 1992.
254
The rising prison population is due not to an increase in the number of offenders appearing before the courts, but to harsher sentencing. At all courts, the proportion of adult offenders convicted for indictable offences who were sentenced to immediate custody rose from 16 per cent in 1992 to 25 per cent in 1997. It is a shame that the current prison population of around 64,000 means that this country has 122 prisoners for every 100,000 people in the general population. That compares with 110 in Spain, 90 in France and Germany, 85 in Italy and Holland, 80 in Belgium, 65 in Denmark, 60 in Sweden, 55 in Norway and 50 in Greece. In the whole of western Europe, only Portugal gaols a higher proportion of its population than we do. The disproportionately high number of prisoners from ethnic minority communities is a further issue.
Regrettably, the welcome scheme for the early release of selected prisoners under electronic tagging has not produced the size of reduction in the prison population that the Government had hoped for. On 2nd July there were 1,969 people under home detention curfews who would otherwise have been in prison—about half of the Government's original estimate of 4,000. Why are the numbers so low and what steps are being taken to increase the number of suitable prisoners released under electronic tagging?
A number of noble Lords have identified many of the important requirements. We welcome the steps that the Government and the Prison Service have taken and are planning. We particularly welcome the extra £660 million made available under the comprehensive spending review over three years for additional prison capacity and to clear the backlog of urgent repairs and maintenance. However, the prospects for developing constructive prison regimes would be greatly improved if the trend of the past six years towards markedly more punitive sentences were arrested and reversed.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating this debate. His experience of prison work and his concern for the well-being of prisoners go back many years and we are all grateful for the benefit of his wisdom.
The report is written at an interesting time. Sir David Ramsbotham believes that there is a window of opportunity. We welcome that, but we suggest that it is not before time. During the Government's first years in office, too little was done at ministerial level. However, I welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and the director general, Mr Martin Narey that each considers that his reputation is on the line for the good delivery of the Prison Service of England and Wales. I hope that I do not misrepresent the noble Lord. I assure him that we shall be supportive—and constructively critical when appropriate—of the Government in their attempts to improve the prison regime.
The report is critical of several aspects of the service. Some of Sir David's most severe strictures are directed at senior management, who he feels have not done enough in many cases to eliminate poor standards and have left it to the inspector to identify the problems on

255
one of his necessarily infrequent visits. Leadership must come from the top. One of the recurrent themes in the report is the lack of time available for training.
The chief inspector's remarks on what is named, with some misplaced gravitas, the "prison culture" are disturbing. He notes a marked contrast in attitude between public and private sector prisons, highlighted by the fact that several of the private sector directors come from the public sector and are able to introduce practices where previously they had been frustrated by "the culture" in the public sector. Sadly, he mentions also that many junior staff in the public sector who have good and progressive ideas find themselves frustrated by what he terms domination and intimidation by their senior colleagues. We very much agree with Sir David's suggestion that addressing the "culture" in public sector prisons should be one of Mr Narey's top priorities.
Allied to that is the relationship of staff associations with management. The chief inspector sees faults on both sides. We are left in no doubt that Sir David is highly critical of the way industrial procedures are spun out to such an extent that the losers turn out to be the prisoners through no fault of their own.
In the debate on Feltham, the Minister assured us that concerns raised in that debate about the Prison Officers' Association and its relationship with management were being addressed. I look forward to hearing how that is proceeding.
On these Benches, we feel that we should welcome moves to extend private sector involvement in the prisons regime. In that regard, I must respectfully disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and my noble friend Lord Eccles.
This report is now over a year old and another one is due. Much has happened in the intervening period, including two highly critical reports on Wormwood Scrubs and Feltham, and a thematic report on suicides in prison. I look forward to receiving assurances from the Minister that those problems are being tackled.
Perhaps I may say how fortunate we are in having the services of Sir David Ramsbotham. We look forward with interest—and, I think, some awe—to reading his reports for 1998–99. I conclude with a remark addressed to me privately by Sir David. I am sure that he will not object if I repeat it. It relates to his enormous regard for prison officers in the service. I hope that that echoes the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this report covered the period December 1997 to November 1998, although it was published in April of this year, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said. The Prison Service's response to the report continues. It does not of itself require a formal response but we pay very careful attention, as the chief inspector recognises, to his recommendations and, in particular, his thematic reviews. He provides an invaluable service. I value his
256
personal qualities and his frankness. I have said in his presence on a number of occasions that I value the irritant quality of his reports because that is his duty.
He reported recently on Feltham and Wormwood Scrubs. He complained legitimately that earlier recommendations had not been acted upon as swiftly and effectively as they might have been. I can tell your Lordships that now all inspection reports on prison establishments are dealt with under a more formalised procedure. An action plan is formulated which is monitored to ensure that we do not lose sight of any recommendations.
A large number of the recommendations made by the task force in relation to Feltham have already been implemented; that is, 33 out of 39. The governor, Mr Clifford, has also introduced exercise to all remand prisoners in Feltham B which was not previously available. He has completed reprofiling for the efficient deployment of staff. He is negotiating with the POA but it has objected to some of the proposed changes and that must be resolved.
The new governor of Wormwood Scrubs, Stephen Moore, has completed his draft action plan. He is scheduled to agree it with the area manager, Peter Atherton, on Friday. The finalised plan will be submitted to me in time to meet the 30 day deadline on 27th July. I promised that 30-day deadline to this House when we discussed Wormwood Scrubs.
It is not right for anyone to suggest, as the noble Earl did, that the Home Office—either Jack Straw or I—was trying to duck responsibility. We both said, when we made the Statement on Wormwood Scrubs, that we accepted responsibility. Asked by one of your Lordships what was my response to the terms of the report, I used the words "anger", "fury" and "shame." There is no question of trying to avoid responsibilities.
Nor is there any question of trying to humiliate or punish the POA. I have known the general secretary, David Evans, on a close basis for many years. On becoming Minister with responsibility for prisons, I immediately invited David Evans and Mark Healy, the national chairman, to visit me. I told them that I should welcome regular meetings. I want co-operation with them in reformation of, and a determined attempt to improve, prison conditions.
I have said on earlier occasions when discussing Wormwood Scrubs—and I repeat it this evening—that the majority of those who serve in the Prison Service do so out of a sense of commitment. I do not regard it as appropriate to use the phrase used by the noble Earl on the last occasion, which I rejected even then.
The Earl of Longford: Did you hear what I said tonight, sir?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did hear what was said this evening and I am glad that the noble Earl has now withdrawn what he said.
The Earl of Longford: I have not, actually.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it might have been better had he done so. Stephen Moore has started

257
work at Wormwood Scrubs. He has introduced transparent systems and procedures in the segregation unit, new staff, new management and—very important, because it was criticised by Sir David—he has provided unfettered access to visitors; for example, boards of visitors, chaplains and probation staff. He has reintroduced governor grades to prison wings. Each wing is now managed directly by a governor grade. He has introduced a comprehensive incentives and privileges system for prisoners and has increased access to purposeful activity for all prisoners. There has been a refocusing of the education programme on core skills training and a complete overhaul of the staff annual appraisal system. That is only a beginning—but a good one.
I return to the annual report. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for what he said about the important window of opportunity. Sir David said that it had been,
"created by the very deliberate programme embarked upon by the Government in genera], and the Home Secretary in particular".
He highlights the work done by my noble friend Lord Warner following the establishment of the Youth Justice Board; the way that we seek to co-ordinate matters within the criminal justice system—the Crime and Disorder Act is the key to the future; and the greater use of community sentences and home detention curfew.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked in particular about home detention curfew, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also asked me about home detention curfew for women as opposed to men. Home detention curfew has been an extraordinary success. It is not early release. It is the management of prisoners in the community whereby they serve between two weeks and two months in their own homes. There has been a success rate of over 95 per cent. That is an extraordinary tribute to the work of those who carry out the assessments, principally those in the Prison Service and the Probation Service.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, raised the question of management. We have now altered the way that we manage. I chair a strategy board which is the forum for discussing the strategic direction of the Prison Service, its plans and performance. We met for the first time in May; we shall meet again next Tuesday. We shall meet a total of eight times per year. That is a strategy for the next few years rather than for the next few weeks or months.
Martin Narey, who is excellent—I am happy to echo the commendations—chairs the management board with a revamped board of directors. He is supported—and this was a point made by the noble Viscount—by the deputy director general, Phil Wheatley, who provides the source of operational management,, which I readily accept was lacking in the past. That was a common theme not only in Sir David's reports; governors and area managers also felt that the direct line of management was not clear.
I pay tribute also to the work of organisations like NACRO and the Prison Reform Trust. I spent an extremely interesting few hours recently with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, seeing what was being delivered
258
on the basis of practical utility for those who have no homes to go to, no work to go to. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, says; namely, that the classic indicators against reoffending are settled community, work opportunities, settled family and, very important, somewhere to live.
The areas of achievement highlighted by Sir David included the management of the dispersal (high security) estate and the way that open prisons occupy prisoners productively in work and education and assist in rehabilitation. Examples given were Sudbury, and farms and gardens at Kirkham and North Sea Camp. The high intensity regime at Thorn Cross has already been mentioned. I visited that recently. It does indeed show what can be done with a commitment of imagination and determination as well as resource.
As the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Dholakia, indicated, we are now spending substantially more. At present we spend about £7 million to produce 3,000 completions of accredited offending behaviour programmes by prisoners. By 2001/2002 we will have doubled the number to 6,000 and spent—productively, I am sure—£26 million.
I take up a common theme of your Lordships this evening: we are intent on basic skills education. We have to ensure that when people are discharged from custody they are able at least to hope for work. In some prisons two-thirds of the inmates cannot read or write sufficiently to obtain work. That means that over 90 per cent of the possible jobs available to them are simply excluded.
Fifty one million pounds has been allocated to regime provision for juveniles. The purposeful activity expansion scheme is piloted in eight establishments. We have seven pilot projects involving prisons, probation and voluntary organisations to test out and expand the ways we have of resettling short-term prisoners.
Pilots of service delivery agreements, strongly supported by Sir David, started this financial year in three prisons: Moorland, Askham Grange Women's Prison, which I visited last Friday, and Wealstun. As I indicated to your Lordships earlier, we are determined to focus on the vicious consequences of drug abuse whether it affects offenders outside or in prison.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised a number of questions. He was courteous, as always, in giving me advance notice. I am not aware of any plans that the Court of Appeal has to issue guidelines specifically relating to women offenders. The court is, of course, required to take account of circumstances of both offence and offender. As pre-sentence reports are now common in courts, it seems to me that there is a partial opportunity—I agree it is no more than that—for women with children to at least consider making arrangements before they are sentenced. When sentencing a woman with a child or children, the court is obliged to take into account the circumstances of the offence and the offender.
The noble Lord asked me about the work done by Hereford and Worcester Probation Service. I am happy to tell him that three probation pathfinder programmes are being developed under the crime reduction

259
programme, including the one developed by Hereford and Worcester. A national roll-out of accredited programmes is due to begin in April 2000.
A question was raised about HDC (home detention curfew). At the end of June, 42 per cent of eligible women had been granted home detention curfew compared with an overall 31 per cent of eligible prisoners. I refer to the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. My conclusion would be that those rates are consistent with the great caution and care exercised by prison governors and their colleagues in the Probation Service. We cannot expand home detention curfew without being able to assure the public on sound bases that it is truly a public protection measure as well as managing prisoners back into the community.
Free telephone calls and airmail letters are already encouraged in line with our commitment to maintaining family ties. I can say from my own knowledge that the Prison Service tries to group foreign nationals together when there are problems of different cultures and languages. I have seen that work quite effectively in one women's prison.
As regards the review of mother and baby units, I am happy to be able to tell your Lordships, in response to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that I was able to announce the completion of the review and publication of the report just a few days ago, on 6th July. I have ensured that copies are available in the Library.
There is a lot more still to be done. I have one minute in which to describe it. I shall give one or two thoughts, if I may. We have to be careful to monitor all our systems. We have to ensure that prisoners in prison unwillingly, by definition, are nevertheless fairly treated and believe themselves to be properly and considerately treated. There are some areas, for instance, where communication is not sufficiently good. I sometimes have complaints that people in the parole system do not quite understand where their cases have got to.
All of these are extraordinary opportunities. I return to the point so well made by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton. We shall get nowhere without dialogue. The door is open to co-operation. I believe we can make a difference. If we do not make a difference, it will not be the fault of the Prison Service alone, though it may be in part; it will be the responsibility of Jack Straw and myself.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask a question. Will he consider the proposal of which I gave him notice but which he did not deign to answer or discuss, that a prison officer, a representative of the Prison Officers' Association, be included on the strategy board?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I heard the suggestion made by the noble Earl. However, he said that he did not expect me to respond this evening. I shall consider it.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.34 to 8.35 p.m.]

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 52.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 59, line 31, at end insert—
("() Subsection (1) shall not apply to—

(a) a person who has attained pensionable age (within the meaning of the Contributions and Benefits Act), or

(b) a person who is entitled to working families' tax credit or disabled person's tax credit (within the meaning of the Tax Credits Act 1999.").

The noble Lord said Amendment No. 105 stands in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Russell and Lord Addington. I hope that I can be brief. Like an earlier amendment, this arises from the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. The committee proposed that the Government's intention for the use of these regulation-making powers—for example, not requiring retired people to attend work-focused interviews—should be stated on the face of the Bill and not left to regulations.
I therefore tabled this amendment, the first part of which deals merely with the exclusion of those of pensionable age. However, my amendment goes a little further. I should therefore like to probe the Government's intentions as to what other categories they might propose to exclude from the work-focused interview on the face of the Bill. As regards people of pensionable age, it is absolutely obvious that it would be absurd to require them to attend a work-focused interview.
In the Explanatory Notes, the Government suggest two categories of people who should clearly be exempted; that is, those of pensionable age and those already in full-time employment but who might be drawing a means-tested benefit at the same time, which in many cases would include housing or council tax benefit.
In drafting the amendment, I therefore considered specifying, as a class to be excluded, those in full-time employment. However, I decided not to do that because of the problems of defining those who are in full-time employment. It might have been necessary to have regulations to define who was in full-time employment, which would rather defeat the object of the exercise.
However, it appeared that there were one, or perhaps one should say two, obvious categories of people who could, simply by reference to a definition in another Act, be excluded; that is, those in receipt of working families' tax credit or disabled person's tax credit. In

261
those cases, the people in question should be working a minimum of 30 hours a week, which is close to full employment for this purpose.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will the noble Lord repeat his last statement about 30 hours a week?
Lord Goodhart: As I understand it, in order to claim the working families' tax credit, the working member of the family must work for at least 30 hours a week.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is why I did a double take; it is like the old family credit rules. The noble Lord may be thinking that, at 30 hours, one clicks into an extra premium of £11.05.
Lord Goodhart: The Government have decided that, if one is in receipt of working families' tax credit, it justifies the provision of a full income. In those circumstances, the requirement to attend a work-focused interview would seem to be inconsistent with the Government's objectives in the working families' tax credit. What are the Government's intentions so far as extending on the face of the Bill exemptions above and beyond those available to people of pensionable age?
Baroness Buscombe: I rise to speak in support of this amendment and to seek reassurance that a person who has attained pensionable age within the meaning of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and a person who is entitled to working families' tax credit or disabled person's tax credit within the meaning of the Tax Credits Act 1999 would not have to attend an obligatory work-focused interview. We hope that the Minister will confirm that that is the case. We believe that the amendment is important because those two categories of people should be on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, explained, the purpose of this amendment is to exclude from the requirement to attend a work-focused interview people who are over state pension age or receiving working families' tax credit or disabled person's tax credit.
I should make it clear that it has always been our intention to exclude those over pension age from this requirement. We originally intended to do that by regulations, but one of the recommendations in the very helpful report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee was that we should set out this exception on the face of the Bill. I am delighted to say that we shall take up the suggestion and bring forward a government amendment in due course.
In the meantime, I shall explain why we are not able to accept this amendment. We propose to disapply the requirement to attend an interview for any claimant aged 60 or over. This follows the approach that we adopted in the first phase of the pilots. We shall, of course, still offer help and advice under the "one" service to any 60 to 65 year-olds who want help to stay in touch with the labour market. However, that help will be provided on a voluntary basis.
262
Turning to the second part of the amendment, I reassure the Committee that we have no intention of requiring people in full-time work—that is, those working than 16 hours a week—to take part in work-focused interviews. I should point out that neither the WFTC nor the DPTC appears in the list of benefits covered by this clause. So the requirement to attend an interview will not apply to a claimant of either of those benefits. It is possible that a claimant of either one of those benefits could also claim housing benefit or council tax benefit and so be brought within the provision. However, we intend to use regulations to exclude from the requirement anyone working 16 hours a week or more. I assure the Committee that no one claiming WFTC or DPTC will be required to attend an interview.
We do not intend to place this exclusion on the face of the Bill primarily because it will not be a simple matter to draft such an exemption as different benefits have different rules on what constitutes "full-time work". For example, with income support, one is deemed to be in full-time work if one is employed for an average of 16 hours or more a week. On the other hand, ICA recipients can earn up to £50 a week with no limit on the number of hours worked. With bereavement benefits, there are no earnings rules at all. Because of the complexity and degree of detail, we believe that this subject is better left to subordinate legislation. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to accept my assurance that those in full-time work will be excluded from the requirement, and I urge him to withdraw his amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. In so far as it is proposed to exclude everybody over the age of 60—including men who are not yet of pensionable age—that is obviously an improvement on my amendment. As to the exclusion of those who are working full time, I accept that those who are in receipt of working families' tax credit are by no means the only members of that group—which would include, among others, those who do not have families. In those circumstances, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 59, line 42, at end insert—
("() for determining the training to be provided to persons by whom interviews are to be conducted which shall include training in the principles of personnel management and job placement, and in the types and incidence of mental and physical disability and in recent developments in coping with time;")
The noble Baroness said: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 106, which takes account of the need to clarify the training to be provided for personal advisers in order to equip them properly for this extremely responsible, and I would suggest often onerous, task. We have touched on this subject already this evening, but it is important to outline several points of concern.
I believe that the success of this initiative lies, in large part, with the calibre of ability of the personal advisers. They must be able to perform their function in a competent and, most importantly, sensitive manner. To this end, I shall ask a number of questions.
We should like to know the precise details of the sort of training programme that the Government have in mind. What subjects will be covered? Will the training include medical and psychological training? The Minister has stated that the training undertaken by those involved in the pilot scheme is of seven weeks' duration. I suggest that seven weeks is no time at all when compared with the responsibility that personal advisers will have. Even those who work, or have worked, as interviewers in job centres and so on will have a much more responsible task to perform.
Who will be the trainers? Alternatively, will the Government subcontract from the voluntary or private sectors teams of people who are capable of conducting the interviews? From where will the interviewers come? When full implementation takes place, we will be talking about an enormous number of people and an enormous associated cost. We have adjudged that it will cost about £100 million to provide trainers, based on a seven-week training course.
Will interviewers face tests of their capability? That is tremendously important. What will be the scope for retraining and refresher courses? What arrangements will be put in place for monitoring the interviews? Given the enormous difficulties that are bound to arise in certain circumstances—particularly when interviewees are severely disabled and have trouble communicating, for whatever reason, with the interviewer—those conducting the interviews will face an extremely hard task. Therefore, there should be almost a preliminary process whereby they work with a senior interviewer or someone with more experience in this area.
We also question the long-term motivation of personal advisers. It is important that their motivation is sustained, particularly in the case of claimants with multiple difficulties who will require considerable ongoing advice and counselling.
This amendment is important also in relation to carers. We have already touched on this in some detail this evening. The training of personal advisers to interview carers is extremely important. Carers have great difficulty in judging their responsibilities. It can be difficult for people who have not been carers to understand the pressures and challenges involved.
Before advisers can give carers the right advice, they need to understand those pressures. Failure to understand the difficulties in judging priorities and time issues will result in an insensitive service and inappropriate advice. If carers feel that their caring responsibilities are not properly understood, they will feel undervalued and will perhaps not feel able to seek work at all. Understanding the issues could change all that.
The training process involves training people to understand fully all the issues and all the kinds of people with whom they come in contact; the kinds of disabilities; the breadth of differences and types of people they will come across. It is a difficult, albeit important task, and therefore we ask for clarification on those points. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I agree entirely with the spirit of this amendment. Personal advisers will play a crucial role in the "one" service. On their training, their skills and professionalism, the success of "one" will depend. They will support an extremely diverse client group, with very different needs. This calls for a wide range of skills, and a comprehensive programme of training. We have therefore devoted a great deal of time, attention and resources to devising the right programme of learning. However, I hope to convince your Lordships that it is not necessary or appropriate to specify the content of this learning in regulations as this amendment seeks to do; in fact, it is possibly unwise.
First, it is important to remember that we are not starting out with a blank sheet of paper. Many advisers will bring considerable expertise to their role. Those who come from the Employment Service will be well versed in identifying vacancies and matching clients to them. In fact, some will have previously been working as personal advisers in one of the existing New Deal programmes. And, of course, Benefits Agency staff will have experience in the complexities of the benefits system and dealing sensitively with groups such as lone parents and carers. So the training needs of each adviser will be different.
What we require is a flexible programme of learning, tailored to people's individual needs. For example, Benefits Agency and local authority staff are more likely to need additional support in interviewing or submitting clients for jobs, while staff in the Employment Service are likely to need training to improve their knowledge of the benefits system. In other words—to paraphrase—we first need to assess the baggage of skills with which potential personal advisers come to the process—whether they have come from the Employment Service, local authorities or whatever—and then we expose them to the appropriate training module to ensure that at the end of it, whatever their background, they are fully trained and we can have confidence in their capacities.
To give certain areas of training greater weight, as this amendment would do, would therefore be unhelpful. It would remove the essential flexibility at the heart of the "one" service, and make it more difficult to respond to individual training needs. We would not want to spend time and resources training a personal adviser in the principles of job placement who, for example, had come from the Employment Service and had been doing the self-same job for the past three years.
In addition, a key aim of the "one" service is to bring together different sources of expertise at a single contact point. This will give personal advisers ready access to a wide range of specialist support services, such as disability employment advisers and housing advisers. So

265
they will not all need to be experts in every field. They will need to know when they need to bring in extra expertise.
Baroness Buscombe: Perhaps I can ask a question in that regard. Will the advisers be allowed to bring those expert colleagues into the interview or will they be seeking advice outside the interview? That may be difficult. If they have only one opportunity a year to interview a person, they may not know the right questions to ask or how to respond to the interviewee without reference to certain specialist advice. They will not be able to do that if they only find out at that stage what sort of person they have before them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The advisers will have between 200 and 300 hours of training; it is the most extensive training I can recall. We estimate that the training for individual personal advisers will cost on average £2,000 per head. It is a significant investment in training.
We will expect the advisers to be fairly widely competent but where, as we discussed earlier, we were dealing with somebody who had specific disability difficulties but who wanted to go into work and needed to know whether certain types of job may or may not be possible, that would he the point at which an adviser may seek the expert help of a colleague in the disability employment field. They will discuss whether that is done at the point of interview or subsequently. Essentially the personal advisers will be working as a team in an office. What may happen is that in some cases they may need to refer somebody on in the same office in the course of an interview. It may equally be possible that they want to obtain additional information and include it in the interview. We expect the personal advisers to be broadly generically qualified, but we also expect them to recognise occasionally their limitations and at that point to seek additional expert information.
The programme is based on a series of modules and people will take those modules to build up their expertise. We have consulted with personal advisers and their managers in the "one" pilot areas. We have asked them to identify the areas in which they do not already have the necessary skills to operate effectively. In some cases these are the areas mentioned in the amendment—though there are also other areas.
I can reassure the Committee that the personal advisers who are involved in the "one" pilots—that is, the four basic pilots which began on 28th June—have been thoroughly trained and possess the required competencies, knowledge and skills. The Employment Service, Benefits Agency and Child Support Agency have worked together to produce a programme of learning for all staff in the "one" service. Although the amount of training will differ in every case, on average each member of staff will carry out over 200 hours of learning before taking up their post. That equates to 35 days, which is why I came up with seven weeks. Some members of staff may require considerably more than that. This formal programme will be augmented on the ground through the close partnerships which are being put in place with local voluntary organisations. In
266
addition, every adviser has to work towards a professional qualification in advice or guidance, at least to NVQ standards.
External organisations have been closely involved in this process. We have developed training in the needs of special client groups—in association with organisations such as Gingerbread, SCOPE, RNIB, the Carers' National Association, MIND and the National Schizophrenic Fellowship. All of those organisations have spoken at training events. Their involvement has been invaluable, and we will continue to work with them throughout the pilots. For example, several of those groups will be undertaking a review of all existing training material on disability issues and will also be helping the "one" service to design a new training programme on disability awareness, which all staff will be required to undertake. Throughout the pilot scheme we will be testing and refining all aspects of the training package to make sure that it provides the best possible foundation for the "one" service. Where further learning needs are identified, new packages will be developed.
That was the point in relation to the pilots. I have here a summary of the modules to which a personal adviser will be exposed during training. It is in the House of Commons Library and I am happy to put a copy in our Library and send a copy to the noble Baroness. For example, it includes areas starting with knowledge and skills, communication skills, team working, working with outside organisations, how to handle violent clients and the like. Secondly, it gives an overview of various government services, the Employment Service, DSS, BA, CSA and a detailed knowledge of benefits and conditions of entitlement, detailed training in IT systems and in-work benefits, a knowledge of employment service interventions, and so on.
As I say, I am happy to send this information to the noble Baroness, but it is extremely detailed. I hope that I have reassured the Committee that we are addressing the areas identified in this amendment in our overall training package. It is simply that we want the flexibility to respond to individual needs according to the background with which a potential adviser comes into the programme. Not every member of staff will require all aspects of the training, whereas some may require considerably more. Therefore, I do not believe that it is sensible to specify the content of the training in legislation. That would be far too prescriptive. I hope that in light of my explanation that we are taking training extremely seriously; that we are investing considerable effort; that we are working closely with organisations; and that it is a flexible module procedure, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister sits down, wearing my heart on my sleeve, may I also add that MENCAP is involved with the voluntary organisations in the training process. It was made clear to personal advisers that it was only the beginning of their training. They were

267
given assurances that they would be provided with ongoing support whenever training needs were identified.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am happy to confirm that. I was addressing that point partly to the issue of pilot schemes. MENCAP has been involved and we have found that invaluable. As and when people need more training or identify gaps in their training needs, we shall return to them. It is right to say that the spirit of the amendment will be made or broken on the skill, competence and the sensitivity of the personal advisers.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for that full explanation. I believe she will understand that the amendment is a probing amendment. We all appreciate the critical importance of the training programme itself. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out in more detail the processes for the training programme. It may be something to which we shall wish to return at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 60, line 15, after ("regulations,") insert ("such matters to include the degree of incapacity, invalidity or physical or mental illness of the person, the recent bereavement of such a person or the illness or incapacity of any child, parent, spouse, partner or other person for whom the person claiming benefit has care,")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 113. At this stage I must point out that I am not sure why they are connected, but no matter. This amendment relates specifically to exempting carers. I admit that some of my remarks will be a repetition of what I said earlier this evening.
I begin with a quote from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury about carers at the Lady Sear Memorial Lecture. He expressed his concern about the impact of the compulsory interview on carers' self-esteem. He said,
"Some carers will lose out unless new safeguards are introduced".
This is an area where those reviewing the benefit system need to tread with immense caution and sympathy. Those with substantial caring responsibilities will find a compulsory work-focused interview difficult. Many have had to give up work in order to care. They may be in a state of trauma and still trying to cope with an event which has made them a carer: for example, a heart attack or a car accident. They often have feelings of low self-esteem and find it difficult to cope. So pursuing a compulsory work-focused interview could be damaging to their health, self-esteem and ability to cope with caring.
We believe that this intention in the Bill in terms of compulsory interviews for carers is counter to the values in the national carers strategy, which states,
"Some carers will wish or need to be full time and such wishes should be respected".
Although this amendment relates to all carers, we are particularly concerned with those who provide substantial amounts of care or who are themselves
268
recently bereaved. Therefore, we are talking about any person seeking to claim the main carer's benefit, the invalid care allowance, who already has to satisfy that he or she is providing a minimum of 35 hours of care.
That is already considered to be a substantial amount of care and equivalent to a full working week. The question is how they are expected to take on a job in addition to their role as a carer. Indeed, statistics show that the majority of carers receiving the invalid care allowance, which is currently nearly 80 per cent. of all claimants who are carers, provide over 50 hours of care per week.
As regards Amendment No. 113 and advocacy in support of claimants, we have touched on that this evening in an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Both the Disability Benefits Consortium and ourselves recognise that interviews will be unworkable for some claimants with intellectual and sensory impairment or claimants with mental health problems unless they are permitted to be accompanied by an appropriate advocate. The Minister has given us reassurances this evening about the ability of a claimant to attend an interview in the company of an advocate.
The only point I wish to make on that is one that has already been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. It is important that we question or show concern for the cost of advocacy. We support the entitlement to have an advocate. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: In supporting this amendment I would also like to speak to Amendment No. 113, which is in my name and that of my noble friends. The common factor between these amendments is that they deal with things that are to be taken as "good cause" for failure to comply with the regulations. The list enumerated in the noble Baroness's amendment is fairly self-evident and so I hope is the one specified in Amendment No. 113, which states,
"'good cause' shall include physical or mental impairment which makes it difficult for a person to understand or deal with communications".
When I look at those words I remember a particularly effective speech made at one of our party conferences by a sufferer from cerebral palsy. His speech was so impeded that he was able to communicate with the conference only through an interpreter. Had he been summoned for an interview on his own without the benefit of an interpreter, on first meeting, and if they were lucky, they might have understood one word in three. I am not particularly confident of that. An interview conducted under those circumstances might have been rather unfortunate. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will see this case as being reasonably clear.
As regards regulations providing "good cause", I hope that the list which has been tabled will not be regarded as exhaustive and that there will be room left for that necessary formula "or else some other reason why". Usually the best cause of all is one which is so improbable that no one would ever think of foreseeing it.
Lord Rix: I should like to make a few remarks in regard to this amendment and Amendment No. 113. The

269
Minister has already indicated the willingness of the Government to issue comprehensive guidelines. However, if these amendments are not acceptable to the Government and they are not pressed tonight, would it be possible to ensure that the impairments described in them are included specifically in the guidelines which are to be issued by the Government?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I very much hope that I shall he able to reassure the Committee. The effect of these amendments would be to set out in primary legislation some specific circumstances in which a person would have good cause for failing to attend a work-focused interview. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, concentrated primarily on the situation of carers. My problem is not that I disagree with anything in her amendment, but it does not go far enough. Indeed, by definition, any amendment of this kind becomes exhaustive. That is why we think it is more appropriate to go through regulations which are not exhaustive, although they may well be prescriptive.
Perhaps I may enlarge upon the latter point. It is our intention to introduce in regulations a comprehensive good-cause provision. This will ensure that where a person's failure to attend an interview is due to reasons beyond his control, there will be no impact on his benefit. We shall use that provision to cover circumstances such as someone being too ill to attend on the day set for the interview or where a person has misunderstood the requirements placed on him because of language, learning or literacy difficulties. Indeed, such persons may need to attend a funeral, and so on.
We are well aware of the importance of having a fair and comprehensive range of good-cause provisions, but we do not think it is necessary to set out everything in primary legislation. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee does not disagree with us. Good-cause provisions already exist elsewhere in the benefits system; for example, regulations have been made under a very similar provision in the Job Seeker's Act. Moreover, we also need to maintain a degree of flexibility in the "one" service, which deals with a wider spectrum of claimants than JSA. That is why we intend to define in regulations the matters to be taken into account in deciding whether someone has good cause. We shall also use regulations to prescribe specific circumstances in which a person will or will not be regarded as having good cause.
However, the matters listed in regulations will not be exhaustive; indeed, there will always be something that no one in this Chamber has thought of but which, when presented to us, will be a perfectly reasonable basis for good cause. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, can think of every possible circumstance of good cause from a sedentary position, but I hope that he will not share that information with Members of the Committee at this hour. It would be a very long list.
Advisers will be given the flexibility to take account of other circumstances not explicitly set out in the regulations. We cannot hope to anticipate—nor, indeed, should we—every situation which could make it difficult for someone to attend such an interview. However, at the end of the day, the essence of good
270
cause is that, given the circumstances of the individual on that particular day, it was reasonable that he or she did not attend. That is the ultimate test: the test of reasonableness.
From my personal experience of seeing advisers work with New Deal claimants, I am sure that personal advisers dealing with lone parents with caring responsibilities, with carers or with disabled people will err on the side of any generosity of interpretation that may arise. Given that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Earl will not press their amendments.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister most warmly for that response. Indeed, she said everything that I hoped to hear her say.
Baroness Buscombe: I, too, thank the Minister for that full response. I am much encouraged by her reference to the regulations. She said that they will not be exhaustive but that, at the same time, they would be very comprehensive with regard to a good-cause provision. Again, I am sure that the noble Baroness will understand that we introduced this very much as a probing amendment to underline the importance of this aspect of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will appreciate that the sooner we can see the regulations in draft form the better it will be for all of us in that we shall feel comfortable and reassured that what she has said will indeed take place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 60, line 18, at end insert—
("(g) prescribing that, where an interview has not taken place within three days of the initial claim, and unless this is due to unreasonable behaviour by the claimant, full benefit entitlement be paid until such time as the interview has taken place and entitlement can be reassessed").
The noble Earl said: This amendment deals with interim payments and relates to cases which, again, are too numerous for us to enumerate, especially at this time of night. I refer to cases where, for one reason or another, an interview cannot immediately take place.
If there is a delay in the interview process—there may be circumstances where that is the right thing to do from the point of view of all parties—our concern is that the claimant should not lose benefit because of such a delay, which is not his or her fault. Obviously, if that happens, there is a possibility not only of real hunger but also of the building up of debts, involving crisis loans from the Social Fund, leaving the claimants to start life on benefit carrying a burden which has already built up before they have started.
One needs to start life on benefit if possible with as clean a financial slate as possible. I hope that this amendment will be acceptable. Press publicity has suggested that it might be. I await the Minister's answer with optimism. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am happy to make positive noises. We are concerned here with the amount of time between the claimant making a claim and the work-focused interview taking place. Amendment No. 108 seeks to ensure that a claimant whose interview does not take place within three days of making the claim will have his or her benefit put into payment, unless this delay is caused by unreasonable behaviour.
I have every sympathy with the intent behind the amendment. It is regrettable that at present there are instances of claimants not receiving an appropriate service. We hope that the "one" system will make things better. For example, personal advisers will be able to help clients who have not filled in forms correctly rather than the forms having to be sent to and fro as at present, provide them with information on the evidence they need to show and be a personal point of contact if clients want to check the progress of a claim. As I say, we hope and expect that the "one" system will improve the service to clients. That is why we have made the commitment to the three-day period.
However, we recognise that there are always occasional circumstances—I do not always refer to computers when I say this!—in which we cannot achieve the targets we set. I reassure the noble Earl that, where holding an interview within three days is impossible for reasons unrelated to claimants, they will not lose money. I fully share the noble Earl's opinion that it would be wrong for someone to be penalised because of administrative difficulties, or through no fault of his own. I hope that the noble Earl will accept that his amendment is not necessary and will feel able to withdraw it.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that reply. There is just one circumstance it does not cover on which I hope she can reassure me. That is where the delay in the interview is because of circumstances to do with the claimant but for which the claimant is not to blame. I take, for example, the case of a claimant who is overcome by acute appendicitis and is taken into hospital and immediately operated upon.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall write to the noble Earl if I am in any sense misleading him, but as far as I am aware, that would count as a deferred interview. The benefit would be in payment and the claimant would be expected to attend an interview at the appropriate point when he is well enough to do so.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister warmly for filling in that gap. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 108A not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 61, leave out lines 7 to 20
The noble Baroness said: This amendment asks the Government to think again with respect to the designation of the person who would provide services as referred to in this part of the clause. The Bill refers
272
on page 61 to "the designated authority" or "a person providing services". The designated authority or a person providing services could be the Employment Service, the Benefits Agency or the local authority. However, we on these Benches believe that the relevant person is the Secretary of State, as we believe that he or she should be answerable to Parliament. Therefore we ask for clarity as to the identity of "the designated authority". We want a specific reference to the Secretary of State rather than to "the designated authority". I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hope the Committee will forgive me for repeating that the "one" service is all about treating people as individuals rather than as categories. That is why we have resisted blanket definitions to exempt particular categories of people from the requirement to interview.
Amendment No. 109 would not allow advisers any discretion to defer or waive the requirement to take part in a work-focused interview. I believe that such discretion is essential. I am sure that the noble Baroness would want advisers to have precisely that discretion. Indeed more discretion was called for earlier today. The heart of the policy is that personal advisers will be able to make decisions about whether an interview is appropriate on a case-by-case basis. Our expectation is that the vast majority of people will have their interview immediately. But the personal adviser must be able to make a judgment as to whether the help and support he or she has to offer will be of immediate use to the client, or whether it might be helpful at a later date. The example that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave of someone suffering from sudden appendicitis would be an obvious example. As I say, we want the interviews to be as helpful as possible and for people to approach them as a positive measure where they can seek to explore the opportunities available to them. Personal advisers need the discretion to decide whether an interview is appropriate according to individual circumstances. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue Amendment No. 109.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 110 to 112, which relate to the "designated authority" making decisions to defer or waive work-focused interviews. It may be helpful if I explain the purpose of the term "designated authority". This allows certain decisions in relation to work-focused interviews to be taken not only by the Secretary of State but also by local authority staff or by those contracted to provide services to either.
A key aim of the "one" service is to streamline the delivery of benefits: it is a one-stop shop approach. "One" will provide a single point of entry into the benefits system for those of working age and will improve the level of service we provide. Lone parents may very well have between six or eight sources of income and be juggling five different agencies. That is a full-time job over and beyond their caring responsibilities. By bringing together all those agencies involved in the administration of benefits—the BA, the ES and local authorities—in partnership with private and voluntary sector bodies, claimants will be provided with a seamless, efficient and modern service.

273
In "one" pilot areas, a claimant whose first point of contact with the benefits system is with the local authority HB office will be able, from that very office, to claim the whole range of social security benefits to which he may be entitled. The local authority staff there—fully trained, of course, like all personal advisers—will also be able to decide whether an immediate work-focused interview is appropriate for the claimant or whether the requirement should be waived or be deferred to a more appropriate time.
The amendments would prevent one set of key players—local authority staff or their contractors—taking decisions in relation to the interviews. Instead, all decisions would need to be taken on behalf of the Secretary of State. So the amendments, if accepted, would leave us with two choices—and both run directly counter to the streamlined service we seek to introduce and which we believe that claimants deserve: either we could exclude local authorities from "one" altogether, which would perpetuate current piecemeal and inefficient delivery mechanisms; or we could implement a regime in which the local authorities, while retaining responsibility for the vast majority of aspects of "one" delivery, would refer all relevant decisions to the Secretary of State. Again, that would be administratively cumbersome and would certainly lead to delays in processing benefit claims.
I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that the amendments would inhibit one of our prime aims; that is, to make "one" an efficient integrated service for benefit claimants which is sensitive to the needs of the individual. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I still feel somewhat concerned about the reference to the local authority. My understanding is that this is the first reference under this clause to "the local authority". It is therefore very important that the parameters within which it works and its powers are clearly set out.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is not so much that the local authorities will have the powers. We are trying to integrate a range of benefits, from JSA, IS and IB through to housing benefit and council tax benefit. We shall probably include CSA as well. Wherever anyone goes first to claim any one of those benefits—which will normally probably be JSA or IS—they will come into the "one" system. The advisers in the four basic pilots are, for the most part, ES or BA advisers rather than local authority advisers. It is possible that the "one" service could be within a local authority context.
However, the important point is that all personal advisers, whether they come from local authorities, the Employment Service, or the BA, will all have been exposed to the extremely intensive and extensive training I mentioned. So in terms of their skills—apart from some very particular areas of expertise—at the end of the training period they should be virtually interchangeable. I suspect that most local authorities may not be involved in this at all, but where they are so
274
involved and their staff come forward, they will be going through the same training procedures as ES and BA staff. I hope that that explains the position.
Baroness Buscombe: Except that, with regard to these regulations, surely it is the Secretary of State who should be accountable at the end of the day.
I have listened with interest to what the noble Baroness has said. I should like to have the opportunity of reading Hansard. I may well return to this subject at a later stage, but for the moment I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 110 to 114 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 61, line 44, at end insert (", conducted in a location appropriate to the person")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is designed to ensure that the interviews take place in premises which are appropriate for claimants. It highlights the important obligation on the part of the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service to ensure that interviews are conducted in premises which are accessible to as many disabled people as possible, including wheelchair users and those with sensory impairments. There are other disabled people, including those with learning difficulties, who have essential dietary, toilet and personal care routines that need to be taken into account.
Some people may wish to ensure that they have a companion with them for the interview, and of course we have already touched on that, although, as I would suggest, there may be a difference between having a companion with them and someone who is an advocate. There are also those who may be quite unable to take part in an interview without support. For some people an interview at home at a convenient time might be the preferred option. However, it should not be assumed that just because persons have a particular disability they should automatically be interviewed at home.
We should also perhaps refer to home interviews, in the light of what the noble Baroness has explained to us regarding the interview process this evening. She stated that the personal advisers would be working together as a team within the interview centre; of course that advantage is lost when an interview takes place at home. Many people with mental health problems, for example, find home interviews by the Benefits Agency stressful and intrusive, as their home may be the only place where they can feel safe.
There is no reason to believe that the idea of a work-focused interview would be any less threatening. The claimant should be consulted and given the opportunity to choose between an interview at home and an alternative location. So we shall be looking to the Minister for assurances on that. The single work-focused gateway should be implemented, we believe, as a service to individual claimants. It should take account of individual needs rather than rely solely on what is convenient for the interviewer. Personal advisers must be flexible enough to take account of individual circumstances.
We therefore feel that the location of the interview is very important and that the option should be left entirely with the claimant to decide where the interview should take place. We should bear in mind what the noble Baroness has said in relation to advisers and their ability to work together; if the interviews take place in the home there may be some disadvantage in terms of the amount of expertise available. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: This amendment is interesting in that it seems to be directed at the simple principle of what is appropriate for an individual with certain special needs. I would hope that the Minister would be able to embrace this concept when she replies. We spoke earlier about having pigeon-holes for various people and we are trying to put people into various pigeon-holes according to their varying needs. I would suggest that having this degree of flexibility within the whole process is important. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that it will be present and that she will be able to tell us where to find it when we look through the Bill.
Lord Rix: May we also have an assurance that home visits are not a policy of last resort?
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Again, I hope to persuade noble Lords that this amendment is not necessary. The amendment presses for the interview to be conducted in an appropriate location. The "one" service is designed to improve the service that we provide to clients of the benefits system. It is a central part of what we are trying to do. We see the interviews very much as an opportunity and as important in the life of clients. We want them to take place in appropriate and pleasant surroundings in which they will feel confident and relaxed and will be forthcoming. We are not talking about a situation in which the language of sanctions and the like applies. We are attempting to achieve a totally different culture.
There are many aspects to this. We will ensure that all "one" delivery sites provide access for disabled people, and facilities to enable them to use the service effectively. We will make provision for home visits by personal advisers where that is appropriate. For example, if a client has caring responsibilities that mean it is impossible to leave home, the personal adviser will consider conducting the interview there.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked for an assurance that the home visit would not be a last resort. We do not know what proportion of interviews will be conducted on home visits; it could perhaps be 20 per cent. So it will certainly not be a last resort. The only point at which a home visit will be a last resort is in the case of someone failing to attend, especially for a deferred interview, or for a "trigger" interview, and we are not confident that we have made contact with that person. At that point, a home visit will be a last resort to make sure that the person
276
is at the given address. Only in that context do we see it as a last resort. But we expect the initial interview to take place in an office made available to disabled people. If that is not appropriate, a home visit will certainly follow.
In the pilot areas we have selected sites on the basis of minimising the chances of anyone having to travel more than 45 minutes to their local office. We want the environment to be relaxed, friendly and helpful; and we want people to notice the difference on entering.
As a result of the pressures that noble Lords have properly put on me during the course of discussion to give undertakings about the atmosphere and culture of the "one" interviews, I hope that I have been able to reassure the Committee in terms of the number of specific commitments that I have made. In the light of that reassurance I hope that noble Lords will accept that there is no need to place the requirement for the interviews to be conducted in an appropriate location on the face of the Bill. That is at the heart of what we seek to do. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: A great deal is being taken on trust. In relation to so much of what we are asking, we have to wait and see. In that sense, we are dealing very much with a framework. Therefore, I ask the Minister to bear with us. It is important that we raise a number of these amendments. We have no idea merely from reading the Bill what we are in for.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. That was in no sense a criticism. It is exactly what a probing amendment should do; namely, to extract commitments from the Government by which their pilots and other schemes can be judged. It is entirely appropriate at Committee stage. So I assure the noble Baroness that in no sense is any criticism implied—on the contrary.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the noble Baroness; no criticism is taken. We seek reassurance. With regard to the location, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept and take on board the importance that we place on accessibility in terms of the interview location being an integral part of the system; and also that, where individuals are invited for interview, the option of interview in the home could be included in all invitation letters. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 62, line 5 after ("training") insert ("or benefits")
The noble Baroness said: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 116 and 117, which we shall take together. These amendments have the support of the Disability Benefits Consortium.
The amendment seeks to broaden the scope of compulsory interviews which new claimants will have to undertake as a condition of receipt of benefits. In

277
the Government's earlier consultation paper, Support for Disabled People (Cm. 4103), the single gateway scheme was described as,
"The mechanism for ensuring that people, including those with a long-term illness or disability, are given a personal adviser who will help them assess information on work, benefits and other government services".
As currently drafted, the Bill describes the interview as "work-focused". That term has been defined by the Government as an interview,
"conducted for such purposes connected with employment or training".
It was said earlier this evening—I make no apology for repeating it—that the term "work-focused" was misleading and did not reflect the objectives of the interview or the full range of support that should be offered to a claimant. The aim of these amendments is to make explicit the Government's earlier intention that interviews should perform the dual role of advising people with disabilities of the range of benefits to which they are entitled and, where appropriate, supporting claimants' efforts to find work.
The Disability Benefits Consortium is concerned about the description "work-focused", in that the Government place a disproportionate priority on getting people into paid employment at the expense of the provision of other kinds of support. We suggest that if that is replicated in the training of personal advisers and the evaluation of the success of the scheme, disabled people will be denied individualised support and access to valuable information about benefits.
It is simplistic to assume that welfare and work are either/or choices for many people with disabilities. Where paid work at some stage is a realistic possibility, it will often be necessary to work toward that goal through a support package that involves health, social services, education and training. People with learning disabilities may need job-coaching and the ongoing assistance of social services to take up employment. Those with sensory impairment may require communication support to try out employment. Personal advisers should take account of an individual's circumstances and act as a signpost to other avenues of support.
Severely disabled people who can work also need benefits to compensate for low earnings. They also need help with the extra costs incurred as a result of their-disability. Welfare and work are needed to deliver a degree of equity between disabled and non-disabled people in terms of extra costs and reduced incomes. Personal advisers should encourage people to claim in-work benefits to which they are entitled. For people with profound and multiple disabilities, including mental health problems, the nature and severity of their condition may rule out paid employment. A recent survey by the mental health charity MIND investigated attitudes to employment and benefits among people with mental health problems. The largest category who commented on what would help them to get work said that poor health was the most significant barrier. Comments included, "I would if I was well" and, "I would work if they gave me enough time to finish therapy". We believe that if there is to be an interview
278
for such claimants, it must focus on the welfare of the individual, including access to benefits, rather than solely on paid work. I appreciate that the Minister has given us considerable reassurances on that matter this evening.
In addition, others may find that caring responsibilities rule out paid employment. We believe that an interview will be beneficial to people in those circumstances only if the personal advisers recognise carers' contributions to society and centre interviews on the welfare of the carer. For many claimants, the benefits system is a source of confusion. There is evidence that people with disabilities do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled and perhaps are unaware of the range of support that is available. All claimants need up-to-date personalised advice on the appropriate range of benefits. That should be an integral component of the interview and made explicit on the face of the Bill. To that end, I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I congratulate the noble Baroness on thinking of these particular amendments. The}/ precisely encapsulate the misgivings which many of us, most notably the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, expressed earlier this evening. People are very individual. Here we are dealing almost entirely with those who are already exempt from the actively-seeking-work rules. Therefore, there can be no question of skiving or scrounging. These are people who have perfectly good reasons for not going to work. They are individuals. Their circumstances are very different. None of us from the outside is able to judge them with great precision.
The language of the Bill, especially on page 62 at lines 7 to 11, explains why a number of us have had misgivings. It states that the interview is for purposes connected,
"with a person's existing or future employment or training prospects or needs, and (in particular) assisting or encouraging a person to enhance his employment prospects".
From one point of view, those words may be viewed as entirely benign, but they sound rather as though everyone, however handicapped, is expected to have employment prospects. That impression may well be misleading. But if it is a misleading impression it might be in the Government's interests to dispel it.
In particular, the word "encouraging" is capable of ambiguity. In the sense that it is used in one-to-one, personal friendship situations, it is entirely benign; but there is another sense, with perhaps a faint suggestion of inverted commas involved, where it becomes very much the same kind of euphemism as the title of the caring Whip in another place.
The amendment encapsulates the difference between those two meanings. If the noble Baroness's amendment were accepted, the benign interpretation would clearly be intended. That, I think, would relieve a great deal of anxiety among a large number of people and might do a great deal to improve the Government's reputation and

279
to persuade people like me to make fewer speeches on the issue. The noble Baroness might think that that was a rather good thing.
Lord Rix: The definition of a "one" interview should accurately reflect the broad range of functions associated with it. Two of the central functions should be simplifying the benefits claims process, and advising claimants what benefits may be available to them. I therefore see no reason why that should not feature on the face of the Bill, or why we should not at least receive one of these splendid assurances that we have heard from the Minister today.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 seek to widen the definition of "work-focused interview" set out on the face of the Bill. I share the intentions underlying the amendment, but I hope to be able to give noble Lords the assurances that they seek—despite the ironic intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Rix—in order to enable them to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rix: The intervention was heartfelt, not ironic.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Again, I shall consider that. As I say, I agree with the intentions, but it may be worth spelling out a little further how clients will go through the claim process.
When someone of working age who is not in full-time work makes contact with the "one" service to claim benefit, he or she will need to go through an initial stage called "Start-up". This will be prior to taking part in a work-focused interview. The purpose at this stage is for clients to provide basic personal details, register their intention to claim benefit, and be issued with the appropriate claim forms. Giving people integrated, personal support at this stage will make it easier for them to access the benefits system.
One of the key elements of this early stage is for staff to identify whether there are other benefits to which the claimant may be entitled. Considering the training programme and the number of days spent in training staff to familiarise themselves with the full range of benefits and their entitlement, I am sure that that will not be overlooked by them.
Most people will then be required to take part in compulsory "one" interviews with a personal adviser. These interviews will be a more in-depth investigation of an individual's circumstances, and an exploration of the barriers that may prevent participation in the labour market.
Personal advisers will encourage clients to improve their employment prospects where relevant, even if they are some way off from being job ready; for example, if they have a very young child and may not be considering going back to work for several years yet. They will work with their clients to identify and take steps to overcome any barrier so that they are better able to seek work and to that end that second interview could well cover such areas as child care, housing, training and the availability of in-work support.
280
Although this interview is primarily about identifying the barriers to work which a client may face, it will also provide a second and further opportunity for staff to explore benefit entitlement. For example, personal advisers will ask clients about any caring responsibilities that would make it difficult for them to look for work. I would expect in that situation that the personal adviser will uncover the fact that many people may be entitled to invalid care allowance which they are not currently claiming and will advise the client to make a claim.
Personal advisers will also ensure that clients are aware of the in-work support which is available through the tax and benefits system should they move successfully into work. For example, if a client has a disabled child, if they were to go into work and it was thought appropriate, perhaps because of the child's school hours, that they needed WFTC, then they would be entitled to claim double the level of tax credit under WFTC than if the child was not disabled.
As your Lordships will be aware, Clause 52 also allows for further work-focused interviews to take place throughout a client's time on benefit. These will provide further opportunities for personal advisers to ensure that people are aware of the benefits they may be entitled to claim. The personal adviser will also be the central point of contact for any queries the client may have about benefit.
Talking with lone parents who have gone through the New Deal, what has struck me time and time again is the way that they regard their personal adviser on the New Deal as a friend. This comes up quite spontaneously. "She has helped me do this; she has taken me shopping for work clothes; she has trained me in interviews; she has driven me to the interview; she has looked after the child while I have had the interview; she has been a real friend to me." This comes up time and time again. We hope to get the same culture into "one".
The reference to benefits in this amendment, I take it, must be wider than the relevant benefits referred to elsewhere in the Bill. As I say, both at the initial orientation interview and at the "one" interview we plan to use the interviews to provide advice on any benefits to which an individual may be entitled. If this encourages take-up, for example for ICA which has still not happened, we will be delighted.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that, in the light of these assurances, there is no need for the amendment. Obviously, primary responsibility for claiming the benefits will remain with the client, but staff at all stages of the process already play, and will continue to play, an important role in making sure that people do in fact claim the benefits they are entitled to. As I said, the entitlement conditions for the benefits which are available are an essential part of the training for every member of staff. At a quick look, it looks as though at least 13 days are spent on benefit entitlement and a further five on the CSA as part of the basic training programme.
I do not think it would be appropriate to go further and include a mandatory discussion about benefits within the definition of work-focused interviews. The

281
intention behind the amendment—helping people claim benefit—will already be met through the service we are putting in place. As I pointed out, finis will take place primarily at the start-up stage and further discussion at the work-focused interview may not always be appropriate. I hope that your Lordships will accept that under the "one" service we are ensuring that our staff put emphasis on helping people claim the benefits to which they are entitled. Secondly, joining up the employment service, the Benefits Agency and local authorities on one site will ensure that expertise about the whole range of benefits is available in one place. I hope, with that explanation, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the noble Minister for her explanation. I thank also the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support and speech, one of the many, and also the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for his support.
I listened to what the Minister said. I regret that she is not prepared to accept these amendments. I shall read with interest in Hansard her reassurances that much of what I have made reference to will happen in practice. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 62, line 24, at end insert—
("(1A) Regulations shall be made specifying the maximum period which may elapse between the refusal of benefit and the hearing and determination of an appeal, and shall provide, if the appeal has not been heard and determined within such periods, for the applicant to be deemed to have had his case upheld.")
The noble Baroness said: The amendment relates to the maximum period allowed between the refusal of benefit and the hearing and determination of appeal. We believe that the amendment is straightforward. It seeks to ensure that regulations will be made which will clarify the appeal process for those who have been refused benefit because of non-compliance with procedures for a work-focused interview. We should like to know what will be the maximum period between failure to comply with the requirement to take part in an interview, refusal of benefits on that basis and the hearing of an appeal against refusal.
Secondly, what will the appeal procedure be? Thirdly, how many steps will there be? How many opportunities will there be for a claimant to appeal against refusal of benefit? Who will sit on the appeals board, whatever it is to be called? If the appeals board decides to refuse benefit, what will happen to that person? We referred to that when discussing Amendment No. 92E and the other side of the gateway.
As Mr Edward Leigh asked in another place, will the result of non-compliance after appeals mean that those who refuse to take part in the work-focused interview will be suited only to being wrapped in a blanket? I should hope not and therefore we seek clarification in
282
relation to the appeal process. If, after the final stage, the person does not accept that he or she must attend an interview, what will happen? I beg to move.
Earl Russell: This is a good amendment. It may concentrate the department's mind wonderfully. However, in passing, I must express a slight regret that it is not just that little bit better; that it does not specify that there shall be no loss of benefit before the appeal. That would have been an even better amendment and we might think about it in the future.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, I can see the charm of that; anybody who might otherwise lose the benefit will promptly appeal, after which, as regards the passport fiasco, "You have seen nothing yet!".
The amendment proposes a special arrangement for appeals by people who fail to participate in a work-focused interview either at the beginning or during the benefit claim. It proposes that, where an appeal is lodged because a decision has been taken to reduce or refuse benefit, should the appeal not be heard within a given period the appellant's case will be treated as upheld. Regulations would lay down the maximum period which should elapse between the refusal of benefit and the determination of the appeal.
As invited by the noble Baroness, it might be helpful if I briefly set out how the decision-making process for work, particularly as it has changed as a result of the DMA Act. The noble Lords, Lord Higgins, Lord Razzall and Lord Goodhart, and I sparred happily over that during the course of last year. As Members of the Committee will be aware, under Clause 52 entitlement to benefit is dependent on a client participating in the "one" interview both at the point of claim and at various trigger points throughout an individual's time on benefit following the occurrence of certain specified events; for example, when the youngest child becomes five, 11 and so forth.
Depending on whether the decision is made in respect of an initial or a triggered interview, a failure to fulfil this requirement would mean either that the claim was not accepted—that the claim had not been made effectively—or, if it was a triggered interview, that the amount in payment is reduced.
The personal adviser who conducts the interview will take a decision on whether or not someone has attended or taken part in an interview. This is not a decision which will be taken lightly and the personal adviser will ensure that the client understands the consequences of his or her actions and that he or she has every opportunity to play a full part.
As a result of the DMA Act our dispute resolution procedures encourage anyone who is unhappy with a decision to contact the decision-maker within one month of the notification. That allows an opportunity to examine the reasons behind any decision and to correct any error. Those procedures will apply to decisions on a failure to take part in a work-focused interview as well as other decisions. The arrangements form part of the changes that demonstrate the Government's commitment to reducing delays in the appeal system.

283
They will enable disputes to be dealt with quickly and will avoid formal appeals. In addition, changes to the composition and administration of appeal tribunals will ensure that any appeals that are not resolved at the dispute stage are heard more promptly.
It is appropriate that there should be a further right of appeal, beyond the opportunity to trigger the dispute procedure, against any decision that a client has failed to take part in a work-focused interview. Clause 52 will introduce a new Section 2B into the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to ensure that clients have a right of appeal under Section 12 of the Social Security Act 1998 against a decision that they have failed to take part in a work-focused interview, that they failed to show good cause for such a failure or that they are liable to suffer any particular consequence as a result of failing to take part.
That shows our intention to help and encourage people to meet the requirement placed on them to take part in a work-focused interview when appropriate. We have provided opportunities for those who feel aggrieved to challenge a decision that they have not taken. That can be done within the system inside a month or by using the full appeals procedure.
We do not feel that the amendment would be a sensible way to proceed. A provision that results in all appeals not heard within a specified time succeeding, regardless of whether the original decision was sound, would lead to some perverse outcomes. It would also encourage more people to appeal in the hope that their case would not be heard in time and benefit would be paid. The more people who appealed, the longer it would take for cases to be heard. The system would then be clogged, making it impossible for those with a legitimate grievance to have their case heard promptly. Such a system would serve no one well and would become the classic self-fulfilling prophecy.
The amendment would not result in fair decisions or a good appeals service through the independent appeal tribunal for all clients. I urge noble Lords not to pursue it. Our proposals would give clients every opportunity to participate in the interview, which is not onerous. When a decision is taken that a client has not participated, existing dispute procedures that were introduced under the DMA Act and the appeals procedures, which we hope will now be more streamlined and speedy, will ensure that cases are dealt with promptly and at the right level. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness has enunciated a slightly dangerous principle. She is saying that people should not be given appeal rights because that only encourages them. Where does that principle stop?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Earl is unfair. I said that if we continue to pay people benefit while they
284
appeal, there is every encouragement for anyone who has had benefit taken away to appeal so that they continue to have money paid.
Earl Russell: I hear that. Now will the noble Baroness answer my question? Where does that principle stop?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not know what the noble Earl is asking.
Earl Russell: I am asking how many other legal rights and how many other rights to sue for justice the noble Baroness is going to apply that principle to—the principle that it only encourages people.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This is unfair. No one is suggesting that anyone's rights to appeal should be restricted in any way. On the contrary, by introducing the new disputes procedure in the DMA Act, we are strengthening people's ability to have errors corrected speedily and properly. In no part of the social security system does benefit continue to be paid while somebody is appealing against a decision to discontinue benefit for whatever reason. That would give people a reason to appeal irrespective of the circumstances, even if the appeal was hopeless and beyond the range of the law. I am not saying anything beyond that.
Earl Russell: The Minister ought to read some of her speeches on the Jobseekers Act 1995.
10 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her explanation. Again, this is a probing amendment to try to ensure that there is a proper safety net for claimants. I should like to read in Hansard what she said in relation to the point at which benefits are removed. It has a number of implications. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 119:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
ANNUAL REPORT TO PARLIAMENT ON WORK-FOCUSED INTERVIEWS
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall report annually to Parliament on the operation of the work-focused interviews, with specific reference to—

(a) the number of those moved from the interviews into work; and

(b) the number who, having moved into work, leave work after—

(i) 6 months and

(ii) 12 months.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall take into consideration the following—

(a) the number of interviews which are postponed, deferred or cancelled,

(b) any cost implications for businesses, and

(c) the levels of fraud detected.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) all relevant non-governmental organisations,

(b) all businesses involved with the operation of the work-focused interviews, and

(c) any organisations which the Secretary of State may think appropriate.

(4) The period for any consultation under subsection (3) shall be three months.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is extremely important. It requests an annual report to Parliament on work-focused interviews. Given the importance of that whole process, there should be proper monitoring of how it has developed and of the successes and failures of the initiative.
The Committee will note that the amendment asks for a number of points to be covered in that annual report. We ask that:
"The Secretary of State shall report annually to Parliament on the operation of the work-focused interviews, with specific reference to—

(a) the number of those moved from the interviews into work; and

(b) the number who, having moved into work, leave work after—

(i) 6 months, and

(ii) 12 months".

The amendment states also that:
"For the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall take into consideration the following—

(a) the number of interviews which are postponed, deferred or cancelled,

(b) any cost implications for businesses, and

(c) the levels of fraud detected.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) all relevant non-governmental organisations,

(b) all businesses involved with the operation of the work-focused interviews, and

(c) any organisations which the Secretary of State may think appropriate.

(4) 'The period for any consultation under subsection (3) shall he three months".
We note that the pilots presently being conducted will last for three years, but we think it is very important to have a proper and full evaluation of those pilot schemes before full implementation takes place. We stressed that earlier this evening, but in relation to this clause, it is extremely important that a number of points should be set out clearly on an annual basis, starting with the results of the work-focused interview pilot schemes in the first three annual reports to Parliament.
I stress that we welcome the work-focused gateway. It builds on the principle behind the jobseeker's allowance which we instituted. But we question a number of practices and procedures which have not been set out on the face of the Bill. We want to know that this initiative will acheve what it sets out to achieve.
In relation to local authorities, we believe that the proposals as they stand give too much scope to local authorities to show discretion in postponing interviews or simply not having them at all.
At present, claimants have to spend a minimal amount of time in contact with Benefits Agency workers. This new system will place an enormous amount of additional work on those workers. Under the new system, Benefits Agency staff must allow up to an hour for interviews with claimants. That will put a massive strain on an already over-burdened system. With the opt-out provisions in the Bill, the choice which will face Benefits Agency staff will be either to undertake the interviews and have a huge backlog or to postpone, defer or cancel them. We believe that that is an uncomfortable choice for them to have to make.
We have consistently pointed out that compelling people to attend interviews, although welcome, is not the panacea Ministers pretend. It is what lies on the other side of the "one" initiative that matters. The whole idea of the work-focused gateway depends on the availability of jobs. We believe, therefore, that our reference in the amendment to reporting on how the interviews impinge on the workforce and on the success of placing people in work is important.
Over the past two years, policies implemented by the Government have increased the burden on business by nearly £40 billion. The introduction of the minimum wage, the social chapter, the working time directive, working families' tax credit and the new Employment Relations Bill are all increasing costs for employers.
We believe that we should know those costs on an annual basis. Over the lifetime of this Parliament, this Labour Government are introducing around £40,000 million in taxes and regulatory burdens on business. Those burdens relate to the windfall tax, the Budgets of 1997 and 1998, the national minimum wage, the working time directive, the introduction of works councils and parental leave. That all adds up to a total of £39·3 billion. Again, that has a direct impact on the whole focus of getting more people into work. We want more people in work, but we believe that the cost implications for businesses cannot be ignored. We believe that the costs should be stated in an annual report to Parliament.
The figures that I have given represent an average of £10,788 for each business in the UK. As 98 per cent of all businesses employ fewer than 20 people, that represents a significant burden for most. We believe that these measures are all working counter to the Government's alleged objective of getting people back into work and we severely question how effective the work-focused single gateway will be.
Further—I referred to this earlier—although in theory the New Deal for lone parents was a good idea, we do not believe that it has been the success described by the noble Baroness. However, many among the minority of employers who have recruited staff through the scheme admit that they would probably have taken on the youngsters anyway without the need for an expensive state subsidy. We therefore have to question the extent to which we pay in order to get people into work. Tesco, for example, has opened 23 new stores in the past 12 months and recruited around 14,000 staff but only 22 "New Dealers".
We believe that there is a contradiction in terms. Again, that is the reason for our Amendment No. 119. On the one hand, we have a work-focused interview while on the other hand provisions in the Bill include recipients of incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance being compelled to attend interviews. Those benefits, however, are, by definition, for people who are not able to work. We certainly believe that engaging disabled people in the gateway and encouraging them to work is important and right, as do the disability organisations. However, it is also crucial to ensure that genuinely disabled people are not pushed into situations and interviews for which they are not well enough. We have referred to that already tonight, but I stress that an annual report to Parliament should make reference to whether such initiatives are a success in terms of the compulsory aspect of the interview.
It is therefore essential that sensitivity and care are taken in calling genuinely disabled people to interview and ensuring that they do not simply receive a letter stating that they have to attend a work-focused interview or they will not receive any benefit. I appreciate that the Minister has given us some reassurance on that point tonight, and we are grateful for it.
We believe that cost and training should be monitored on an annual basis. We suggest that the cost of implementing the "single gateway" will be huge. We have estimated that employing the personal advisers alone could cost up to £100 million. The Government will also have to ensure that the personal advisers are fully trained and qualified in order to advise properly the range of individuals with whom they will be in contact. Too many existing job centres are inaccessible to disabled people and do not have the facilities to provide information in Braille or on tape. This, together with the fact that untrained staff are trying to assess the potential of people with a wide variety of disabilities, could lead to a shambles.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not want to invade the noble Baroness's speech, but we discussed whether premises will be accessible to disabled people when we considered a previous amendment. I thought that I gave assurances then that the noble Baroness found satisfactory.
Baroness Buscombe: I do not mean to be too repetitive, but it is important to explain why we have moved Amendment No. 119. It is important to monitor the success, or otherwise, of the whole process. We accept the Minister's reassurances about access, but an enormous cost will be involved. That cost factor—forgive me if I have not been clear on this point—will make an enormous difference to the overall cost of the initiative and we believe that we should have access to that information.
We have a right to receive a report on an annual basis. It is important to amend Clause 53 to allow Parliament to scrutinise closely the effectiveness of this welfare reform. That is why we believe that the amendment should be placed on the face of the Bill. We must ensure
288
that all the aspects to which we have referred are expressed and monitored through an annual report to Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I support the amendment. The discussions in Committee today have made clear that this new kind of interview is not yet completely clear and it is not easy to predict how it will be operated. It is something new and experimental. I believe that it is especially necessary that there should be an annual report in the first few years to see how the system proposed is operating in practice.
If the Government, for some reason, oppose having an annual report on this new system of interviews—I recognise that they may not find the wording of the amendment satisfactory—what do they propose to introduce in its place? How do they intend to inform Parliament and the public about how the system is operating?
Lord Hardy of Wath: I have no objection to an annual report if my noble friend wishes to produce one. However, much of the information it contained could be obtained easily in due course from answers to parliamentary questions. One would also expect Select Committees of this House or the other place to examine the matter very carefully.
I was puzzled by the noble Baroness's reference in her excellent speech to the burdens that the Government are placing upon businesses. She mentioned the large number of small businesses that exist in this country and then proposed imposing yet another burden on them by requiring the Government to consult them—thus adding to the grumbles that small businesses make about being distracted from their business purposes by more consultation with a government department.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: I like the idea of an annual report to Parliament. If the matter is discussed on the Floor of the House, it enables other bodies to see what the report contains and to add other information to the argument. That should not be overlooked. If the Minister casts her mind back to when she was in Opposition, she may remember how helpful it often was to have those outside bodies, as it were, "feeding the flames of the argument".
However, the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, found a flaw in this amendment—it was spotted by one of my noble friends. I suggest therefore that the principle is fine, though the wording may need changing.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This new clause seeks to formalise the process for reporting progress on the introduction of work-related interviews. It seeks to place on the face of the Bill a requirement for the Government to publish specified information in relation to the operation of the "one" service.
Before I develop what we intend to do, perhaps I can respond to a couple of the points made by the noble Baroness. I am puzzled, as was my noble friend Lord Hardy, about the propriety of why collecting statistics from business—apparently related to such

289
issues as the national minimum wage, the WFTC, DDA and all the other matters she clearly regards as an unacceptable burden on business—should be part of the dimension of this debate concerning the statistics of the "one" programme.
The noble Baroness also spoke of 1;he New Deal not being successful. I know in some detail what is happening with the New Deal for lone parents. If we can persuade lone parents to come into the New Deal, n will be extremely successful. But it is voluntary. Lone parents do not necessarily come forward in response to letters and, because there is not the "one" interview to bring them into the scheme, they do not know what they are missing. I am also worried about that aspect.
Twice tonight the noble Baroness said that we will be spending £100 million on personal advisers. As a piece of entirely personal curiosity, can she write to me and tell me where that figure comes from? I do not recognise it from any of my sources. However, I understand and share the desire of Members of the Committee to ensure open access to information on the progress of the "one" service. It is entirely reasonable that Parliament should wish to judge the effectiveness of such an important and radical initiative. That is why we are placing great emphasis on the evaluation of the pilots. We will be collecting and publishing not only information sought by this amendment—my criticism would be that the amendment does not go far enough in that respect—but a whole range of other information. That will be crucial in evaluating whether the introduction of work-focused interviews improves the extent of labour market participation and provides claimants with a more efficient service tailored to their individual needs.
In response to the noble Baroness, we will be publishing information on the number of people who get jobs, the number who are referred onto training programmes and claimants' views of the service they received. We will be collecting data on an ongoing basis on all the key stages of the new process, including the numbers taking part in work-focused interviews, the number of interviews which are deferred and the number of referrals to specialist help.
Over and beyond the bare statistics, we will also be conducting a full, in-depth evaluation. It will have qualitative as well as quantitative elements, remembering that by the time pilots are finished around 450,000 will have passed through them. For example, it will assess the experience of both clients and employers, and explore their views on the effectiveness of the "one" service. We intend to evaluate the policy, its delivery, the costs and benefits of the programme and all aspects of benefit claiming through the "one" service. We will also identify—a point that has not been raised tonight—the extent to which the "one" service maintains the security and integrity of the benefit system.
So details of the evaluation will start to become available as the pilots progress. I can assure the Committee that information will be available at the appropriate time. We expect the summer of next year for the qualitative assessments of the non-compulsory pilots; probably summer or thereabouts for the more quantitative evaluation. But to place the requirement on
290
the face of the Bill risks being unduly restrictive both as to the timing of the publication and the nature of the material provided. In the light of the assurances that I have given today and the enthusiasm of the Government to publish their findings and share melt research, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Addington: I believe that the most important part of this amendment is the report to Parliament and that it allows for debate within Parliament. Can the Minister give me some indication that the Government expect to have a debate on the findings on a regular basis which will allow input from outside bodies to be fed to those who are not involved directly in the parliamentary machine in order to raise new points that will be helpful to the whole system?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Apart from all other ways of drawing attention to the content of the research, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is an expert in tabling Unstarred Questions as opposed to Starred Questions drawing attention to recent reports such as those from Shelter, Mind, the Nuffield Foundation and others which over the years he has asked the House to debate at, I am sure, appropriate length. I expect no less stringent scrutiny of the Government's research than the noble Lord asks us to attach to the reports of other organisations.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her explanation. I am surprised that she was puzzled by my reference to business. It is tremendously important that we have the cost implications for business not least because of the burdens which have been placed on it since this Government came to power. There is no question but that this initiative will have implications for business.
As regards the training programme, I have stated that we estimate the cost as being £100 million. As the Minister believes that that is not in any way an accurate figure, can she say what she believes the cost will be?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Baroness has mentioned that twice tonight. On what basis does she produce her figures? At the moment we are talking about 200 personal advisers and there will probably be 2,500 of them in due course. I have already spoken about training. We estimate that the average cost will be about £2,000 per head. Obviously, they will be earning EO salaries, which is approximately between £16,000 and £18,000 each.
Most of them will be currently in service. Some will be drawn from the New Deal. Most of them already exist within the employment service. They will be doing a lot of the work in any case. If the noble. Baroness has some basis for her figures other than speculation, I would like to hear it. We have no figures of that kind. I shall be interested to know. On the ground of the

291
diffusion of useful knowledge, perhaps the noble Baroness will share with us the kind of information that I am doing my best to share with her.
Baroness Buscombe: I am happy to provide the Minister with that information. As regards the level of professionalism that we are asking for on the part of the personal advisers, £2,500 is not a lot of money.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The training programme that we have been talking about over 35 days or seven weeks means that the upfront investment in their skills is around £2,000. I am trying to give the Committee an indication of how seriously we treat the training element and how much we are investing in human capital in the personal advisers in what we all accept is an important initiative.
Baroness Buscombe: I am not sure that the Minister has understood. I was suggesting that as regards the level of professionalism and training which we have been reassured this evening will take place, £2,500 per person is not much money. We suggest that it will cost more. That figure does not pay for a lot of training.
I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment and have on the face of the Bill a requirement for an annual report. I thought that this Government were keen on annual reports to Parliament. I am pleased that the noble Baroness has reassured us that we shall be receiving ongoing information as regards the cost implications and the successes and failures concerning both the pilot schemes and full implementation if the scheme goes ahead on the results of those schemes.
I revert to a statement I made earlier this evening which was a plea on our behalf that we may all have the opportunity to debate the successes and failures and evaluate the results of the pilot schemes before the scheme is fully implemented. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Schedule 7agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Incapacity for work: personal capability assessments]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 65, line 17, at end insert
("provided that in making the assessment under paragraphs (a) and (b) above. account shall he taken of the types of jobs available in the locality")
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and that of my honourable friends—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Did the noble Lord refer to his "honourable friends"?
Lord Higgins: I meant to say "noble friends", but perhaps at this time of night I can refer to both.
292
When making an assessment under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of this clause, our amendment seeks to ensure that,
"account shall be taken of the types of jobs available in the locality".
This matter was debated at considerable length in another place. This clause is concerned with personal capability assessments as far as concerns people taking jobs. We shall deal with that aspect in greater depth when we discuss the Question on whether this clause should stand part of the Bill. After a personal capability assessment had been carried out and a person had been told that he was regarded as being fit for work, it would be unfortunate if it then turned out that there was no job appropriate to that level of capability in the particular location. It seems to us that that is something which ought to be taken into account. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have a very full answer in front of me, but I wonder whether there is a basic misunderstanding here. A person's incapacity benefit will depend, as now, on whether he satisfies the all-work test, which is the 15-point score. That situation will not change. I cannot believe that the noble Lord really wants the question of whether someone receives IB to depend on whether, for example, he lives in Croydon or Cumbria as regards the local job prospects. As I have said many times before, that will remain unchanged.
When it comes to the personal capability assessment—for example, looking at what people may be able to do and what training they may be able to have—that will, of course, involve some consideration of the local job prospects in the sense that it would be foolish to train people for jobs that had become obsolete in various ways. However, the point is that their benefit does not hinge on anything to do with the employment situation. Indeed, under this assessment, we shall be talking about what people may do, what training they may have, what childcare needs they may have, and so on. That will be independent of the local employment situation in so far as those skills or those needs for information are generalist. Obviously, it may equally be appropriate to take into account the local job situation in terms of the opportunities available to people; but that cannot affect their benefit level.
Therefore, before I read out a long speech, I wonder whether there is some basic misunderstanding between myself and the noble Lord. The benefit is a national one which depends on a national test. It does not matter where a person lives; it is not related to employment prospects. However, it may be relevant to consider such prospects when dealing with the personal capability assessment as regards what people can do, what opportunities are available, and what training may be appropriate. But surely that should be seen as an opportunity and not as a threat. Obviously, once in receipt of benefit, any disabled persons entitled to IB need take no further action if they do not wish to do so.
Lord Higgins: The issue may become clearer if the Minister were to refer to the Hansard report of the debates in another place. Essentially, if someone is

293
found to have the ability to take a job, we are saying that that needs to be related to the type of job available in the locality.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If someone receives IB, he is neither expected nor required to take a job. Whether people receive that benefit depends on the all-work test and not on the employment situation in the area. The personal capability test has nothing to do with whether or not someone is expected to take a job; it is a compulsory interview but any action following it is entirely up to the person involved.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: We are clearly somewhat at cross purposes here. We shall need to consider what the noble Baroness said. I still think it is appropriate in assessing whether someone is capable of doing a job that the kind of job he or she is considered capable of doing should be a relevant consideration. However, at this hour of the night I do not wish to delay the Committee further. There are other extremely important amendments for which people have been waiting a long time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 120A:
Page 65. line 17, at end insert—
("(c) for the doctor conducting the personal capability assessment to provide both the claimant and the person who shall conduct the claimant's work-focused interview under section 2A of the Administration Act (work-focused interviews) with an assessment of the claimant's future incapacity for work based on a medical prognosis of the claimant's disability or disease.")
The noble Lord said: I shall speak as briefly as possible. The amendment suggests that a copy of the assessment of a person's capacity under the all-work test should be given to that person. On the grounds that some 60 per cent of people who fail this test appeal, and half of that number have their appeals upheld either by the appeals tribunal or the adjudication officer, I should have thought that allowing them to have a copy of the doctor's assessment might be appropriate. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My concentration may have slipped but what benefit was the noble Lord referring to when he gave the figures for appeals? Was he talking about IB, DLA or SDA? He could not have been talking about the personal capability assessment because it has only just come in in the past fortnight.
Lord Addington: I was talking about the all-work test.
Lord Hardy of Wath: I express some sympathy with the approach which the amendment suggests. I speak from my experience as a Member of the other place some years ago. At that time a doctor was practising in my area and was causing a number of people considerable anxiety and their Member of Parliament considerable rage. I refer to one case where the doctor
294
arrived at a constituent's house to examine a lady who was very ill. He did not take his coat off and he did not stay in the house more than two minutes. Nevertheless, he decided that the lady was fit and well despite the fact that her weight had dropped from 12 to seven stone in the previous week. Three weeks later she died of cancer. I received a letter of remorse, apology and regret from a Minister in the previous government, although that did not bring the family involved much comfort.
I believe that from time to time governments need to ensure that those engaged in the public service should recognise that their job is not to defend the taxpayer or to save public spending. The amendment may not he acceptable but the compassion and care which I think is suggested in the amendment should be encouraged.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This amendment does two things. First, it provides for both the claimant and the personal adviser to receive a report following a personal capability assessment. Secondly, it states that the report must consist of a medical assessment of the person's future incapacity for work.
The key issue here—I think that it is an important one—is the question of providing information to claimants. It may help if I put the matter in context by dealing with the other issues first. In response to the previous amendment I explained the whole thrust—I hope—of our proposals for the personal capability assessment which is to provide personal advisers with information about what the person can do despite his or her medical condition. We want to do this in a way that will be relevant, useful and helpful in the "one" interview.
To recap, the PCA will be a single medical assessment process which will produce two entirely separate things: first, advice for the benefit decision-maker on whether the entitlement criteria for incapacity benefits are met—the all-work test—and, secondly, a capability report for the personal adviser.
The provision of the capability report to the personal adviser is already fully covered in the Bill. Clause 67 provides all the necessary powers for information relevant to work-focused interviews to be passed to personal advisers. It is complemented by provisions in Part II of Schedule 8 which ensure that the PCA can go beyond what is strictly necessary for the purposes of determining entitlement to benefit. However, I do not think that that is where the noble Lord's concerns lie. Nor do I think it necessary to specify that the capability report should provide an assessment of the claimant's future incapacity for work based on medical prognosis. It assumes that the personal adviser needs to know whether the person is incapable of work for benefit purposes now and whether that is likely to remain the case in future.
The personal adviser clearly needs to know whether the medical condition is likely to change so as to make particular types of work more or less likely. But the personal adviser really needs to know what the person can do despite his condition—or what he could do with the right help and support. That is what the report is about.

295
It is also important that we do not set its precise content in legislative stone. We are carrying out development work on this and it will be on trial in the "one" service pilots over the course of the year.
I shall now return to the main issue. I do not think the question raised was really about the information going from the medical assessment to the personal adviser. I suspect that the noble Lord is pressing—certainly I would in his situation—for the information to he available to the claimant when he or she sees the PCA.
We believe that it may be unhelpful for the Bill to specify that the claimant must he sent a copy of the capability report by the doctor. There is no question of these reports being kept secret. The requirements of open government are set out both in the current code of practice and in the Government's proposed freedom of information legislation. We shall ensure that people are able to see the contents of the report. Access to information is not the issue.
It seems to me that, in a way, the question is a second-order one. It is whether people should routinely be given a copy of the capability report and, if so, whether they should get it before their work-focused interview. That is something on which the Government have a genuinely open mind and are considering carefully as a part of the development work. It is not perhaps as straightforward as it may seem. One could have information, for example, which related to a terminal illness or a prognosis which is not already known to the claimant, whether because he has not been informed by his GP or whatever.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the personal advisers will have that report. It may be right that all claimants should have copies as a matter of course. My own view at the moment—but obviously we are considering the matter—is that the right way may be to make it clear that people can have a copy, and then it may be appropriate for them to be sent a copy if they signal that they would like one. It is clear that it would be most usefully done in the context of the interview itself. As 1 have said, we have an open mind on that.
There is no question of the claimant not being entitled to see the report. I am not sure whether sending it out routinely is the right approach. It may be that we should indicate that people are entitled to see it, in which case that may meet the noble Lord's concerns. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington: I thank the Minister for that answer. It is one of the more helpful I have received. It is also very important, of course, that the Government ensure that everyone knows that they are entitled to see the report. When one is dealing with any form of bureaucracy, most of the problems start with what one can do and what one knows one can do. I hope that the Minister will be pushing the matter forward. We may bring forward further amendments to see how far she has got in the process of ensuring that the information
296
is available to people and that they know it is available to them. But, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 120B not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): Amendment No. 121, the Lord Higgins.
Earl Russell: I am sorry. Should it not first be the Question on Clause 56 stand part?
The Chairman of Committees: I shall be coming to that.
Lord Higgins: I was under the impression that the clause stand part debate was linked with Amendment No. 120B. Am I mistaken?
The Chairman of Committees: The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is perfectly correct. I am very grateful indeed for the information from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who did not seek to move Amendment No. 120B. I shall therefore be calling Clause 56 stand part as on the order of the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 121, the Lord Higgins.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I, too, am baffled. I thought Amendment No. 121 was after Clause 56 and that, therefore, the Clause 56 stand part debate should go ahead.
The Chairman of Committees: If it is of help to the Committee, according to the Marshalled List, after Amendment No. 120B, which was not moved, come Amendments Nos. 121, 122 and 123. We then come to Clause 56, as amended or not, stand part.
Lord Higgins: I am as baffled as the Minister. I was under the impression that clause stand part was linked with Amendment No. 120B.
Earl Russell: I think I owe the whole Committee an apology. I took the decision not to move Amendment No. 120B at short notice. I had not noticed—and should have done—that there were several amendments in Clause 56 to come before clause stand part which the groupings had taken out of order. If I have caught people short, I am sorry to have done so but, having not moved Amendment No. 120B, I cannot go back on it. We will come to clause stand part in due course. It is all my fault and I am sorry.
Lord Carter: I think we have to take it in order now and so we have to dispose of Amendments Nos. 121, 122 and 123 and then deal with Clause 56.
The Chairman of Committees: I have already called Amendment No. 121. In view of what the noble Earl, Lord Russell said, he has no need at all to apologise to

297
your Lordships. I, for one, from the Chair am very grateful to him for the indication he was kind enough to give me just now. Amendment No. 121.
Lord Higgins movedAmendment No. 121:
Page 65, line 36, at end insert?
("() Before exercising any power to make regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult organisations representing disabled people and shall take reasonable account of their submissions and concerns.")
The noble Lord said: The amendment suggests that before the Government take any powers to make regulations under this clause the Secretary of State should consult with organisations representing disabled people and take reasonable account of their submissions and concerns. This is an important amendment. It is well known that the voluntary organisations in the field of social security have immense expertise and perform an incredibly valuable function. Therefore it is entirely appropriate that they should be consulted on these matters before any change is advocated.
We will come to the kind of changes that might be advocated when we reach clause stand part. My understanding is that the Social Security Advisory Council is somewhat restricted in the extent to which it can advise on these matters. So it is most appropriate that machinery should exist for this consultation. It is also most important that the Government should take such views into account. As will become apparent in a moment or two. they are not doing so at the moment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This amendment would introduce a specific requirement for the Secretary of State to consult with groups representing disabled people before making regulations under Clause 56. As I am sure your Lordships know, the provisions for PCA simply mirror the provisions for the all-work test. There is no change in the way the test operates as the gateway to benefit. The regulations to be made under the clause will re-enact unchanged the regulations that currently set out the detail of the test.
This detail was the subject of intensive consultation when it was introduced by the previous government, and we see no reason to repeat that exercise. I should stress that the Government believe that we have a general responsibility to consult widely on our proposals. We have done so up to now and I can assure your Lordships that we shall continue to do so in future without any need for a statutory requirement to consult specific groups. We are talking to organisations which represent disabled people in a number of contexts across the whole of our agenda and across many departments of government, and we shall continue to do so.
We fully realise that these organisations often do not agree with us but we value their contributions to the policy debate and we think carefully about what they say. We have consulted widely on all the measures in the Bill which relate to benefits due to sick and disabled people. We sent the consultation document out to a wide range of people and we discussed details on several occasions with the Disability Benefits Forum. We
298
considered their responses, particularly where they were critical of the proposals, as well as all other points made to us.
On the positive side, one of the issues about which the Disability Benefits Forum was specifically concerned was the age 20 cut-off for young disabled people's entitlement to incapacity benefit, which would disadvantage those entering higher education or training. In response to those concerns, we have brought forward the amendment to allow us to extend the age cut-off to 25 for those people.
The work of the forum has now ended following the resignation of some of its members. The Government regretted the decision. I certainly did, as I was involved some time ago in helping to set it up. We found it helpful, and it made an important contribution to our thinking. But the end of the Disability Benefits Forum as a result of the movement of the forum members does not mean that the department has turned its back on consultation. On the contrary, the DSS continues to work with disability organisations on detailed issues affecting sick and disabled people. For example, we are exploring with colleagues across government the implications of the Disability Rights Commission for future consultation arrangements. We also meet regularly, on an informal basis, to discuss these issues.
The noble Lord was right. There was a general statutory requirement to submit most draft social security regulations to the Social Security Advisory Committee. When the committee considers it appropriate, it will put the regulations out for public consultation. At that point the Social Security Advisory Committee will routinely consult disability organisations.
I have made clear that the Government already have frequent and wide-ranging contacts with organisations representing disabled people. I hope and believe that they will continue to give us the benefit of their advice and expertise. I hope that I have shown to the satisfaction of the Committee that a statutory requirement to consult disability organisations is unnecessary. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: I thank the Minister for that response. Will she clarify two points? First, so far as concerns the Social Security Advisory Committee, is it right that it has no remit to deal with regulations made within a stated period—I believe it is usually six months—of a newly made Act of Parliament and therefore would not necessarily be consulted on these issues? Secondly, has the forum now ceased to exist altogether?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord is correct on the first point. Normally, the Social Security Advisory Committee does not scrutinise regulations made within six months of Royal Assent on the relevant primary legislation. That is for the reason that there has usually been extensive consultation and debate during the preparation and passage of a Bill. So the effort is to avoid a repeat debate.

299
On the second point, yes, the members of the Disability Benefits Forum have left the forum; so it no longer exists.
Lord Higgins: In the light of those remarks, we can pursue some of the points that arise later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Communities: I must point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 122 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 123.
[Amendment Nos. 122 and 123 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 56 shall stand part of the Bill.
Earl Russell: I told the Minister when I gave notice of my intention to oppose the clause that my intention was probing in the first instance. I regret that the Minister has told me in the past few minutes some of the points I was probing to discover. She said in relation to Amendment No. 120 that the substance of the all-work test and the regulations under which it is imposed would remain unchanged. And in relation to Amendment No. 119, she said that the score is quantitative—15 points and you pass. That will remain unchanged. In effect, the Minister has told me that the points that I regard as the worst features of the all-work test are to continue. I was very sorry to hear that.
Of course, we agree on the point that the Minister has just invoked. We agree that it is a good thing that a test should look at what people can do as well as what they cannot do. However, the Minister may not quite understand that my objection to the all-work test has always been its formulaic quality. It is qualitatively very much the same line of argument as exists between us, and will continue to do so, on the CSA.
The record of the all-work test is an extremely poor one. The Minister is familiar with the incapacity benefit leavers tracking study. That indicates that it is a very poor predictor indeed of people's future chance of obtaining work. People who are found unfit to work are just as likely over the next few years to obtain work as those who are found fit to work. That does not suggest to me that the test is doing its job very effectively. My noble friend Lord Addington referred a moment ago to the number of appeals. Some 60 per cent of those who have their benefit disallowed appeal. Of those who appeal, more than 52 per cent have their benefit reinstated. Apart from the tracking study evidence, that alone suggests that the test is not doing its job particularly well.
There are a number of good reasons for this. Some of the main reasons that people are prevented from working are ones that a quantitative test cannot measure. In particular, a quantitative test cannot measure pain. There are days when one feels that pain can be measured in decibels, but unfortunately that is not true. Pain is probably one of the biggest factors that prevent people
300
from working. I do not see how one can quantify by a test acute back pain or migraine, yet those ailments prevent people from working.
The test cannot quantify fatigue. However, with acute respiratory illness, which is one of the conditions that frequently prevents people from working, fatigue over a period of time usually makes work impossible, unless it is carried out in small amounts. A test cannot measure endurance. A test by its very nature can test only once the capacity to perform a certain function over a limited period of time, but any attempt to do serious work must involve the ability to go on conducting the function over a period of hours, days, weeks and months. No quantitative scoring test can possibly assess these matters. These are quite important defects.
The other problem, which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, attempted to address in Amendment No. 120, is that there is not a single activity known as work. I apologise to the noble Lord for not assisting him, but I did not think that I should say the same things twice. If one looks at the occupants of the mobile Bench in this House, to say that they are incapable of work is manifestly absurd, yet there are many types of work for which they are unfit. One can assess a person's fitness for work only in terms of the work of which he or she is physically and mentally capable. I take the case of the unemployed former miner or ship-builder referred to by my noble friend Lord Goodhart at Second Reading. It is no use telling him that there is a lectureship in Egyptology at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. He is not qualified for it. It is probably no use telling him that there is a vacant job as a computer operator.
Training can do many things, but as years go on it becomes true that one cannot teach an old dog new tricks. There are exceptions to that, but one will not know in advance what they are. Therefore, there is no such thing as being fit for work. One may be fit for particular types of work while one is totally unfit for other types of work. One must consider whether the person is fit for any work that he or she is capable of doing. One must give up using a formula and, like it or not, face up to the fact that people are individuals and are very different from one another. If one is to test for fitness to work and regard people as individuals, even if one uses a scoring system—although I have deep misgivings about such a system, it may be part of a relevant assessment—one must rely on an assessment of the individual by a medical practitioner, or practitioner, at rather greater length than is usually possible in the all-work test. One must look at the whole person in the whole situation. If one does not do so, one will continue to make mistake after mistake.
Lord Higgins: Perhaps I may add to the remarks of the noble Earl. I understand that Clause 56 ensures that the Government will replace the all-work test with a personal capability assessment. The assessment will effectively consist of the existing test plus some additional questions on the person's capability for work. But it is well known that the all-work test as it stands—the Government will continue that as part of the assessment—is open to considerable criticism. So much so, that, for example, the National Association of

301
Citizens' Advice Bureaux has suggested that the proposals in the clause should be rejected and a more satisfactory test introduced which is more related to the work situation and less stressful for the claimants. In support of that view the CAB produces considerable evidence which states that some 60 per cent of people have had their benefit disallowed as a result of failing the all-work test and have appealed against the decision. Of those who appealed more than half had their benefits reinstated either as a result of the appeal tribunal or because the adjudication officer changed his view.
In addition, it cites a number of examples. I shall not weary the Committee at this time of the night by quoting them at length. It refers, for example, to a client who failed the all-work test, but the examining doctor insisted that his answer to every question relate to a good day when in fact he had some days when he felt well and others when he felt unwell. A London CAB reported a client who failed the all-work test after an interview which lasted only five minutes. The situation reported to me by former constituents suggests that the integrity of the test is open seriously to doubt. It is not unusual for it to he conducted in a less than sensible manner and that is unsatisfactory.
It would be helpful if we could have the views of the Minister on how this fits in with the lengthy debates on the single focus gateway. It arose on a previous amendment. We are told that these interviews will be very extensive and may last up to an hour. The staff will he heavily trained, and so on. In comparison, these interviews seem to be conducted on a superficial basis. Perhaps the Minister can tell us to what extent she has received reports that those investigations are not carried out satisfactorily. Can the noble Baroness also tell us in simple terms how the continuation of the all-work test, now called personal capability assessment, will fit in with the arrangements for the single focus gateway intervals? I am not clear how this fits together. It would be helpful to know.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was not surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, criticised the all-work test. I was a little surprised at the stringency of the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He was deeply critical of something his own government introduced—was it only four years or so ago?
The basic criticism of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was that the all-work test was formulaic: that it analysed matters which could be counted rather than those which could not. It is true that the test is based on the mechanical functional capacities of individuals: whether one can lift a bag of potatoes, climb the stairs, and so on. The noble Earl is right on that. Where I think he is not necessarily correct is in his belief that doctors are not required—they are—to take full account of pain, fatigue, and fluctuating conditions. It is because the existing all-work test, with its points score of 10 for mental health problems and 15 for physical health problems, emphasises what people cannot do and therefore does not see the whole person and is not holistic that we seek to introduce the other half, the personal capability assessment, in order to ensure that
302
we have full and proper information about what a person can do as well as their functional capacities and what they cannot do.
It is true that the survey referred to by the noble Earl shows that we have to do more. That is right and it is why the Government strengthened not only the Disability Rights Commission, which was long overdue, but has introduced a new deal for disabled people, the disabled person's tax credit, linking rules from eight to 52 weeks and so forth. We take the criticisms that disabled people still find it hard to go into work even if they are coming off incapacity benefit. That is why we are seeking to make those avenues possible.
Thirdly, the noble Earl criticised the doctors' interviews, based on the CAB reports. I have no reason to criticise the CAB's statement that a certain interview took only five minutes, but my information is that the average doctor's interview lasts for 40 minutes. If there is criticism that the interviews have been cut short, or the claimant feels that he has not been treated properly, or his condition not properly assessed, that person should seek to complain through his MP, the CAB and so forth.
I asked to see in what proportion of interviews there was a follow-up complaint by the person or his carer that medical examination by the doctor was inadequate, incomplete, failed to consider certain functions and so forth. I found that about 500 complaints were made, or less than half of 1 per cent of all interviews conducted by those doctors. Perhaps people were inhibited about making those complaints, but it shows that, with obvious exceptions, for the most part people regard those medical interviews as basically satisfactory.
I hope that I have addressed the points raised by the noble Earl, but if I have not I should be happy to write to him with further details.
11 p.m.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that reply. She was a little ungenerous to criticise the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, since if she had listened carefully to what he said she would know that he was confessing plainly to having learnt from experience through cases in his constituency. That is something all of us have to do and if the noble Lord has done it I am glad that he has.
I am aware of the instructions the Minister quotes about the need to take account of pain and fatigue, but it seems to me to be in potential conflict with the assessment of incapacity simply by a numerical score on the list. I do not see how those issues can be reconciled, and in practice the numerical score takes priority.
I understand and respect the Minister's determination to do better. It is exactly what she says on the CSA. In both cases, she will not do better, however hard she tries, because she is barking up the wrong tree. You simply cannot do it by this formulaic approach.
The clause stand part debate has been an ideal vehicle for probing what the Government wanted to do, but a Division deleting the clause would not achieve my objectives. Therefore, I must think hard before the Report stage about the drafting of an appropriate

303
amendment to get rid of a test which was from the beginning misconceived and has been proved by experience to be a disaster. Therefore, looking forward to a better amendment and a new engagement, I beg to withdraw my opposition to the Question that the clause shall stand part of the Bill.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Incapacity benefit: restriction to recent contributors]:
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 57 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I oppose Clause 57. It makes a major change that could devastate the lives of the many severely disabled people who would be affected. It could deny them £66 a week in incapacity benefit, for which they may have paid national insurance contributions for many years. Amazingly, the Government have produced no valid reason for the change. It is unjustified.
Severely disabled people currently get incapacity benefit if they have worked and paid the required amount of national insurance contributions for any—I repeat any—period of their working life. The clause says that the person needs to have done so in one of the past two years. The Government say that they are returning to the original intention of linking incapacity benefit to recent work. Where is the evidence that that was the original intention? The Government are merely proclaiming that it was. I doubt that there is a mention of it in the original debates. If there is a mention, I assume that the Government will quote it this evening. If that was the intention, why was it not mentioned in the legislation? Why were the conditions different from those now proposed?
My noble friend Lady Hollis is a superb advocate of government policy and we all greatly admire her. I look forward to her quoting chapter and verse in response to my invitation. What was said in the original debate? Why are the Government now proclaiming that incapacity is linked to recent work? Where is the evidence? Where is the justification?
When Ministers talk about linking incapacity benefit to work and original intentions, they should bear in mind the massive difference between now and Beveridge's time: the disparity between regional unemployment rates. The decline of heavy industry has led to high rates in some areas but not others. The Government have not answered and cannot answer the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on Second Reading that the clause is geographically discriminatory. For those who live in one place where they can get a job it is fine, but for those who live in another place where they cannot get a job it is just too bad. It is a lottery.
The Government are adopting a fairground lucky dip scheme for the payment of incapacity benefit. The clause gives a clear message to severely disabled people. It is metaphorically shouted from the rooftops, but it is never articulated by Ministers. The message is that those who are doubly unlucky—unlucky enough to become
304
disabled and unlucky enough to have lived in a high unemployment area for the past two years and been unable to get a job—will lose their full incapacity benefit of £66. Ministers will say, "We are terribly sorry about this, but it is your bad luck, not ours. All that we can do is enforce the law passed by Parliament". That is a probable scenario for the future if this House and another place passively accept this deplorable clause.
Those who are unlucky enough to become so severely disabled that they are too incapacitated to work but who live in a prosperous area and have a job can have their incapacity benefit. Is that not a fantastic scenario? It is like the goats and the sheep. It has nothing to do with incapacity. Those people may be gravely incapacitated. In fact, by medical definition, they are too incapacitated to work. But some receive the benefit and some do not. Where is the rhyme, reason or justification?
The sad irony is that the people denied their incapacity benefit have been paying national insurance contributions for many years, trusting that they would benefit if disability or illness made them unable to work in the future. That trust will be betrayed if this clause stands part of the Bill.
That calculating of the moral contract between government and people cannot be justified. The Government have failed to justify it. Somehow, I believe that the Government know that it cannot be justified. Why else should my noble friend Lady Hollis produce ludicrous examples in an effort to excuse the proposal? For example, on Second Reading, my noble friend scorned a person's right to claim incapacity benefit if he had made a minimal contribution some 20 or 30 years previously. She somewhat mockingly, perhaps jokingly called it a "down payment", giving entitlement to national insurance benefits for life.
I am afraid that providing extreme examples is an easy game. Everyone can play that game. For example, how about a person paying contributions for 40 years who then becomes unemployed for a mere two years and then becomes severely disabled? That person will receive absolutely no incapacity benefit if this clause is agreed to. I cannot believe that there is any justification for that.
My noble friend also displayed her unease about the clause by saying that the period in which a disabled person should have worked could—not "would"—be three and a half years rather than two years if he was fortunate enough to have had the right mix of tax and social security years. That is fine. But we are back to the fairground lucky dip. It is a lottery rather than a rational, social policy. Why is it that the three and a half years does not apply to everybody or, better still, five or six years? Then we should have a fairer and more equitable system instead of the good-luck, bad-luck syndrome.
I conclude by saying that if the Government want to make fundamental changes to a well-established and accepted system, that is fine. But they need to put forward a fair system which is buttressed by arguments based on justice and logic. They also need to give disabled people far more time to absorb the changes and react appropriately, as they wish.

305
I hope that the Government will think again about this clause between now and Report stage. If they do not, I shall table the Motion again and seek the opinion of the House on the matter.
Lord Higgins: I deferred to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, because he has such a long-standing record in these areas of disability, incapacity benefit and so on. But that should not in any way suggest that on this side of the Committee we do not entirely share his views which we believe, on the merits of the case, suggest that the clause should be withdrawn.
First, it is extremely unfortunate that this debate and the one which is to follow on whether Clause 58 shall stand part should take place at this hour of the night. In another place, ahead of the rebellion which took place there on these issues, the Government sought to time the matter so that it did not arise at prime time. That is why we have Clause 70 in this Bill. The Government totally failed in that. This evening, the Government have succeeded. There is widespread interest in these particular issues and it does not seem to me appropriate that we should be debating them now.
I have argued on many previous occasions that, to a large extent, the Department of Social Security has been taken over by the Chancellor and the Treasury. The reality is that before the election, and indeed afterwards, the Prime Minister made statements which said very clearly that they would reduce the cost of the welfare budget and were to use the money on education and health. There are a number of quotations from the now Prime Minister to that effect. Meanwhile, the social security bill is expected to rise by some £38 billion over a period of three years.
The reality of the situation is that the Government, the Treasury and the Department of Social Security now have three clauses in the Bill designed to claw back some of that money by measures which we, on this side of the Chamber and I think in all parts of the Chamber, regard as wrong. The Minister can, no doubt, tell us to what extent the Government expect to save money as a result of Clause 57. They have advanced various arguments, but the effect is to prevent long-term unemployed people claiming incapacity benefit. Even if it is true that in the past, as pointed out by the Disability Benefits Consortium, too many unemployed people had wrongly claimed incapacity benefit, the problem would be among the existing claimants. The provisions in the Bill apply only to future claimants. If the Government believe that there are people on IB who should not be, the proper way to deal with that is to introduce an appropriate test.
I have already indicated, and I make no apology for it, that it seems to me that the all-work test is not appropriate. We have to do better than that. However, at all events, that is the way to deal with this problem as regards the future, and not by penalising those who have contributed in the past. They may have contributed for many years and have only in the past couple of years not been in a position to do so. The Government will now withdraw benefit from them at the very moment they may find it important.
306
I shall not delay the Committee further. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, spelt out the basic arguments. We believe that this is wrong. I do not think it is possible to amend the clause in a way which is satisfactory. I think that it should be dropped from the Bill. I believe that there is a general feeling across the entire Chamber, that that is the appropriate thing to do. I support the noble Lord's comments. I believe it is a bad clause and that it should be rejected.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: I am grateful to my good and noble friend Lord Ashley and his co-signatories for facilitating this important debate.
Like my noble friend, I acknowledge the Bill's many good features about which I have spoken in previous debates; but also like my noble friend, I believe that the Bill would be much improved by the deletion of Clause 57.
All that governments do in office is compared with what they told the electorate in seeking office. But where in Labour's general election manifesto was there the vaguest suggestion that 170,000 people who now qualify would lose their entitlement to incapacity benefit?
No wonder my right honourable friend Tom Clarke, who led for Labour in explaining our policies for disabled people at the election, felt bound to speak and vote against the clause in another place. His speech kept faith impeccably with what he told the electorate on our behalf.
No convincing case has been made for what this clause proposes. Labour Ministers rightly condemn their predecessors for encouraging unjustified IB claims from unemployed people to cut an ever-lengthening dole queue. But the Bill's proposals on IB do not dispossess those who allegedly ought not to have the benefit.
Instead they pile handicap on handicap for many thousands of severely disabled people who, having paid national insurance for a contributory benefit, in good faith and over many years while in work, will lose the help for which they insured themselves.
Currently a person must have paid either Class I (employed) or Class 2 (self-employed) national insurance contributions, or a combination of both, on earnings equal to at least 25 times the lower earnings limit (currently £66) in any one tax year prior to the benefit claim. Under this clause a person will need to have made such a contribution in one of the last two tax years before the benefit year in which a claim is made. The result is that someone who has been unemployed for two years but who had paid contributions for 30 years before then will not qualify. However, someone: unemployed for 30 years who has worked for one of the: last two years will qualify for the benefit. This must be unjust.
Progressive illnesses often mean that people struggle on in work for the sake of their mental health, even though they are not earning sufficient wages to maintain a contribution record. They often have many years of full-time employment, paying national insurance contributions, before illness strikes. As the illness

307
progresses, they stay in work as long as they can but, with frequent absences, this may become part-time work.
A citizens' advice bureau in the Midlands reported on the case of a schoolteacher with multiple sclerosis. He eventually had to give up his job as his illness made it impossible for him to continue full-time work. He then worked part time marking exam papers. This disqualified him from claiming incapacity benefit since he was not considered to be undertaking therapeutic work and his earnings were below the level for paying national insurance contributions. The proposals in Clause 57 would mean that if, after two years, he had to give up his part-time work because of ill health he would not be eligible to re-claim incapacity benefit. This must be unacceptable to noble Lords in all parts of the Chamber.
The deep resentment felt by disabled people about Clause 57 is compounded by media suggestions that its proposals are justified by massive fraud in the disability benefits system. These suggestions persist, and are repeated in public debates, notwithstanding the findings of the benefit integrity project—BIP—inherited from the Major government, which involved DSS investigators in visits to the homes of more than 40,000 disabled people to check every detail of their entitlement to the benefits they were receiving. BIP's findings—about which my noble friend Lady Hollis has so helpfully reported to the House—are striking testimony to the honesty of disabled people in relation to the benefits system.
Frank Field, the then Minister for Welfare Reform, emphasising the Government's top priorities on 26th March 1998, told the House of Commons in a ringing declaration:
"Our commitment to the vulnerable is not negotiable".—[Official Report, 26/3/98; col. 686].
But current reality is that disabled people and the elderly poor, among other vulnerable groups—not least IB recipients—have fared much worse than most others over recent years.
In fact, the incomes of people dependent on disability benefits were frozen for 18 years after 1979 when the link forged by the last Labour government between benefits and average earnings was broken by the Thatcher government. Had that link been kept, IB would now be £24.15 a week higher. By breaking the link, the Treasury saved £18 billion on this benefit between 1980 and 1997—a brutal switch of resources from vulnerable to more fortunate groups. That, too, helps to explain the depth of resentment felt by disabled people about this proposed cut in spending on IB. They see it as a still further redistribution of resources from the less well-off to the least well-off; from those in need to those in greater need. They say it confuses reform with retreat and they ask, "What justice is there in penalising people who save and forego pleasure today in order to pay for safeguarding their future?"
For their part, Ministers talk of their concern that the social security system has become unsustainable. But what are the facts?
308
The UK is bumping along the bottom—in the relegation zone, as it were—of the league of 21 OECD member states in terms of the proportion of GDP spent on health, education and social security. And while it is true that social security costs more in Britain than health, education and law and order combined, the same is true also in most other developed countries.
Hype about social spending being out of control in Britain is contradicted also by highly expert recent advice from Christopher Daykin, the Government Actuary, that due to relatively low benefits here:
"Future costs of social security in the UK look more manageable than in other European countries".
There is no one more familiar with the facts or more skilled in interpreting them than the Government Actuary. And to clinch the argument he goes on to say that such countries,
"… also have a more significant problem of ageing than the UK, since we have already made significant changes which will keep future costs down".
Most disabled people want the Government to be tough on fraud and tough on the causes of fraud, not least when it is caused by administrative incompetence and corrupt private landlords. They say that failure to tackle low take-up frustrates the will of Parliament. They are not resistant to change. For there are many reforms disabled people want to see. They are appreciative, as I am, of helpful new steps that the Government have taken and will be taking and want them to succeed.
For them to succeed, they argue, Whitehall and Westminster must get the facts straight. And benefits for disabled people should be commended to the taxpayer, not as acts of compassion, but of enlightened self-interest and moral right. Ministerial preoccupation should be with value, as well as cost. And disabled people should be seen as givers, not only receivers. For there are marked cost savings in humanely assisting them to achieve their full potential as full and fully participating members of British society.
Lord Rix: There are Members of the Committee on all sides of this Chamber, and those who declare no political affiliation—myself included—who profoundly disagree with the Government's policy with respect to restricting incapacity benefit to recent contributors. Like the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I, too, am sad that such an important debate is taking place so late at night.
Over the various stages of this Bill we have heard many detailed expositions of the problems relating to this clause. I shall summarise the three aspects of the clause which are of most concern to me and indeed of those who have written to me on this matter over recent months. First, this measure does not represent a strengthening of the contributory principle; it represents an erosion of it, hitting hardest those who worked for a long period of time before unemployment and those who have intermittent work patterns for other reasons such as caring or looking after children. At Second Reading I gave an illustration of the way this change would impact upon a carer I know.

309
Secondly, this rule does nothing to help people with disabilities back to work. Worse still, the cuts will penalise those trying to go back to work—the very opposite of what welfare reform should aim to achieve. The Government claim that they wish to reduce the inactivity rate among older workers. That is a measure which I am sure bears no reflection on your Lordship's Chamber, particularly in this latter Session. However, I should like to explain briefly the way in which the effects of this clause run counter to that claim.
Many people, particularly towards the end of their working life, find their health giving way and consequently their national insurance record becomes fragmented. Currently a year's full rational insurance contribution at any one time during a working life ensures eligibility to incapacity benefit. People whose health is giving out know, therefore, that they can keep trying for work in the knowledge that no matter how chequered their work record becomes, their entitlement to incapacity benefit remains. Not so under the proposals in this clause. A person will need to have a fully paid contribution record during one of the previous two years before claiming benefit. Claimants will rapidly become aware that the only way to guarantee incapacity benefit is to give up aspirations to work and to claim benefit as quickly as possible as soon as one's health begins to deteroriate.
Finally, to my mind this clause does not help to restore incapacity benefit to its original intention or restore the link between benefit and work; rather it takes away a contributed benefit from people who may have worked for many years. As something of a double whammy the fallback benefit, the severe disablement allowance, is being abolished later on in this Bill, consigning those who may have worked for 40 years or more but who happen to become sick at. the wrong time to a future on means-tested benefits.
The Minister may be satisfied that with this situation on the ground that it is theoretically possible for some individuals, although undoubtedly fewer of them, to receive broadly the same amount of money from the state via means-tested income support. It is worth remembering that not everyone will be eligible for income support. A working spouse is sufficient to prevent that. Furthermore, the means-tested provision is something from which we spent nearly 30 years trying to escape because benefits of that kind carry with them the very disincentives which prompted the need for welfare reform in the first place.
11.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: Any amendment on a matter to do with disability which comes before us in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ashley of Stoke, Lord Morris of Manchester and Lord Rix, is one to which we on these Benches would listen very seriously indeed. When they say exactly what we thought already, we join with them with alacrity. We have more reasons for supporting the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, than I am going to give to the Committee at this time of night.
I shall mention one only. This clause leaves out altogether those with earnings below the national insurance lower earnings limit and therefore with no
310
contributions. Many people make do with a portfolio of part-time jobs, showing a great dedication to the principle of work and making a living somehow, but not building up a contributions record. An extremely high proportion of those people are women. This clause is severely discriminatory in effect.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was particularly startled by the noble Earl's last point. I am slightly out of order on the comments I was going to make. I make it clear that already 30 per cent of claimants for invalidity benefit are women. Over the next 15 years or so, we expect it to be about 50 per cent. So in saying that it is discriminatory against women I wonder whether the noble Earl is on the right clause. I assure him that by virtue of the national minimum wage an extra 250,000 people, mostly women, will be going over the lower earnings level and will be credited into the system. As a result, they will be entitled to incapacity benefit when they are not at the moment.
Whatever else is wrong with this clause in the view of the noble Earl, it is certainly not true to say that it is discriminatory against women. As I have said, women will form the biggest growth in the number of claimants partly because of the ending of the reduced married woman's contribution and in future because of the national minimum wage. I hope that the noble Earl will accept that point at least, even if our minds do not meet on other points.
Earl Russell: I accept that the minimum wage has made the position less discriminatory than it was before and I welcome that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the noble Earl.
I go back to the substantive point. The Committee has expressed anxieties about Clause 57 which amends the entitlement conditions for incapacity benefit to require payment of some national insurance contributions in one of the previous two tax years.
The Government's proposals are based on the clear principle that there should be a link between incapacity benefit entitlement and recent work. However, the contribution conditions are a particularly complex area of the benefits system and it may be helpful if I begin by clarifying some keys points about the practical effects of the Government's approach.
First, as I am sure Members of the Committee know well, the new rules do not affect current claims. Therefore, there is no question of benefit being taken away from existing recipients who remain on incapacity benefit.
More importantly, future claims which link back to a previous period of entitlement will also be unaffected. So people who leave incapacity benefit will be able to do so with a guarantee that if they have to return within the linking period, which this Government extended from eight weeks to a year for people in work, they will be able to do so without having to resatisfy the contribution conditions. To reinforce this we also intend to make a general exemption for people on IB in the

311
previous tax year. This will help people who try to work for more than a year and find that they cannot reclaim IB immediately because their contributions are in too recent a tax year.
The arrangements will ensure that there is no question of people trying to go back to work and being unable to get back on to IB because they have had no opportunity to re-establish their contribution record. That will be particularly helpful to people with intermittent or deteriorating conditions, and other people whose prospects of sustained employment are poor.
When people are in work they will, in any case, not have to work for all that long in order to satisfy the new requirements. As now, contributions on earnings equivalent to 25-times the lower earnings limit, currently £66 a week, will suffice. This is equivalent to just four weeks' earnings for someone on average male full-time earnings, or 12 weeks for someone on the national minimum wage. That period of work need not be continuous. So, here again, there is recognition of the needs of people with broken work records and intermittent health problems.
Where someone has met the minimum requirement for paid contributions in one of the previous two tax years, he can have been unemployed for the rest of the time and still qualify. Because of the time lag between tax years ending in April and the benefit year starting in January, it will be possible, as my noble friend Lord Ashley said, for some people to qualify for IB as long as three and a half years after leaving work. So there is no question of people losing eligibility for IB after a short period of unemployment.
The Government recognise that there are situations where it is unreasonable to expect people to have worked and contributed in the previous two tax years. The reforms in Clause 59, which will enable young disabled people to claim IB without having to satisfy the contribution conditions, are the clearest example in that respect. We have also made it clear all along that we shall maintain the status quo for carers. We shall provide in regulations for carers who currently qualify for IB after receiving invalid care allowance to continue to do so on the same basis as now—that is, through contributions paid in any tax year. I should emphasise that it will not be necessary for the person to have been working immediately before he or she started caring.
Therefore, to sum up, the Government's proposals include full protection for existing beneficiaries and people who go off IB for periods of a year or more. People will be able to qualify on the basis of just 12 weeks' work at the minimum wage and on the basis of work done as long as three and a half years ago. The current position of ICA recipients will be maintained.
However, the Government's proposals will not extend IB to groups other than the young disabled who are not eligible under the current rules. There is no doubt that the contributory system is complex. Indeed, some noble Lords may not realise exactly which groups do or do not currently qualify. I should explain that there are in fact two national insurance contribution conditions for
312
IB. The first, which Clause 57 amends, requires contributions to have been paid in one tax year. Currently, that can be any tax year, however long ago.
The second contribution condition for incapacity benefit requires contributions or credits equivalent to 50-times the lower earnings limit in both of the previous two tax years. Clause 57 leaves this position unchanged. People will continue to be able to satisfy this condition by credits alone; but, as now, if they have neither paid contributions nor received credits in both of the previous two tax years, they will not qualify. In this respect, the Bill does not alter the position of groups whose circumstances do not attract credits, including most people who are in work but earning below the lower earnings limit.
There was some confusion in the other place about the position of mothers with children who receive HRP (home responsibilities protection) for pension purposes. Perhaps I may make it clear that HRP is not the same as national insurance credits. Mothers with children cannot use it to claim IB. In order to get credits, mothers need to meet other requirements, such as signing on as unemployed, or being in receipt of statutory sick pay or ICA.
Because the second contribution condition already imposes a requirement which relates to the two most recent tax years, it is already possible for someone to have contributed in earlier years but fail to qualify for IB. It can be possible under the current rules for someone to have paid contributions for 30 years but fail to qualify due to failing the credit test of the past two years. That is not a situation created for the first time by Clause 57, as perhaps some noble Lords may believe.
As there has always been a second contribution condition, albeit not quite in the current form, it might even be said that the possibility of someone paying contributions for many years and then failing to qualify for benefit was foreseen by Beveridge. Certainly the founders of the national insurance scheme saw a distinction between retirement pension, where entitlement builds up over many years, and what used to be called short-term benefits for sickness and unemployment, which depended on more recent tests of eligibility. Of course the basis for that distinction is that whereas everyone needs to provide for their eventual retirement, benefits for unemployment and incapacity are intended to provide for people who have recently been working and whose income has been interrupted.
I know that my noble friend Lord Ashley found it difficult to accept that IB and its predecessors have always been intended as a replacement for earnings from recent work. I remind him—I am sure he knows this—that under the National Assistance Act 1948 the full rate of sickness benefit was not payable unless there were a certain number of contributions or credits in the last complete contributions year. That rule changed over the years; none the less since 1948 the contribution tests for short-term contributory benefits have always included a test of recent contact with the labour market. Over time, this test developed into what is now the second contribution condition which required contributions or credits in both of the two most recent tax years.

313
Therefore, it has always been the case that people who have paid contributions in the past but have no contributions or credits in the two most recent years will be unable to qualify for incapacity benefit.
The debates when IB was introduced in 1995 did not focus on the contribution conditions because the previous government decided simply to carry forward the existing rules for sickness benefits. I hope that I have established that it has always been the case that IB and its predecessor benefits were always intended as a replacement for earnings from work. It follows therefore that IB is not intended for people who are in other situations. Yet at the moment half of those on IB came on to benefit from unemployment. The way the existing contribution conditions work mean that a person could have been signing on as unemployed for many years but would still qualify for IB as long as they had paid the minimum amount of contributions in just one year before becoming unemployed. I know that my noble friend does not like this example, but currently it is possible for someone to do six months' work and then be unemployed for 20 years and still qualify for IB. We do not believe that that was in the expectations of Beveridge when the system was first set up. It has not been the expectation since and we do not think it right for this to continue.
That is not to say—I wish to emphasise this—that an unemployed person who becomes sick should be left without income or support. But in those circumstances the right benefit is not incapacity benefit which is always meant to be related to recent experience in the labour market; the right benefit is income support which already goes to many thousands of people who satisfy the medical test of incapacity but not the contribution conditions. In fact, most of those who do not satisfy the new contribution conditions and were previously unemployed will already be getting income-based JSA which is paid at the same rates as IS and therefore to that extent has the same qualifying income tests. They will also be able to qualify for the disability premium in due course. IS with a disability premium of £73.30 a week is more generous—or certainly higher in income—than basic long-term IB. Some 70 per cent of those who fail to satisfy the new contribution condition will get IS rather than IB and will experience no financial loss.
The. noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked me what sort of savings we envisaged. The savings for the first year are expected to be £25 million and in the third year £60 million. But these proposals are not about cutting expenditure because spending on incapacity and disability benefits will continue to rise by more than £2 billion in real terms over the life of this Parliament.
As I said at the beginning, the Government's approach is based on the clear principle that there should be a link between IB and recent work, as was envisaged by Beveridge. That link has been lost in recent years, primarily because of the growth in long-term unemployment which Beveridge, frankly, did not anticipate. Restoring that link is an essential aspect of the reform of the benefits system that the Government are determined to achieve. Within that framework safeguards need to be made, and are being made, for
314
certain groups. We believe that the overall approach is right in principle and, despite what has been said tonight, we do not believe that it will place unreasonable barriers in the way of people establishing their entitlements. We believe that it is right that IB should be related to recent work, and that is what Clause 57 will ensure.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I am grateful to my noble friend for responding to some of the points raised in the debate. She has heard the unanimous condemnation of Clause 57 that has been expressed on all sides of the Committee. I simply repeat the situation I have already mentioned—I am being quite frank with the Government, quite honest with the Committee—the Government must reconsider and think again. If they do not, this amendment will be brought forward on Report and we will call for a Division in the House.
Lord Higgins: Perhaps I may add that much of the noble Baroness's defence of the clause was listing people who will not be hit by it. I find the justification for those who are to be hit by it wholly unconvincing. I very much hope that we shall return to this matter on Report. I do not think the clause is amendable:; it must simply be eliminated. I hope that it will be brought before the House at a reasonable hour on that occasion.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Incapacity benefit: reduction for pension payments]:
On Question, Whether Clause 58 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I wish to oppose this clause as well. The clause introduces means testing for the first time for a major long-term contributory benefit. That is a very significant change. It is based on the clarion call from my noble friend of directing help to those in greatest need. That is a fine objective and a fine principle with which few of us would disagree. It is easy to argue that those who can afford it should help those who cannot. But we should look carefully at the consequences.
We are moving away from universal provision for everyone who pays contributions. That will damage trust in the Government. People will undoubtedly resent paying and not receiving the expected benefits. They will see this as a case of, to change a prime ministerial phrase, "nothing for something".
We should not forget that expectations are rising in this country and few will accept that poverty should be the automatic consequence of being unable to work. That is why occupational pensions are so numerous. In olden times, many people lived for the day because they could not afford to do otherwise. Now they are more able and willing to prepare for the future. But attitudes will change very quickly and very radically if the prudent find themselves little or no better off. That would be a major consequence of this clause.

315
The Government deserve credit for their new provisions for disabled people, but the poor should not be made to pay for the very poor. That is a fundamental principle in objecting to this clause. We need to look at the income levels of those whose occupational pension will be reduced to pay for other reforms. I am sorry to challenge my noble friend again on this issue, but the Government's proposal is that anyone with an occupational pension of more than £50 a week loses part of incapacity benefit for every extra pound of that pension. The consultation document indicated that that would be at the rate of 50p in the pound.
Any attempt to justify means-testing severely disabled people, and at a penal rate which is higher than the highest tax rate paid by millionaires, is to be deplored. The Government seek to give the impression that those with incapacity benefits are well off and that they are receiving a state benefit which they can do without. Nothing could be further from the truth and I think the Committee should scrutinise the figures with very great care.
Ministers, including my noble friend Lady Hollis, talk of "almost 100,000 people" getting occupational pensions of more than £230 a week and having incapacity benefit of £60 a week on top. Those are the figures which appear in Hansard and the press, but according to my noble friend's Written Answer on 30th June, this is just not true. The Written Answer says that £230 is the average pension of the 90,000 incapacity benefit recipients who have a pension of £150 a week or more. But £230 is the average figure: some will be above and some below, but we cannot be sure how many will be above. However, we can be sure that there will not be 100,000. The estimate I have been given is that some 40,000 people have occupational pensions of more than £200 a week.
I am afraid I must challenge the Government here. Does my noble friend accept that her figure of almost 100,000 people is wrong? Does she accept that only some 40,000 people have an occupational pension of more than £200 a week? If my figure is correct, just 6.6 per cent of a total of 600,000 people have both occupational pensions and incapacity benefit. That is a very small percentage: yet it is being used to justify the means-testing of a far larger group whose pension is very much lower. Forty-six per cent of incapacity benefit recipients with occupational pensions have a pension income of between £50 and £150 per week.
These are the people who in future will be hit the hardest. When the occupational pension income is as low as £2,652 a year, the incapacity benefit would be cut. It would be taken away completely when the occupational pension is £9,542 a year. These figures are for a single person and they are very, very low indeed. This is a blatant case of the poor paying to help the poorest, and I simply cannot agree with that. Far too many other people on middle incomes and well-off people should be doing it; taxpayers should be doing it, not poor, disabled people.
That is what is wrong with this clause. The message that this Government are giving to the vast majority of people is, "If you become disabled, beware. As far as
316
the Government are concerned, you will have a low income. You won't be the poorest in the land but you will be poor, and all the super-rich will be all right". For those people struggling to work despite a disability or an illness, as mentioned earlier, which they know will eventually incapacitate them, it is a really terrifying prospect.
This Government argue that there is double provision of pension and incapacity benefit. The facts are these. The Thatcher government removed the earnings-related element of the former invalidity benefit, claiming that there was double provision. The same tired old argument is being used again now. This Government refer to double provision. The idea was used again in our debates today. It is as if the previous cut never occurred, and the Government are rushing in brandishing a new idea. However, rather than double provision, it is a case of double jeopardy.
I hope that the Government will think again about the clause between now and Report stage. I repeat: if they do not, I shall again give notice of my intention to oppose the clause and, on Report, the House will be divided.
Lord Higgins: Incapacity benefit is a national insurance benefit awarded to people who are incapable of work and who, having contributed to the scheme all their working life, have entitlement to a payment to replace their earnings when they become too ill or disabled to work. The effect of Clause 58 is to remove that entitlement for people who happen to have pensions.
It is difficult to envisage any clause that would be objectionable on so many different grounds. I have already complained that we ought not to be debating this issue at five minutes to midnight. One can only hope that the BBC parliamentary channel will transmit the debate at a better time. In that context, I must say that the captions that appear at the bottom of the screen, impartial as they are, are done in a most extraordinary way. They are very effective indeed. I wish that I had similar research facilities.
This is a matter of very great concern to people outside this Chamber. This provision abuses the contributory principle. People who have contributed may find, in the circumstances described in the clause, that they do not receive their benefits. It is an extension of means testing, but in a curious way. Most strange is the fact that the clause is a positive deterrent to having a pension. As I said, this legislation is about five Bills rolled into one, but much of it is devoted to encouraging people to take out pensions. Yet in the same Bill, what do the Government do? They say that if people happen to have an occupational pension—a type of pension that the Government believe is the best thing that ever happened in the pensions field—they suddenly find themselves clobbered and their pension reduced at a rate of 50p for every £1 of pension income over £50 a week.
As I say, it is difficult to envisage any proposal that offends so many different principles at the same time. As with the previous clause, I do not believe that Clause

317
58 is amendable. The only thing for this place to do is to reject it. I hope that when we return to the matter on Report, it will do exactly that.
Lord Morris of Manchester: In the debate on Clause 57, I asked where, in our general election manifesto, it was suggested that 170,000 people who now qualify for incapacity benefit would lose entitlement. I ask now where it was stated that disabled people would be forced to take a cut in benefit of 50 per cent of any personal pension worth over £50 a week so that someone who has saved for years to provide a weekly pension of £75 will have their benefit cut by £12.50 a week.
Again, the proposals are justified by reference to "massive fraud" in the disability benefits system. The most precise figure used for the extent of such fraud was that given by the Prime Minister in an article in The Times on 15th January 1998. He wrote:
"We spend more on disability and incapacity benefits than we do on the entire school system. Benefit fraud, estimated at £4 billion a year, is enough to build 100 new hospitals".
But the figure of £4 billion, used also by the National Audit Office, was quickly shown to be entirely bogus. Indeed, it was dismissed that same day by my noble friend Lady Hollis, speaking for the DSS, who told this House that it was,
"based on old information from the previous government",
and that in the tens of thousands of cases investigated under BIP her department had,
"not found a single case of confirmed fraud".
After her disclosure—
Midnight
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene. It is right that reference was made to about 50 cases of suspected fraud. I am happy to confirm that, to the best of my knowledge, not one single case of fraud was confirmed. But I am sure that my noble friend will accept that when I made that statement I tried to set it in the context that the benefit integrity project revealed a very high level of error—of the order of 15 per cent—in the accuracy of entitlement to DLA. That was understandable because people got better and continued to draw their benefits without necessarily understanding that a change in circumstances triggered a change in benefit. I was very careful to emphasise that it was not about fraud. But that is not to say that there has not been, and there is not, a high level of error.
Lord Morris of Manchester: I am grateful to my noble friend. She will also recall that what BIP demonstrated was that there was a vast amount of under-claiming of their entitlements by disabled people. I shall document that as I proceed.
After my noble friend's disclosure, many thousands more disabled people were investigated in DSS swoops on their homes, bringing some to the brink of suicide, but not a single case of proven fraud was found. Yet the bogus figure of £4 billion in benefit fraud is still quoted as one of irrefutable truth. As recently as 19th May, in
318
an article prompted by strong resistance by Labour MPs to the Government's proposals to cut spending on IB, one distinguished journalist went further:
"Benefit fraud",
he said,
"still runs at £4 billion a year. Benefit abuse must be many times that sum".
As with fraud, however, so with abuse, the truth will out. Again, it came from my noble friend Lady Hollis. In a recent debate she revealed that there was,
"an under-claim of £5-£6 billion by disabled people",
of disability living allowance and attendance allowance alone. With her customary candour and decency, and notwithstanding the effect on her departments budget, she also said that she personally,
"would be cheering if that happened",
all of which shows that the real story is not that disabled people abuse the system, but that the system abuses them for they miss out on £5-£6 billion in help that Parliament intended them to have. Without it many of them are left doubly disabled and in double despair.
It is also disturbing that a reason often given by disabled people for not claiming their entitlements is fear of being branded as what some commentators call "something for nothing merchants". The same reason is given by frail elderly people, more especially single women living alone, for not claiming income support. For not only disabled people under-claim: over £2 billion a year in income support goes unclaimed by the most vulnerable of elderly people.
Higher take-up means higher spending, but it is for help that Parliament has approved for vulnerable people, and failure to deliver it frustrates the will of Parliament. Clause 58 does nothing to remedy under-claiming; indeed, it makes life harder for disabled people who, in saving and striving to help themselves out of poverty, deserve our admiration. I hope very much that this clause will be removed from the Bill.
Lord Rix: The decision to means test incapacity benefit against pension payments is one which I, like other noble Lords, have difficulty in accepting. This measure will directly penalise people who save sensibly for their future. Many people took government advice and have been paying into personal pension schemes. They feel deeply betrayed to discover that they are being penalised for doing this. The proposal undermines government efforts to persuade people of the need to make their own financial provision for retirement. I am also concerned because the principle behind the amendment may set a dangerous precedent that signals the end of universal entitlement to the basic state pension.
If governments were to take incapacity benefit from people who have saved to give themselves peace of mind for the future, what is to stop the Government doing the same for those who save for their retirement?
There are also problems with the way in which this aspect of the Bill is set to be implemented. A threshold of £50 means that someone in their late forties who has to stop work would start to lose incapacity benefit when

319
his income reaches just over £5,500. He loses all benefits once his income reaches £9,300 per annum. That hits people with very modest incomes. It is a myth that the means test will impact only on the wealthy.
I urge the Minister to think carefully about negotiating the threshold and the corresponding taper so that the system is more equitable for sick and disabled people.
Lord Goodhart: From these Benches, I strongly support everything said by each of the previous speakers in this debate. I add two brief points.
First, this clause creates a form of partial means testing. It is only partial because it goes only against one form of income—pension income. If one is lucky enough to have a substantial investment income, one is entitled to claim incapacity benefit and none of it is set off against one's investment income. That seems to be wholly inequitable. Indeed, the particular kind of income which is targeted here seems the one which is most actively to be encouraged: pension income. It would be more honest of the Government simply to say that incapacity benefit is to be abolished; and maintenance is to be claimed only by way of income support. I do not suggest that; far from it. But I think that this is a particularly unattractive form of means testing, and more so than the conventional means testing.
Secondly, this proposal will not only hit those who become incapacitated. It will hit many other people as well. It will do so because many who have mortgages to pay off now insure themselves against becoming incapacitated in order to ensure that they will be in a position to maintain their mortgage payments if they are unable to work through illness or injury.
The effect of these proposals is that those payments will be among the payments which lead to a reduction in the right to income support. The Minister looks a little doubtful about that. Perhaps I may refer her to that provision. The Bill states:
"In this section 'pension payment' means a payment of any specified description, being a payment made under an insurance policy providing benefits in connection with physical or mental illness, disability, infirmity or defect".
Quite clearly that would cover the mortgage protection policy that I describe. In those circumstances, individuals who now have that kind of policy will be well advised to increase their policy premiums because of the loss of incapacity benefit which they will face if they become incapacitated.
For those reasons, as well as for the reasons so clearly and strongly put forward by the previous speakers, we, too, most strongly object to the clause. In due course, we hope to be able to support a vote that the clause should be removed from the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Government are well aware of the concerns that have been raised about the proposals in Clause 58 under which some account will be taken of the income from occupational and personal pensions when future claims are made for IB.
320
In order to clear up any possible misunderstanding, I should stress that, as with the change to the contribution conditions, people who are already on IB will not be affected. They will continue to receive IB in full, as well as their pensions, for the duration of the current claim and any future claim which links to it.
However, for new claimants there will, under Clause 58, be a reduction in the amount of IB payable where the income from an occupational or personal pension exceeds a certain amount. The Government have proposed a reduction equivalent to 50 per cent of the pension income over £50. But the exact sums will be set out in regulations and the Secretary of State has always made it clear that he will review the level of the disregard before the introduction of the measure to ensure that it is fair and reasonable. I repeat that these figures are not set in stone. The Secretary of State made that clear at the Report and Third Reading stages in another place. In addition, the Secretary of State will be reflecting on the points made tonight.
What is at issue today is the principle of reducing IB, not the precise level of the reduction. I know that the principle troubles my noble friend Lord Ashley and many of your Lordships. IB is a contributory benefit and in the main the practice has been that it is paid in full regardless of other income. I say "in the main" because, contrary to some assertions made tonight, there have always been some income tests and earnings rules in the contributory system. For example, entitlement to adult dependency increases and child dependant increases in IB and retirement pension is subject to a test of the partner's earning and occupational and personal pensions. Equally, contribution-based JSA takes account of the full amount of occupational and personal pensions above £50 a week. Equally, in IB there are rules on therapeutic earnings, counsellors' allowances and so forth. So there have always existed some income tests and earnings rules within the contributory system. Furthermore, contributory benefits for unemployment have been abated for pension income for many years and at a taper of 100 per cent as a result of the policy of the previous administration.
What, then, is the principle behind the Government's proposal? The principle is the need to ensure that the IB rules reflect modern conditions and establish a fairer partnership between different types of support for people who are unable to work.
The post-war Labour government created a structure of benefits for working people below pension age which was intended to provide an alternative income if earnings were interrupted by sickness or unemployment. At that time it could generally be assumed that if people were not working they had no income. The benefits were therefore clearly designed to meet financial need—to defeat Beveridge's giant of want.
The essential purpose of IB and JSA remains the same today, but the circumstances have changed very significantly, both because of the very large increase in the coverage of occupational and personal pension provision and because of the increased prevalence of early retirement. Today, 86 per cent of men in full-time work are members of either an occupational or personal

321
pension scheme, as are 77 per cent of women in full-time work. This compares with just over a quarter of men in 1953. Another significant change is that today far more people take early retirement. These changes are recognised in JSA, but not in IB.
As a result, IB is increasingly providing a top-up for pension income. That is indisputable. Over 600,000 current IB recipients—around one third—have income from an occupational or personal pension as well as their IB. Nearly 400,000 have pension income of £50 a week or more averaging £120 a week. Nearly 100,000 have pension income worth £150 a week or more, averaging £230 a week. Those amounts are substantial. I should be happy to go into greater detail about the breakdown of the holdings of occupational pensions alongside IB, but full details were given in an answer to Dr Roger Berry on Thursday, 17th June 1999 in the other place, where your Lordships can check the figures.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Higgins: What is the overall saving to the Exchequer?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We do not anticipate much in the first few years, but over the next 10 or 15 years the savings will grow considerably. The total savings from the occupational and personal pensions changes are estimated at £190 million in year three.
The amounts received in occupational and personal pensions are substantial. Nearly half the IB recipients who also receive an occupational pension are in the top two quintiles of income distribution. Before any noble Lord points out that disability living allowance is counted in assessing people's position in income distribution even though the benefit is intended for specific additional costs, let me say that even if DLA is excluded from the calculations, nearly half of those with occupational pensions are still in the top two quintiles.
The growth of pension provision affects the degree to which people today face want, which is the contingency that IB is designed to meet. In Beveridge's day it could be assumed that inability to work meant lack of income, but that Is no longer the case. Many people who take early retirement regard their occupational pensions as their main source of income and the true replacement for their earnings. For people with substantial pensions, IB is a secondary form of income—a supplement that the retired person may not even have anticipated in planning for retirement and that they may regard as an unexpected, though no doubt welcome, bonus.
The benefit is not performing the income-replacement role for which it was designed. There is considerable overlap and duplication with a form of income that is also intended to provide a replacement for earnings. The position is quite different from that which applies after pension age, when there is a clear and deliberately constructed relationship between occupational and second-tier pensions and the basic state pension.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked me what the implications would be for the state pension. The state pension comprises the basic pension and an earnings-related element in SERPS. People can choose to
322
have an occupational or personal pension instead of SERPS, so account is taken of occupational pensions in the state scheme. They are designed to be complementary. The basic state pension is a secure foundation and we believe that it is right that it should continue to be the foundation on which to build a second pension.
The Government's proposals are intended to inject some logic into the interaction between IB and private provision, to create a proper partnership that recognises that people with occupational and personal pensions are not in the same position as other IB claimants. Once a person has pension income above a certain level it is no longer appropriate for them to have IB as well. Below that there should be a gradual taper so that there are no clip-edge effects. The amount at which IB ceases to be payable will depend on the level of the disregard and taper, which the Secretary of State will keep under review, and the amount of IB entitlement in individual cases. For a single person on the basic long-term rate of IB, a £50 disregard and a 50 per cent taper would mean that some IB remained payable until the pension income was nearly £10,000. Someone with an age addition and increases for a partner and one child would need a pension of nearly £16,000 a year before IB was withdrawn completely. We believe that that strikes a fair balance between state and private provision while still providing an incentive to people to save for retirement. It is considerably more generous than the JSA. arrangements.
As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart pointed out, as well as providing for pension income to be taken into account, the clause also provides for regulations to be made that would enable permanent health insurance linked to the ending of employment to be treated in the same way.
Our intention in taking payments from PHI policies into account against IB is to create a level playing field with the treatment of payments into occupational and personal pensions. Therefore, we shall take account of PHI only where it has been arranged by an employer and the contract of employment has ended with that employer. We have discussed that with the Association of British Insurers and it agrees that that is the right approach.
Therefore, I should make it clear that occupational sick pay or its PHI equivalent will not be deducted from incapacity benefit; nor is it the intention to take account of other forms of health insurance; nor mortgage protection payments. The only sort of insurance that will be taken into account is permanent health insurance and then only when it has been arranged by an employer and the contract of employment has ended. It will not apply to personal health insurance, nor mortgage protection payments.
I should add that any regulations providing for new forms of income to be taken into account will be subject to the affirmative procedure and so will be guaranteed close scrutiny by Parliament.
We also recognise that there will be circumstances in which it will not be appropriate for occupational and personal pensions to be taken into account. Therefore, Clause 58 provides power for occupational and personal pensions not to be taken into account where the pension payments are in connection with the death of a member of the scheme or where an occupational pension scheme is in deficit or has insufficient resources to pay the full

323
pension. It includes a power to assume a notional income where a claimant deliberately fails to avail himself of an available pension payment so as to increase and maximise his benefit, which is a long-standing social security provision to prevent abuse.
I said at the beginning that the Government recognise that there are genuine concerns about the proposals in Clause 58. However, the Government believe that it is essential to modernise the rules of IB. I suspect that if Beveridge had anticipated the growth in private provision, he would have agreed. The Secretary of State has made it clear on several occasions that he will consider carefully the level at which pension income will be taken into account. But the principle of partnership and producing duplication between IB and occupational and personal pensions, which was not anticipated when IB and its predecessors were devised, is not something on which the Government feel they should compromise because they do not believe it would be right to do so.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I thank my noble friend for her response to the debate. No one does it better on behalf of the Government. But she has heard the condemnation of Clause 58 from all sides of the Committee. She knows where we stand. We want the Government to reconsider this matter. If they do not, we have spelt out clearly the course of action that we intend to take on Report. I stand by that, but I thank the Minister for her reply.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Incapacity benefit: persons incapacitated in youth]:
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 124A:
Page 68, line 1. leave out ("20 or, in prescribed cases,")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I must express my pleasure at enjoying a last waltz with the Minister. Such is my anticipation of the pleasures ahead that I insist on at least three circuits of the floor.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Is the noble Lord, Lord Rix, suggesting that we should dance to "Strangers on the Shore"?
Lord Rix: I begin by paying tribute to the Minister and the Government for raising non-contributory incapacity benefit to the level of contributory incapacity benefit for young entrants. Back in 1975, some of us, particularly those at MENCAP, were less than wholly convinced by the logic of giving someone with a few weeks' of work and contributions one level of benefit for long-term incapacity and giving someone whose ill health or disability prevented him ever working a much lower rate of long-term incapacity benefit.
The Government have partially corrected that anomaly and what they have done deserves credit and thanks. But having paid that tribute to the work that no doubt went on behind the scenes to secure that plus in the tally of welfare reform plusses and minuses, when the Minister responds, I anticipate a general rebuke to the effect that an agenda for change which was all plusses and no minuses would be inconsistent with the Government's commitment to maintaining tight control of public expenditure.
324
Reading the debates in another place, I am conscious that among the critics of some of the proposals in the Bill are those who want much more radical cuts in the welfare budget and certainly do not favour all plusses and no minuses. I need, therefore, to show my colours which are, I hasten to add, not party political colours, unless a disability party has emerged while I was not looking. My starting point is not that we are spending too much money on sick or disabled people, or that the wrong people are entitled to benefits, or that some people are entitled to too much benefit; my starting point is that benefits are too low, that too many people who are entitled to benefit are not receiving them, and that too few people are entitled to benefits. All research evidence seems to bear me out, as do the rates of benefit when contrasted with earned incomes and the costs of disabled living.
That is the background to what I want to say; but on this amendment to this clause I am saying something much more modest. The Government's proposals started with a cut-off age of 20. Below that age, people would qualify for the non-contributory incapacity benefit if they satisfied all the other conditions. Below that age, if receiving severe disablement allowance when the new rules came into force, they would transfer across to non-contributory incapacity benefit. The Government were quick to recognise the argument for catering for those studying between the ages of 20 and 25, and they raised the cut-off point selectively to 25 for that particular group, and only for that group, and only for new entrants.
So, as the Bill stands, for most people the cut-off point is 20. It is 20 for those already on SDA and at college and aged between 20 and 25. It is 20 for those at a social education centre receiving outreach education, but not actually at college. It is 20 for those who have had a gap in their education before the age of 20, perhaps looking for work, and who then go on to college. The magic age is 25 only for a quite narrowly defined although important group of continuous college students.
I have to say that for those young people with severe learning disability who follow the traditional route of recent years through special school and then into a specially designed college course, benefit is likely to be claimed and received from age 16. However, even those young people will not benefit from the transfer from SDA to non-contributory incapacity benefit and the extra income that goes with this if they are on SDA and over 20 when the rules change. For those who follow a mainstream route and do not claim benefit, and for whom recognition of the reality of being unable to work comes later, the age-25 concession would be really valuable, were it not so tightly limited.
My amendment is designed to simplify what is potentially a confusing and unfair situation by making age 25 the cut-off point for all purposes. Keeping to my main concern—young people with severe learning disability who are born with that disability, live with it and die with it—my amendment will mean that there are no uncomfortable distinctions made between them according to where they happen to be educated, or gaps in their education while agencies fight over whether they can continue their education. If they satisfy the other

325
conditions, they will be able to claim incapacity benefit at any time under age 25 and be able to transfer from SDA to IB if they are under 25 when the rules change.
All cut-off points are to a degree arbitrary. My amendment will not help those who have been on SDA since schooldays because of congenital disability but who are aged 25 or over when the rules change. However, it provides a fairer, tidier and more consistent approach than does the Bill as it now stands.
Perhaps I should conclude by noting that learning disability is, by definition, a condition in which extended education in a variety of settings is very much what is needed to help people to fulfil their potential. Indeed, a right to education up to age 25 is something for which we have long argued. Alongside that, I note the reality that no more than 10 per cent of people with severe learning disability of working age are in any kind of paid employment and most of those are in low paid and often part-time work. The benefit needs that I have touched on cannot be answered realistically by the argument that all of those concerned should be working. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Clause 59 provides improved help for young people disabled early in life. Amendment No. 124A seeks to extend the age limit for access to this new help.
I would like to take the opportunity to explain why we are proposing to make the changes in Clause 59. Severe disablement allowance is currently paid to people who do not qualify for incapacity benefit because they have not paid sufficient contributions. The original philosophy was to help people who never had the opportunity to establish themselves in the insurance scheme—particularly young people disabled at birth or at an early age.
However, SDA does not work. It does not provide many young people with the secure income they need. Because of the low rate at which it is paid, 70 per cent of recipients have to claim income support to top it up, and their SDA is taken into account pound for pound. So SDA does not provide any additional help—which means that it is of least help to those in greatest need This is why we are reforming the system to increase the benefits that we pay to people born with a disability or who incur a disability early in life and become disabled before the age of 20. As a result of the proposed change, people who are disabled early in life and are therefore unable to qualify for IB will gain by up to £26.40 a week. Some 175,000 people will gain in the long term, many of whom will never work in their lives. They will enjoy far greater security than they have known before.
Our main concern in reforming SDA is to help young disabled people, for the reasons that I have given. This is why the clause provides that, in most cases, people must have become incapable of work and made a claim before they reach the age of 20. However, as your Lordships will know, following consultation, we decided that the age cut-off should be extended to 25 in certain circumstances. We recognise that an age 20 cut-off could penalise young people who go into higher education or training. We therefore intend to prescribe in regulations that young people who go into higher education and training before
326
they are 20 can make a claim to benefit up to the age of 25. To qualify, they would need to make a claim within two tax years of leaving their course.
I know that the noble Lord has some concerns that this extension is still not wide enough to cover certain groups. However, we believe that our proposals strike the right balance. The amendment before us seeks to make age 25 the cut-off point for all claims. My Lords, we do not consider that to be justified; we believe that age 20 is a reasonable cut-off point in most cases. To extend it as suggested would run counter to the principle behind our reform since it would not concentrate help on those in greatest need.
By the age of 20, the vast majority of people who do not go into higher education or training will have had the opportunity to build up a contribution record for IB. With any age cut-off, there is the potential for someone to fall foul of the rules, but we believe that such cases will be rare. The noble Lord may be concerned about disabled people who remain in mainstream education beyond the age of 20. However, I hope that I can reassure him that disabled people who are in full-time education of any sort will be able to make a claim at the age of 19, providing they meet the other qualifying conditions. In addition, young disabled people may also be able to qualify between the ages of 16 and 18 if they attend a course specifically designed for disabled students.
We believe that the provisions already in the Bill, together with the commitments we have made regarding the use of the regulation-making powers, provide more than an adequate safeguard for the people whom we wish to help—namely, young disabled people who have not had the opportunity to work and build up a contribution record for IB.
Clause 59 represents a significant step forward in providing a more secure future for young disabled people, and we do not believe at present that there is any justification for extending the provisions further. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment tonight.
Lord Rix: I am sorry that my arguments have not persuaded the Minister to accept this amendment. Equally, her arguments have not persuaded me to drop it. However, I do not propose to proceed any further at this hour of the night. I shall return to the matter at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In order to prove that the last waltz does not last forever, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before one o'clock.