I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may take Lords amendment No. 2, in page 12, line 9, leave out "below" and insert

"of the Social Security Act 1975"

These are drafting amendments, which correct a mistake in the present wording.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may take Lords amendment No. 9, in clause 29, page 27, line 10, at end insert—

"section (Voluntary redundancy—entitlement to unemployment benefit);"

This is more than a technical amendment, but I hope that it will command ready support on both sides of the House. It amends section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975 and has been proposed to maintain the Government's policy that people who are made redundant, even though they may have agreed to take voluntary redundancy, should not be regarded as having left employment voluntarily, which would mean that they would incur up to six weeks disqualification from unemployment benefit.

Until recently it was understood to be the case—and it was certainly the Government's intention—that people taking voluntary redundancy would not be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit for up to six weeks. However, the chief adjudication officer, who is independent of Ministers—for once I have proof of that fact, which hon. Members have been known to doubt—issued new guidance based on recent case law suggesting that those who had volunteered for redundancy should normally be regarded as having left employment voluntarily, with the consequences that I have described.

That would have had serious implications for redundancy schemes in a number of industries, not lease the mining industry, and was most unwelcome to the Government. Faced with that advice, which we could not overturn and for which we could not substitute Minister's views, we decided that the proper course was to change the law to make sure that it clearly achieved what Ministers wished to achieve.

Happily, we had before Parliament at the time that flexible instrument the Social Security Bill—it has proved to be an almost infinitely flexible instrument—and we took the opportunity to insert the amendment and amendment No. 9, which is consequential, to establish the position as we and, I believe, the whole House want it to be.

I welcome the amendment and the speed with which the Government have acted. I am only sorry that I have not been able to give the Minister more notice of a question that I wish to put to him. The circular that gives rise to the question has come to my notice in only the past few days.

Can the Minister tell us now—if he cannot, will he check the matter—whether the amendment covers all the cases raised in the circular, which refers not only to the case being changed by the amendment, but to similar action being taken where a claimant is participating in an early retirement scheme or has retired at the normal retiring age but had the option of remaining in the job?

I am as horrified by the assumption that people should be forced to stay on after the normal retirement age or risk losing unemployment benefit as I am by the chief adjudication officer's original proposal. Will the Minister confirm that he is under the impression that both areas are covered by the new clause and that, if not, the Government will consider my question with the same speed as they considered the earlier proposal?

There may be some misunderstanding here, but I shall check on the matter raised by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett).

However, I can make it clear that the amendment is related to voluntary redundancy and not to voluntary retirement, which is a different issue. Although the chief adjudication officer has issued fresh and clearer guidance on early retirement, it did not significantly change the position from what it was understood to be. I hope the hon. Lady will agree that a decision to remove oneself from the labour market early is not the same as a voluntary redundancy under an agreed redundancy scheme. The same considerations would not necessarily apply.

There may be some misunderstanding about those who retire early. If a person retires after he is entitled to the national insurance retirement benefit, that is a matter for him. If he has the relevant contribution record, we shall pay the national insurance retirement pension. The point at issue is whether people should be entitled to unemployment benefit.

A person who retires voluntarily, whether before or after retirement age, cannot be regarded as unemployed in the normal sense. If he retires after retirement age and has the relevant contribution record, he will be entitled to retirement pension, in which case he would not be entitled to unemployment benefit.

I confess that I had to read the circular several times before I could understand what it could be getting at. I do not see how it could be dealing with someone who retires after the normal pension age. Presumably it refers to people in jobs where the normal retirement age is earlier than, say, 65 for men.

We all know that people have been said to be retiring voluntarily when, in effect, they are taking redundancy. The two things are not interwoven in pay terms, but they become interwoven in moving people on from their jobs. Will the Minister consider my question?

I shall certainly look at the matter raised by the hon. Lady, but I do not think that we face the difficulty that she suggests might exist.

There are provisions for those who retire on an occupational pension after the age of 60, but before 65. Those provisions govern their entitlement to unemployment benefit and the extent to which their occupational pension is taken into account against benefit. However, that is a different point from that raised by the hon. Lady.

I think that the position is fair and that it is right to maintain a distinction between voluntary redundancy and voluntary retirement. However, I shall crawl over the circular and over the hon. Lady's words to make sure that she does not have a valid point—she has been right before—and that I am right to offer her reassurances.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 38, in schedule 6, page 69, line 26, column 3, at end insert—

	"In section 125(1), the words "in the month of June".
	In section 126A(1), the words "in the month of June"."

The amendments make it possible for the Government to align the social security uprating year, which currently runs from November to November, with the year which applies to tax, rent and rates—April to April. The Government have given notice of that intention.

There were two possibilities. One was to have a 16-month gap between upratings, from November to April. We did not find that prospect attractive, so we decided to adopt the obvious alternative—to have two upratings in the 16-month period. We intend to make social security upratings in November 1985, July 1986 and April 1987.

We need to amend the Bill because the current law requires the Secretary of State to review social security benefits in June. The amendment allows the Secretary of State flexibility to conduct upratings at shorter intervals over the next two years. I hope that the House will think that reasonable.

I emphasise that the change in the law will not allow us to make upratings at intervals of more than 12 months. Benefits must be reviewed at intervals which cannot exceed 12 months. We intend to stick to the historic method. Upratings will be related to a measured past increase in prices—the latest that we can consider in order to carry out the uprating when it is due. I hope that the House will agree to the amendments.

We understand the proposed mechanism, but we have reservations about the dates. Are the dates likely to be in legislation. or will they be arbitrary? Most of the proposals for the social security' review are likely to be unpopular, so perhaps we can see a hint of the date for the next general election, as we are to have two upratings before April 1987.

Twice in our history Governments have tried to change the length of the year. The first was in medieval times, and the second was during the period of this Government, when claimants had to live in a 53-week year and then in a 54-week year.

The House should welcome the move so long as we have an undertaking that it will not be used to cut the real value of benefits. I have three questions for the Minister. When the Government calculate the move to July and then to April, will the calculation accurately reflect the number of weeks involved? Secondly, may we have an undertaking that because prices vary throughout the year, with peaks and troughs which are evened out on a year-to-year basis, the move will not lead to benefit levels which are lower than the old November-to-November levels? Thirdly, since convention, and not statute, links supplementary benefit to prices, will that convention be maintained?

I shall answer first the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). The amendments will give the Secretary of State flexibility in the uprating date, although the interval cannot be longer than 12 months. My off-the-cuff reaction is that I can see no reason why the actual dates for the uprating need to be written into legislation.

I do not understand the first question asked by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). The problem about the number of weeks in a benefit year arises because of the quirks in the calendar. Our calendar does not have precisely 52 weeks in a year. I do not wish to weary the House with another lecture on the phenomenon which came to be known to the cognoscenti as "creep", but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that if upratings take place religiously at 52-week intervals they steadily advance through the year, and if one projects into the next century there could be two upratings in a year because of that phenomenon.

We propose two upratings at eight-month intervals, so it is fruitless to argue about how many weeks there are in a month. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. We shall take the latest available retail prices index for the appointed time, which enables us to carry out the uprating at the time that we want to do it, and apply that faithfully to the benefit figures.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's second question more clearly. We abandoned the old forecasting method because of its uncertainties. Without going back to that method, it is difficult to estimate the precise effects on benefit levels of using different periods. It is clear that any change in the period of uprating means that at some point in the following period benefit will be higher than it would otherwise have been because the uprating has been advanced. At some other period it would be lower for the opposite reason. The exact effects at a particular time will depend on the pattern of inflation, which I cannot predict.

I hope that I understood the hon. Gentleman's third question. We certainly intend to maintain the historic basis of uprating and to apply it in the way described. We shall not alter the method without making it plain to Parliament. We think that our proposal is sensible and right.

I do not wish to mislead anybody. Supplementary benefit uprating is related to the retail prices index, less housing costs. That is another complicated factor which makes it difficult for me to give better answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may discuss the following Lords amendments:

The amendment provides the power needed to change the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 to vary the amount payable by means of an order subject to affirmative resolution in each House.

The House will recall that among the many announcements made by my right hon. Friend during recent weeks that have caused pleasure was his statement—[Interruption] Do I sense an air of disbelief in the House? It cannot be from the Government Benches and there are hardly sufficient Opposition Members present to constitute disbelief.

The House will recall that my right hon. Friend told the House on 18 June of his intention to double the present vaccine damage payment of £10,000—which has stood unaltered since such payments were first introduced under the 1979 Act—to £20,000. There was no provision in the 1979 Act for increases. Therefore, we have used the flexible instrument of this Bill to introduce the necessary primary legislative amendment quickly. We hope to bring the necessary order before the House at the earliest possible moment after the Bill has received Royal Assent., should it be so favoured.

Although the power that we have taken will make the new amount payable in respect of new claims made on or after the date of coming into operation of the order, my right hon. Friend is making arrangements to apply the increased amount to new, successful claims made on or after 18 June, when he announced the increase. I hope that that provision will be welcomed by the House and that I will have its support in carrying this amendment into law.

We give a cautionary welcome to the proposal. It is most unfortunate that the payment has not been increased since it was announced in 1978 and introduced in 1979. We note the flexibility of the Bill that has allowed this proposal to be chucked in at the last minute.

Why was the proposal chucked in at the last minute? Given that it is a fairly obvious proposal for the Government to introduce, we wonder why it happened only in the amendments made in another place and was not put before us for lengthier consideration at an earlier stage. What will be the cost of the increase in a full year?

Most important, we wonder what the proposal means for the future of the scheme. The Minister said that there was no provision for increases under the 1979 Act. I am sure that he will recall that that was because we did not want the Act to pre-empt decisions that we thought would have to be made following the recommendations of the Pearson commission. It was intended as a stop-gap measure to ensure that vaccine damaged children received some assistance before a proper scheme could be worked out that would be more far-reaching and generous.

Will introducing the proposal to increase the sums available, welcome though it is, mean that the whole idea of implementing the Pearson commission's recommendations has now been consigned to the dustbin? The sum is to be increased broadly in line with the rate of inflation between 1978 and the present day. Is it intended that the order should be increased each year, as are other regular payments? If not, I am sure that the Minister will tell us why not.

On the timing of the proposal, will the Minister tell us what light it casts on the consideration of the review being undertaken into degrees of disability? Although any increase is always welcome, it is a little strange that the Government have brought forward this proposal so abruptly at a time when they are undertaking a fundamental survey of the needs of the disabled.

My hon. Friend introduced the amendments with a degree of levity. I wish briefly and seriously to welcome the Government's prompt action in responding to the needs of these children. I am especially delighted that the measure will be backdated to 18 June. That is a tremendously generous gesture and will be very welcome.

I first came across vaccine damaged children in care in Birmingham. I was most concerned by the degree of disability that they suffered. Some were only mildly disabled, but some were seriously disabled and many will need care for the remainder of their lives. One family in my constituency has a seriously disabled daughter aged 14, who obviously faces the future with some apprehension.

It is understandable that the hon. Lady should welcome the measure and its backdating. But does she not realise that, in a sense, it would be unfair if the benefit was reviewed only every so many years? Many of our constituents will have claimed compensation at the old rates and some will be a few days outside being eligible for the new rates.

While we welcome the uprating—I am sure that the whole House does—if it is reviewed only every now and again instead of regularly each year, that will make a tremendous difference to the amounts of money payable to these children.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that nothing can compensate for that sort of disability when children are born normal but handicapped through vaccine. I hope that he will bear with me for a minute because I have a view on the matter that he raised.

These children are tragic victims of something that, in a sense, benefits the whole of society. I hope that people will not be put off having their children vaccinated and inoculated. The hospital with which I used to be involved in central Birmingham was involved in the eradication of smallpox, which was substantially carried out through an inoculation programme. I hope that in years to come the day will arrive when most infectious diseases can be eradicated from this nation and others by such programmes.

There is no doubt that those who care for these people are devoted and dedicated, whether the children are in care or at home. They deserve our full support. I hope that eventually it will be possible to set up some form of proper tribunal for assessment of such cases to determine payment of appropriate compensation—perhaps on the lines of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. However, this is obviously not the time to debate the methods that might be used.

I am sure that the whole House will join me in welcoming the Government's generous action in introducing these amendments.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) for her kind words.

I come now to the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). To pick up the slightly uncharacteristically uncharitable phrasing that she used about why the proposal was "chucked in at the last minute", I can tell her that it was because a number of representations had been made to the Government. It is well known that there has been concern about this matter for some time.

The Government came to the conclusion—and I personally strongly reached the conclusion—that it was right to create a position in which we could increase, and increase more easily, the amount payable. and we have taken the opportunity provided by this Bill to do that.

On the last of the hon. Lady's questions about inflation and future uprating, this increase goes rather beyond the simple application of inflation during the period since 1979. No doubt because of the movement in prices at some points around the time when the payment was first introduced, the calculations may depend slightly on the time of the year taken. My calculations show that the 1985 equivalent of the £10,000 applicable in 1979 is £17,750. Therefore, on that basis the increase to £20,000 is significantly more than pure inflation proofing.

I calculated my figures from the announcement of the scheme in 1978, and what was thought then to be a worthwhile sum of £10,000 would now need to be £19,230. The Government are being slightly generous, but not a lot.

That may be right, but the hon. Lady might have been wiser not to have raised that point because she has calculated the rate of inflation between the time when the then Labour Government announced the proposal in 1978 and implemented it in 1979. That is not the sort of issue on which I want to have a verbal punch-up with the hon. Lady today, but when she walks right into it in that way I am bound to pick up the implication of her remarks.

What we are doing cannot be described as a mean increase. It represents a broad sum of £20,000, ahead in value of the £10,000 when it was introduced in 1979. That probably gives the hon. Lady a clue to my next remark, which is that we do not have a definite plan for annual uprating, though it follows from the type of amendment that we have made—which is not to substitute a new substantive figure in the primary legislation but to take power to make such an increase by order—that there will henceforth be greater flexibility. As I say, I cannot make a commitment on behalf of the Government to engage in annual uprating of the payment.

Regarding the future of the scheme, as the hon. Member for Derby, South pointed out, some of the broader issues that can be related to this relatively limited issue—picking up the whole theme of the Pearson commission and the question of compensation more widely—go wider than we can sensibly debate today. However, the hon. Lady will be aware that the Government have not accepted the recommendation of the Pearson commission for a system of compensation in the courts based on strict liability in tort, subject only to causation being proved.

I hope that I carry the hon. Member for Derby, South—this answers her question about our survey of the extent and effect of disablement in the population—when I say that it would not be sensible now to make further large decisions in this sphere until we have the results of that survey—which is the biggest survey ever carried out in Britain of disablement problems and their effects—and are thus in a position to have the greater information required to examine disability and disability benefits as a whole.

May I take it, therefore, that the Minister is saying that the decision to make the uprating in this way does not pre-empt a more widespread scheme in the future?

In putting forward this proposal in relation to vaccine damage payments under the 1979 Act, the Government are not seeking to pre-empt anything in the future. Equally, I am not seeking to prejudge anything in the future or to suggest that the Government have taken decisions beyond the decision to raise the vaccine damage payment from £10,000 to £20,000 in relation to claims made on or after 18 June 1985.

The hon. Member for Derby, South questioned me about the cost. It is modest. We estimate that the extra cost in a full year will be £120,000, so that in terms of the great sweep of the Department of Health and Social Security budget it is a small sum. Nevertheless, it will be of considerable significance to those families who are helped.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Clause 28 provides for the extent to which the Bill applies to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This technical amendment provides that clause 28, and clauses 29 and 30, extend to Northern Ireland, as we are, naturally, anxious that those in Northern Ireland, as well as those in the rest of the United Kingdom, should have the benefits of the provisions of the Bill.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This is a technical amendment. Clause 29, which deals with commencement, states that any provisions not specifically listed there will be brought into force by commencement order. Paragraph 22 of schedule 5 is not listed, even though it will have retrospective effect from 1 January 1985. This is obviously inconsistent, and the amendment adds this provision to the list of those that will take effect on the day the Bill is enacted.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

It will be convenient for the House to consider at the same time the following Lords amendments:

Our consultations with experts in the pensions world have persuaded us that there are deficiencies in the provisions in new sections 52C and 52D which the Bill adds to the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. I must admit that these provisions have given us considerable trouble, and I record our gratitude for the help and advice that we have been given by the pensions experts.

The amendments clarify the position—a position which we had always intended to achieve in this part of the Bill—relating to the extent to which trustees can discharge their liability when the benefit rights of early leavers are secured by an insurance policy.

We are dealing with a number of amendments and I am conscious of the fact that this is not the first time that it has been necessary for us to amend these provisions. However, we are dealing with a complicated area of law, even by the demanding standards of occupational pensions legislation. The changes reflect our wish to get the new provisions right and our willingness to listen to the experts to enable us to do that. Should hon. Members require me to do so, I shall spell out the detailed points of the amendments.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This is a minor drafting amendment, but it seems worth getting paragraph 2(2) right while schedule 1 is being amended. The removal of the word "and" is a drafting point.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This is a technical amendment which will put right a defect in the revaluation requirements for flat-rate benefits. The requirements apply, for other benefits, to all dependants' benefits provided by the scheme, but flat-rate benefits cover only widows benefits. This is an error which the amendment corrects.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This is another technical amendment. The definition of a money purchase benefit is defective because it does not cover the situation where the benefit results from a single contribution or payment. This amendment will remedy the defect.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

It will be convenient for the House to consider at the same time Lords amendment No. 35, in page 39, line 37, after "to" insert "or in respect of"

It has been suggested that it is not entirely clear whether accrued rights include all benefits for or in respect of the member. These amendments make it clear that they do.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This is another technical amendment. When someone uses a transfer value to buy an annuity, the annuity will have to satisfy prescribed conditions. It was always our intention that these conditions should include restrictions on with whom the policy or contract can be taken out. It was also our intention that the prescribed conditions should not conflict with new section 52C, which deals with discharging liability on buy-out. We now have doubts whether the power in paragraph 13(2)(b) is sufficient to enable us to do this. We have therefore concluded that it would be best to put this provision on all fours with new section 52C.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 39, in schedule 6, page 69, line 38, column 3, at end insert—

"In section 59(5)(b), the words "under section 38 of this Act."

The amendments are technical and put right an oversight in the Health and Social Security Act 1984.