House Of Lords
Friday, 13th November 1998.
The House met at eleven of the clock: The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.
Civil Procedure (Modification Of Enactments) Order 1998
rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th November be approved [47th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in April 1999, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will introduce the most fundamental reform of the civil justice system since the judicature Acts of the 1870s. As he said in this House on 29th July, the reforms aim to provide a single system of civil justice based on the fundamental principles of proportionality, clarity and efficiency. The draft civil procedure rules put before the House for debate in July reflected the most essential part of the reforms—a complete code of civil procedure to implement the expressed objectives of the new system.
But there are other steps to be taken in this process of reform which, although apparently more minor, still make an important contribution to the achievement of the modernisation of the civil justice system which is so long overdue. One of these steps is implementation of the Civil Procedure (Modification of Enactments) Order 1998 before your Lordships today for debate. Before I expand on the various provisions in the order, I shall take a few moments to explain why its introduction is so necessary.
The order is made under Section 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997, the Act which paved the way for the reforms of civil procedure I have mentioned. It set up the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and gave it the task of drafting the new civil procedure rules.
When the 1997 Act was passed, it was recognised that certain aspects of the reforms might conflict with existing provisions of primary legislation. Some of these would be simply a question of terminology. For example, the new rules provide for all proceedings to be commenced by using a claim form. However, many statutes refer to "writ". Section 4(41) of the 1997 Act allows the Lord Chancellor to make such consequential changes to legislation by order which is subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Other changes, however, are more substantial and are required in order to facilitate the making of the rules. The rules cannot have effect until the changes to the primary legislation have been put in place. Parliament recognised that such changes of substance might be necessary in order to make the new reforms effective. However, it rightly wanted an opportunity to debate the changes before they were made. Section 4(2) of the 1997 Act therefore allows the Lord Chancellor to make changes to primary legislation in order to facilitate the making of the civil procedure rules, but the order is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
The changes the order makes to primary legislation are small but significant. First, the order amends Section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838. Section 17 provides for statutory interest to be payable on High Court judgment debts. There are two amendments proposed to this section. The first would allow the court to provide that interest begins to run from a date earlier than the date of judgment. This is important in the context of providing a claimant with an incentive to offer to settle his claim. Mechanisms to encourage early settlement are an important part of the civil justice reforms. The rules will provide that the court may order that a claimant is entitled to his costs from the latest date when the defendant could have accepted the offer without needing the permission of the court, together with interest on those costs. The amendment to Section 17 is needed in order to allow the court to award interest on costs from that date, thus recognising that a party is progressively incurring costs throughout the life of a case.
The second amendment, conversely, would allow the court to disallow all of part of any interest that would otherwise be payable under Section 17. That is again aimed at costs orders so that a party who delays initiating taxation of costs does not profit by his delay by accruing interest on the amount of costs finally payable to him.
Interest on judgment debts in the county courts is governed by Section 74 of the County Courts Act 1984, which allows the Lord Chancellor to make provision by order—currently the County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991. No amendments to primary legislation are therefore required in this context as far as the county courts are concerned.
The order amends the Law Reform (Husband and Wife) Act 1962 by removing Section 1(3), which requires rules of court to oblige the court to consider a stay in tort actions between husband and wife early in the proceedings. This mandatory provision is no longer considered appropriate in the light of the new case management provisions in the rules. It is not intended that the civil procedure rules will contain a requirement for the court to consider such a stay.
Section 33 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 permits the High Court to order pre-action disclosure of documents where a claim in respect of personal injuries or death is likely to be made. Section 52 of the County Courts Act 1984 makes similar provision for the county court. The rule committee has recommended that it is appropriate for those provisions to be extended to encompass all proceedings, not just personal injury or death. The order makes the necessary amendments to those sections to provide for this.
Section 34 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and Section 53 of the County Courts Act 1984 permit the court to order discovery against a person who is not a party to proceedings where the proceedings include a claim for personal injury or death. Again the rule committee has recommended that it is appropriate for those provisions to be extended to cover all proceedings, and the order provides for that.
The order will repeal Section 47 of the County Courts Act 1984, which allows a child to sue for wages without a next friend. This provision dates from a time when so called "minors" were much more likely than now to be earning their own living. In any event, the Civil Procedure Rules would allow a child to apply to the court in any proceedings to bring or defend a claim without a next friend. The specific provision contained in Section 47 will no longer be necessary.
Section 63 of the 1984 Act sets out the power of the county court to appoint an assessor. It is more restrictive than the High Court power and in general requires the appointment to be on the application of a party. The order proposes to remove that requirement and to widen the power generally to enable the provisions in the Civil Procedure Rules dealing with the appointment of assessors to apply to both the county court and the High Court. This is a step towards the overall goal of a unified system.
Section 133 of the 1984 Act provides that where documents are served by a county court, the court must provide a certificate of service which is to be "under the hand of" the officer concerned. This provision is now outmoded and restrictive in the light of continuing information technology developments and the order would remove the requirement for personal signature by the court officer.
Section 134 of the 1984 Act deals with the sealing of certain documents issuing out of the county court and the evidential status of such documents. Again it is restrictive in the light of the development of electronic seals. The order would repeal the section. This will enable more flexible provisions to be contained in the civil procedure rules themselves.
I have explained why the various provisions of this order are necessary. As I said earlier, they are in themselves relatively minor. But together, they will help to contribute towards the achievement of the objectives of the civil justice reforms.
I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th November be approved [ 47th Report from the Joint Committee].—( Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
11.15 a.m.
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Minister will not be surprised that I have a few questions to address to him in relation to the matters with which he has just dealt.
My first point is a general one. These changes assume that the decisions of the rules committee will ultimately become law. Throughout the speech of the noble and learned Lord he anticipated those decisions. Can he tell your Lordships' House whether or not the committee has taken the decisions upon which those subsequent changes are to be based? One thing he cannot tell your Lordships' House is that the rule changes have been approved by your Lordships. With the greatest respect therefore I suggest to the Minister that all these provisions are premature and that the appropriate time to have brought this order to the House would have been after the rules had been properly drafted and approved by your Lordships. In addition to that general observation, I have one or two detailed questions to ask in relation to the various individual changes that the Government propose. The first concerns Section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838. Interest is already payable prior to judgment as a result of Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 and Section 39A of the Supreme Court Act 1981. Will the Minister be kind enough to explain to the House the relationship between his proposed changes and the provisions in those two Acts? My second question concerns the amendment to Section 17, which is needed in order to allow the court to award interest on costs after a specific offer has been made and refused. I take it that the reason behind this initiative is to pressurise parties to litigation to come to an early settlement. I am aware that one of the fundamental objectives of the noble and learned Lords the Lord Chancellor and the Minister is to try to reduce the cost of litigation. But does the noble and learned Lord not think that, far from doing that, this initiative will lead to an increase in litigation costs? The noble and learned Lord made a reference to pre-trial discovery. As he said, it is already available in personal injuries litigation. As I understand it, it is now the intention of the Government to extend it to all other forms of litigation. Once again, the intention behind this move is to economise on costs. Have the Government done any research into the effect of pre-trial discovery in the personal injuries area? How often is pre-trial discovery ordered? How often does it succeed? How often does it fail and waste costs? Is there any evidence in front of the Government that leads them to the conclusion that the experience of pre-trial discovery in the area of personal injuries has led to economies in cost? I turn now to the question of discovery against a person who is not a party to proceedings. There is a process in the High Court—not based on the rules, but based on a case called Khanna and therefore known as the "Khanna Application"—which allows such discovery through the subpoena procedure. I can see the attractions for extending that process both to the county court and perhaps to other forums of dispute. But if that is to be done, can the noble and learned Lord guarantee that the same safeguards as would apply to the subpoena process will apply to this wider power he seeks? I have just two further points to address. I believe that they are both of relatively less importance but, nevertheless, I think that they ought to be drawn to the attention of the noble and learned Lord. The first is the obligation for a signature of a court officer to prove service. There is a suggestion by the Government that that procedure is now outmoded; but we all know the frailties of computers. One of the objectives that that signature would achieve would be to guarantee that service had actually been proved. In the absence of that signature, I am concerned that the process will be a less certain one. I make the same point as regards my other question relating to Section 134 of the 1984 Act, regarding proof of genuineness and the computerised seal. Once again, computers are frail and, without this check and balance, there is a danger that documents will issue which are not genuine. That could cause great distress to people who are mistakenly in receipt of them. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is right to dispense with these two procedures. They are, of course, time-honoured, but nonetheless valuable for that.My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome that the noble Lord has given to the proposals. Perhaps I may deal first with the points that he made. The noble Lord asked whether it was sensible to make these changes now before the approval of the across-the-board rules which, I believe, are due to come into force on 26th April 1999. The answer is that this order must come into force at or before the same time as the Civil Procedure Rules are made because this order contains some of the powers which are necessary for those rules (which will come into force on 26th April 1999) to be brought into force.
Therefore, I believe it is sensible for these provisions to come first because, legally, they provide the foundation for some of the rule changes that are to come. For example, at the end of his remarks the noble Lord referred to Sections 133 and 134 of the 1984 Act. They remove the restriction for a signature in certain cases. However, as to what will replace it, that will come in the rules themselves. So, to some extent, these provisions pave the way for some of the rules. I give way to the noble Lord.My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way before he has got into his stride. Behind my question there is not just a procedural issue but a constitutional one. By approving this order now, does the noble and learned Lord not agree that we are anticipating the legislative discretion of your Lordships' House? I know that it would be constitutionally close to a revolution if your Lordships' House were to refuse an item of delegated legislation; but your Lordships' House does have that power. Is not the noble and learned Lord anticipating a discretion which your Lordships' House has not yet exercised, and making assumptions about what your Lordships' House will do which are not necessarily valid?
No, my Lords. With great respect to the noble Lord, we are making certain changes that are free-standing and which would happen in any event: for example, the removal of the requirement for the court to consider whether proceedings between husband and wife should be stayed. However, we are also taking measures which are sensible paving measures before the rules themselves are brought before the House. I have in mind the provision relating to the removal of the requirement that there should be a signature in certain cases for proof of service. The House can consider at a later stage whether the provisions that go in its place provide adequate protection.
It seems to me that certain things must come first before we get to the rules—like removing restrictions that prevent the rules containing sensible provisions; for example, on methods of proving service. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not believe that we are in any way usurping the function of the House. Indeed, we are taking the necessary steps to pave the way for the rules which are to come into effect in April. That is why we are doing it this way. The noble Lord also asked about the interrelationship as regards Section 17 of the 1838 Act, Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 and Section 39A of the Supreme Court Act 1981. There will be an area of overlap in relation to all these provisions, as the noble Lord rightly identified. However, it makes it easier if there is room under the 1838 Act to have a discretion as to when to award interest before a judgment because, as the noble Lord rightly said, it permits the court to encourage people by the exercise of discretion to accept reasonable offers that are made. I accept that there is an overlap but, equally, it seems to me to be a sensible one and one which would give the court greater flexibility in encouraging the settlement of disputes and in extracting a price from litigants who do not settle at a reasonable time. The noble Lord then asked about pre-trial discovery and wanted to know whether there were any records available as regards the use of the existing orders in relation to personal injuries. There may be some, but unfortunately I am not aware of them. In my view, it is a sensible provision to extend the power in relation to actions apart from personal injuries actions. It is the power which can be used only on the say-so of a master, a judge or a district registrar. It is a sensible way for litigants to discover whether they have a case—or, more importantly, whether they do not have a case—thereby avoiding unnecessary litigation. I believe that that is a sensible course to take and a much better way to deal with this sort of issue than the subpoena process, because a subpoena can be ordered without judicial intervention. In effect, it is a way of ensuring through the means of judicial intervention that parties can legitimately obtain documents from a potential litigant at an early stage. There is judicial control to ensure that it is not abused. It is probably a means of cutting short litigation rather than encouraging it. However, it also permits people to find out whether they have a genuine case. In my view, the courts are perfectly able to judge when it is appropriate to make such an order and when it is not. I turn now to the final point—and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong. I believe that the noble Lord raised concerns about removing the requirement of the certificate of service as being under the hand of the relevant officer; that is to say, getting rid of the need for a signature. That protection will be removed. It is plainly not intended that there should not be some protection to ensure that there is proper authentication of whatever the record is. That will be dealt with in the rules for civil procedure. As we move forward technologically with so many different forms of document, apart from those written by hand, it seems to me to be sensible that there should be other methods of authenticating such documents. In the methods that we prove, we shall seek to ensure that they are just as adequate as a signature. However, we all know from our own experience that signatures are not entirely foolproof as a method of authentication. We shall aim to do just as well in relation to whatever replaces it, and that will come in the rules of civil procedure which will be available at a later stage. I hope that I have answered all the noble Lord's questions. I welcome his general support for the provisions. In those circumstances, I commend the order to the House.On Question, Motion agreed to.
Legal Advice And Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1998
11.30 a.m.
rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th October be approved [45th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendments to the Advice and Assistance (Scope) Regulations relate to proceedings for anti-social behaviour orders, sex offender orders, parenting orders and child safety orders. The four orders I refer to were introduced in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The measures in that Act are aimed at tackling crime and disorder and helping to create safer communities. The Act received Royal Assent in July.
At present assistance by way of representation can be provided to respondents in these proceedings on the day of a hearing, at the direction of the court. This is provided so that a person within the financial eligibility condition does not go without representation where the court thinks it is necessary.
When the court grants assistance in this way it will ask either the duty solicitor or another solicitor within the precincts of the courthouse at that time to act for the respondent. The solicitor will then give advice to the respondent and represent him before the court.
These arrangements will mean that for the majority of cases assistance by way of representation will be provided. However, there will be the minority of cases where a court does not have a duty solicitor, there is no other solicitor in the court willing to act, or the case is too complex for advice to be given on the day. For these cases the court may have no alternative but to adjourn the hearing.
The instrument before your Lordships today addresses this by extending the circumstances in which assistance by way of representation can be granted. It does this by allowing respondents to approach a solicitor of their choice in advance of the hearing, and ask that solicitor to provide assistance by way of representation for them. The solicitor will then apply to the Legal Aid Board, on behalf of the client, for approval to provide this assistance. If the application is approved the solicitor will be allowed to prepare the client's case and represent him under the scheme.
It is necessary to do this for three reasons: first, to adjourn a hearing so that a respondent can obtain representation will expose the community to the continued threat of the type of behaviour the order is intended to prohibit; secondly, to refuse representation will deny respondents their basic right to a fair hearing; thirdly, we recognise that in complex cases, where a solicitor is already familiar with the people and issues involved, not allowing that same solicitor to provide representation may mean that the court would not have all the relevant facts before it. By allowing people to use a solicitor of choice in these circumstances this situation will not occur, and the court will be able to make an order that is fair to all the parties.
In considering when assistance by way of representation should be granted in advance of a hearing, the Legal Aid Board will assess whether it is necessary for assistance to be given before the day of the hearing, and, if not, whether the court is likely to have someone available on the day to provide assistance. Any assistance provided in this way will be subject to a means test.
As well as extending the regulations to initial hearings and applications to vary or discharge these orders, the instrument also extends the regulations to allow for assistance by way of representation in appeals against anti-social behaviour orders, sex offender orders, and parenting orders made in some civil proceedings. There is no form of representation currently available for appeals against these orders, although breaches of orders carry the risk of imprisonment. Where there is this risk we believe that representation should be available so that people are guaranteed their basic right to appeal. The reason no publicly funded representation is available is a technical one. The existing regulations are worded in such a way that legal aid is not available for appeals against civil orders in the criminal courts. Anti-social behaviour orders and sex offender orders are both civil orders, but appeals against them can be made only to the Crown Court. Parenting orders made at the same time as an anti-social behaviour order or sex offender order are also civil orders, where appeal is to the Crown Court.
The amendments will mean that assistance by way of representation will be available for these appeals. As with the first extension to the regulations, any assistance provided in this way will be subject to a means test, and an assessment of whether it is reasonable and necessary for representation to be provided in the circumstances of the case.
The regulations ensure that representation will not be available for people to appeal an order without sufficient reason. Representation will only be granted where it is reasonable to do so.
A further instrument, not requiring affirmative resolution, was laid before the House on 6th November to amend the Legal Advice and Assistance Regulations 1989. This instrument incorporates the proposed amendments to the Advice and Assistance (Scope) Regulations in the Legal Advice and Assistance Regulations. This instrument had to be laid before the House three weeks before coming into force.
By laying this second instrument in advance of consideration of the instrument before the House today the Lord Chancellor is not pre-empting your Lordships' approval. It is a technical measure necessary for the first instrument, if approved, to come into force on 1st December, the date when applications for sex offender orders can first be made. I commend this instrument to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th October be approved [ 45th Report from the Joint Committee].—( Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
My Lords, the Minister will recall that, during the passage of the Act, concerns were expressed by a number of noble Lords about the extent to which it will fall foul of the anticipated Human Rights Act. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us what consultations have been made by the Government before these regulations were drafted and issued?
Can the noble and learned Lord also say something about the anticipated cost of these proposals? I am aware that, in another place, Mr. Hoon, the Minister of State, gave some preliminary figures. In relation to anti-social behaviour orders he anticipated a figure of something like £5 million over a period of five years and in relation to sex offender orders a figure of something in the neighbourhood of £100,000. He said—and of course the approach is quite accepted by this side of your Lordships' House—that, as regards the other two orders, there will be pilot schemes before final decisions are taken about the way they are to be applied. My question in relation to these sums is the following. What assumptions do they make about the kind of representation that will be furnished? We know from the proposed order that the duty solicitor and other solicitors are likely to be representatives; but we also know that the Government are giving the whole question of representation in courts and tribunals some serious thought. If the Government change their mind about the kind of men and women who act as representatives in these cases, what effect would that have, if any, on their anticipated cost figures?My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his helpful questions. As regards consultations, there have been discussions during the course of this week with both the Law Society and the Bar Council about these orders. As regards the European Convention on Human Rights, the Lord Chancellor's Department has considered what Article 6 of the convention requires. They and I are satisfied that this measure meets the requirements of the convention.
As regards costings, I am afraid I shall not take the matter much further than my honourable friend in another place. Earlier costings indicated that costs of the anti-social behaviour orders would be in the region of £5 million a year and the cost of the sex offender orders would be less than £100,000. It is not possible to provide a figure for the cost of parenting orders and child safety orders. These orders, like a number of other measures in the youth justice reform programme, are currently being piloted in nine selected areas. One of the aims of the pilots is to identify the costs—including legal aid—and savings generated by the orders. I can give the noble Lord those general estimates. I can indicate that piloting is taking place. One of the purposes of the piloting is to try to find out how much it will cost, inter alia, in relation to the legal representation that respondents may have in these particular orders. However, I do not think that I can take it much further than that. I am not sure whether that meets the noble Lord's concerns, but I think that it gives him the scale of the costs we anticipate. Quite sensibly, we will only be able to come back with more detailed figures once we know the results of the piloting.My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may press him a little further on his last answer. I was seeking to probe the definition of representation in relation to costs. I wanted to see how helpful he could be in anticipating any widening of the categories of individuals who would be entitled to represent the people subject to these orders.
My Lords, the subtlety of the Question is lost on me. I think that, in practice, in most cases the person providing the representation for a respondent to such an order will be the duty solicitor. That appears to satisfy the noble Lord. In those circumstances I shall sit down. I commend the regulations to the House.
My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I have listened to a very interesting discussion. However, so far as representation is concerned, if I remember rightly the Legal Aid and Advice Act refers only to legal representation, and that is all we are considering on this occasion, or am I wrong about that?
My Lords, perhaps I had better give myself a way out in relation to this by saying, "I shall write and correct myself if I am wrong", which I am bound to be. I think we are talking about the sort of representation which is acceptable to the magistrates' court and which can be funded by the legal aid scheme. However, I do not know whether or not, in certain cases, with the leave of the magistrates' court it is appropriate for a legal executive, for example, to appear in front of a particular magistrates' court with its consent and whether that would be paid for by the legal aid fund. I suspect that it probably would be, in certain cases. Subject to that, we are talking about representation by a lawyer.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Education (Grammar School Ballots) Regulations 1998
11.42 a.m.
rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st October be approved [46th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Education (Grammar School Ballots) Regulations 1998 be approved.
The regulations arise from provisions set out in Sections 104 to 108 of the School Standards and Framework Act. They were laid before the House on 21st October and have been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
As your Lordships will recall, the grammar school ballot provisions of the School Standards and Framework Act implement our manifesto commitment that any changes in the admission policies of grammar schools will be decided by local parents. I do not therefore want to go over old ground concerning the principle of giving parents an opportunity to decide on the future of selective admissions at grammar schools. That was very thoroughly debated during the passage of the Bill.
The principle underlying these regulations is that the ballots must be fair and workable. There would be no point in setting up a ballot system which favoured one side or the other. What we want is a fair test of parental opinion.
As a result of the recommendations of your Lordships' Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, the Act specifies what the regulations should contain in considerable detail. So the major planks of the regulations are laid down by the Act. Most of the additions are mere detail on how to administer the process, though I shall mention significant points.
As far back as 20th March the Government made available a note indicating what they intended the regulations would cover. That was sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The arrangements set out in the note were reflected in the draft regulations issued for consultation on 3rd June, which were also made available before Committee stage of the Bill. These were sent to all grammar schools, local education authorities, and a range of national organisations. The revised regulations which we are debating today take account of their comments.
The regulations run to 14 pages and four schedules and I shall not go through them line by line. However, it might be helpful if I said a few words about their contents.
The regulations designate Electoral Reform (Ballot Services) Ltd. to take on the functions of the ballot administration, which the Act says shall be done by a designated body. This company was chosen by tender and, as many Members of the House know, is very experienced in running ballots.
The rest of the regulations set out the detail of how petitions and ballots will be organised. In particular they spell out which ballot arrangements laid down in the Act should apply to each of the 166 grammar schools which have been designated as such by order. Schedules 1, 2 and 3 specify which areas will be treated as whole areas for petitions and ballots, which schools will be grouped together, and which will stand alone. The only exception is the schools in Sutton and Nonsuch High School for Girls, which are referred to in the body of the regulations as being treated as a ballot for a prescribed area covering Sutton authority area and the ward of Nonsuch. This is because the school is just outside the border of Sutton but part of Sutton's selective system.
The Act laid down a specific distinction between the electorate for two sorts of ballot. In an area ballot all the parents resident in the area, whether or not their children are at any type of school, together with parents from outside the area who send their children to maintained schools in the area, will have a vote. However, in a "feeder school ballot" different arrangements will apply. Parents of children at primary schools which have sent a specific number of children to any of the schools in the group over a prescribed period will be able to petition and vote.
So, the question of which parents are eligible to petition or vote in the various arrangements was largely spelt out in Section 106 of the Act. The additional details of the numbers of pupils and period of time in the definition of a feeder school are the same as in the consultation draft of the regulations. A feeder school will be one from which a total of five pupils have transferred to the grammar schools concerned over the previous three years. To be clear, this is five children, not 15 over the three-year period. Consultation responses sought both a higher and a lower threshold of pupils for feeder schools. But we did not change the current draft regulation, because five pupils over three years seems a sensible minimum to constitute a strong link with a grammar school.
In line with the consultation draft, parents whose youngest children are in the sixth form will not be eligible to petition or vote, because these arrangements do not apply to selective admission arrangements at sixth-form level. This change from the note prepared in the spring was confirmed at Committee stage by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. It was because selection continues to be permitted for entry to the sixth form, and because in some areas pupils from comprehensive schools go to sixth-form colleges, while grammar schools in the same areas have sixth forms: the electorate would thus be biased.
During debates on the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, was very concerned about access to electoral lists. The regulations repeat what my noble friend said at the time, namely that only ERBS will have access to the complete list of eligible voters. Eligible parents of children at a particular school will be entitled to request to see that school's list of eligible parents—minus any of those parents who have indicated that they do not wish to have their details disclosed.
The regulations cover in detail how to set petition thresholds: the formula of 20 per cent. of eligible parents on relevant school lists was laid down in the Act as the number who need to sign a petition in order to trigger a ballot. The regulations explain how the figure for each petition is to be established, by finding out which schools need to be involved, and by writing to those schools for information on which parents fit the eligibility criteria. A significant change introduced as a result of consultation is that the ballot administration company will not need to start establishing the threshold until requested to do so by 10 people (rather than just one in the earlier draft). This should help to avoid burdening schools unnecessarily.
The regulations spell out that petitions can run for up to a school year, but cannot carry on into a second school year. The information to be entered on petitions is specified so that the ballot company has adequate information to check that signatures are eligible. The words to appear on the petitions are also specified.
The regulations spell out the ballot question, which we have simplified as a result of consultation; parents will be asked to tick yes or no to the statement, "Are you in favour of all the schools listed introducing admission arrangements which admit children of all abilities?". In the case of a stand-alone ballot, the grammar school's name will be inserted in the question; otherwise, the ballot paper will list the schools concerned.
We are planning an explanatory introduction to the ballot question which will ensure that it is clear that this is all about admissions to the schools concerned below the sixth form.
The regulations explain that ERBS will notify specific relevant people when there is to be a ballot. It will send out ballot papers for parents to return. A ballot will normally follow straight on from the declaration that a petition is valid, balloting the same set of eligible parents. The exception to this will be the first year, when no ballot will be held before September 1999. This is so that new admission consultation arrangements can be in place before any ballot results need to be implemented. In this first year, the electorate will be updated for the new school year before the ballot papers can be sent out.
The Act specified how a ballot result will be determined; namely, by simple majority of those voting, because the substantial petition threshold will already have demonstrated a significant degree of local feeling.
If a ballot results in a vote against change, there will be a five-year moratorium. In this period no further petitions can be raised or information about parents demanded from schools.
The regulations lay down the timescale within which new admission arrangements must be implemented if there is a ballot result in favour of change. This will depend on when the result is declared. Where ballot results are declared on or before 31st December, grammar schools will need to consult on revised admissions proposals in time to have them in their prospectus for the following September, for intakes the September after that. For ballot results declared between January and the end of the school year, the new arrangements will be required for the second September following the ballot, for intakes in the third September. This is a change resulting from consultation responses which said that the trigger date on which we consulted—31st March instead of 31st December—did not leave adequate time for consultation with other admissions authorities.
Finally, the regulations set out the circumstances in which a ballot result may be declared void. One of these circumstances is if someone has behaved in a manner which is not in accordance with the ballot information code at Schedule 4, and this is likely to have significantly affected the result of the ballot. This code is intended to set a standard for fairness and balance in the presentation of information to parents.
I am conscious that several noble Lords were concerned during the passage of the Bill about the level of information available to parents. The ballot code provides a standard for how information should be provided, but your Lordships need not fear that that is all the advice that will be available. Noble Lords will, of course, recall that Section 107 of the Act spells out that school governing bodies and local education authorities may use public funds to give out factual statements, fairly presented, and assessments that are fair and reasonable of what might happen in the event of a ballot for change, as well as statements of their own intentions in the event of such a ballot result. The Act provides for statutory guidance from the Secretary of State about interpretation of fairly presented and fair and reasonable. This will be provided in the guidance now being prepared.
The regulations provide the detail necessary to implement Sections 104 to 108 of the School Standards and Framework Act. They will establish a fair and workable mechanism for local parents to decide on the future admission arrangements to grammar schools. I therefore commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st October be approved [ 46th Report from the Joint Committee].—( Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
My Lords, I rarely detain the House so I hope that I may be allowed 30 seconds to offer my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath some rather belated congratulations on his promotion. We have known each other for a very long time. There was a time when I hoped that he would find a political career in another place—ideally, as the Member of Parliament for the Sparkbrook area. However, fate and fortune have brought him here and I congratulate him on his promotion. I look forward to it continuing for very many years.
However, saying that does not in any way inhibit me from saying that I so object to the regulations that he has just moved that, if it were not against the conventions of this House, I would seek to divide the House against the Motion. I would do so not least because in his opening remarks, quoting necessarily, properly and understandably from what the Secretary of State said in another place, my noble friend was diametrically wrong in two particulars. First, he said that the decision on the organisation of schools will be decided by local parents. In very many cases, that will not be true. My noble friend also said that, as a result of that decision, the scheme for balloting would be fair and workable. As on many occasions the question will not be decided by local parents, it will not be fair, and the complications for the ballots, as now laid down, are such that in some cases the scheme will literally not be workable. In fact, what we have before us today is the oldest of all political tricks: the decision to legitimise a procedure by offering a ballot, but making sure that the ballot comes out in the direction wanted by those who organise it. I have no doubt at all that when the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, speaks, she will say, as she said outside the House, that the ballots are geared to ensure that grammar schools are destroyed. I have discovered that there is a relationship in these matters between the noble Baroness and myself. She always describes what she fears the Government are doing; I always describe what I hope the Government will do. What she fears and I hope are always the same but, unfortunately, neither her fears nor my hopes are ever realised. If the regulations go through in their present form, they will make it almost impossible for localities to make a genuine and open decision on the sort of educational organisation that they want. The threshold—20 per cent. of appropriate parents—will in many cases be literally impossible to obtain. The idea that you cannot have a ballot until you overcome that immense hurdle seems wholly unreasonable to me and to every education authority which has been asked about it. It is particularly difficult to overcome when the second category of decision is being taken—that is, that relating to feeder schools. I ask my noble friend to consider the city which I once represented and in which he still lives. It might just be possible for feeder schools in Birmingham to obtain 20 per cent. of parents calling for a ballot, but it would be very nearly impossible. Having said that, I make no major complaint about the 20 per cent. threshold for those areas where the ballot is to be organised in an entire local education authority area. My great complaint relates to those areas where the ballot is to be conducted through so-called "feeder schools". I put it to my noble friend that he and I both believe that the existence of grammar schools, of selective schools, prejudices the education of an entire area. The mirror image of that is held by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who no doubt believes that the existence of grammar schools enhances the educational prospects of a whole area. I note that the noble Baroness nods, as I would have expected. She and I are united on the principle that the existence of grammar schools affects, in one way or another, a whole local education authority area. However, in many cases, the ballot will not be conducted in a whole education authority area; it will be conducted through designated feeder schools which may have only the most tenuous relationship with the education in a specific town or county. Indeed, it may be possible that parents of children at a primary school in the shadow of a grammar school (who long to send their children to that grammar school) which is just across a footpath or on the other side of a road but which has not sent the requisite number of children there in the past three years, will be denied a vote. However, parents in a private crammer 10 miles away, where most of the pupils attend independent schools, will be allowed to vote on the nature of that grammar school. This is clearly preposterous. The County of Gloucestershire, replying to my noble friend's representations, was absolutely right about the principle. It said:Anything that disenfranchises—and that is the appropriate word—many parents who live in the area immediately around grammar schools is a clear breach of propriety where clear and legitimate interests are concerned. I do not believe that there is any way that my noble friend can refute the view that parents living near the school in the area affected by the school ought to be given a vote in this ballot. It is not simply a matter of the principle that I have tried to set out, but the administrative complications are overwhelming. I will not read to my noble friend the submission from the Church of England which asks the Government to consider those schools which are fed by dozens of small schools throughout a county area, many of whom will be disenfranchised even though they are feeding the school, but only to a small degree, and are related to dozens of other small primary schools which will not be allowed a ballot at all. This is an extraordinary way of conducting a ballot. It requires me, at the end of my couple of minutes, to ask how it is that the Government have brought in a procedure that is so complex and, on the other hand, lacks so much natural justice? There are two interpretations. One is that the entire senior staff of the Department for Education and Employment are nincompoops and have got it totally wrong. The other interpretation is that the Government wish to introduce ballots of such formidable complication that most education authorities and the pro-comprehensive factions within them would not initiate the ballot in the first place. On mature reflection, I support the second conclusion. I want to tell my noble friend—this is why I have made the insufferable sacrifice of being in London on a Friday morning—that the Government's intention in this particular will not succeed. People will run the ballots, people will campaign to end the comprehensive rules and on many occasions—certainly where whole authority ballots are being held—they will succeed. The Secretary of State in another place is making himself absurd over his attitude towards grammar schools. Only today we hear that the decision that the Government have taken to except the Church of England from the promise to have no selection interviews has been rejected by the Church of England. It says "We do not want to have interviews. Why is the Government insisting upon interviews?" The Government's position on secondary schools and secondary organisations becomes increasingly untenable, as demonstrated by the news from Bristol this morning that two grammar schools have decided—without ballots, as they are entitled to—on the decision of their governors to go comprehensive. I do not expect my noble friend to accept some of my criticisms. He knows very well that I am not making them to him but through him to the Secretary of State. I want the Secretary of State to understand that the campaign, the ballots, will be pursued despite the complications, and a number of them will certainly be won."The existence of selective education has an effect upon, and is of interest to, all parents and schools. It would therefore be more appropriate for ballots to be upon the basis of the whole areas even where the grammar schools are taken as groups or stand alone".
12 noon
My Lords, in his opening remarks the Minister said that the ballot company had been chosen by tender. Can he tell the House how long the contract is to run, and if there is provision in the contract to break the contract if the ballot company is not doing a proper job?
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for giving way. We were at cross-purposes there.
I would like to speak for a couple of minutes—probably a couple of minutes shorter than my noble friend Lord Hattersley—to support my noble friend on the Front Bench. I recognise the validity of some of the criticisms that my noble friend Lord Hattersley has raised this morning, but I think that we ought to celebrate the fact that the Government are introducing a mechanism, which is better than the old mechanism, to enable a change to take place with regard to grammar schools. Twenty years ago, when my little daughter was five and at the local primary school, there was a proposal to amalgamate a boys' high school with a girls' high school, largely because of the pressures of economies and school places. The only people to be consulted about that change were the parents of the children at the high schools at the time. The process of change—if the two schools amalgamated—would have taken place only after all the children in those schools had left the schools. It seemed to me totally nonsensical to have a situation where you were asking people to make a judgment which, when it came about, they would have no involvement with at all. I welcome the mechanism that the Government have determined in terms of asking the parents of children at the primary school level what their views are regarding the future education of their children. That is the key thing that we should hang on to. I am sorry that the mechanism is complicated and that there is the 20 per cent. hurdle, but at least we are setting out a system which is far better than the previous system. Once all the hurdles have been got over and all the complications—which are meant to ensure absolute fairness—are resolved and the determination is made, nobody will be in a position to question it. When an area decides to get rid of the grammar schools nobody will be in a position to say "Yes, but what about my particular school or this particular school? We are going to carry on campaigning". I welcome this order on the basis that it will give us a helpful start to the future.My Lords, I did not intend to speak in this discussion but I was so encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, said that I feel I do have something to say. If the noble Lord is right and it will be impossible for 20 per cent. of the appropriate parents to come together to call for a ballot, then I will feel very happy indeed. I am not at all convinced that the knock-on effects on the rest of the educational provision in an area are adversely affected by the presence of a grammar school.
I speak as one who was able to go to grammar school only because scholarships and free places existed. I am quite sure that my parents could not have afforded to pay for me to go to grammar school or, incidentally, to go to university, which I did through a government grant. Grants have now also disappeared. Girls like myself of the younger generation may be denied a lot of opportunities which my generation enjoyed—together with many Members of your Lordships' House and other people who have become prominent in British society—which is the privilege of a grammar school education. My worry about the description of the order which the Minister so carefully gave us—and I appreciate that very much—was the wording of the ballot on which parents will be asked to vote. It would appear from what he said that parents will be asked a question which expects the answer "Yes", the num form of the question, as we used to be told in my Latin classes. If you are asked a very generous question such as, "Would it be nice to have the school"—which is a very good school and well known throughout the area—"open to children of all abilities?", of course you want to say, "Yes, how absolutely right that would be". If the question were put differently, for instance, "Do you want a change in the way in which this very good school currently selects its students?"—or any other form of words—I wonder if parents would automatically reply "Yes" to the question. I did not intend to speak in the debate because I have an enormous admiration for the many good comprehensive schools which have done a very good job. In the 1960s and 1970s I was a passionate believer in comprehensive education. But it has not worked. An enormously high percentage of children from deprived areas who go to comprehensive schools fail to achieve their full potential. In universities we still find it extremely difficult to shift the social balance of those entering university from what it was in the 1930s. Therefore, I do not believe that we should attack and throw out, or give an opportunity to throw out, the remaining few highly successful grammar schools—there are only a few left—without much more consideration being given to the issue than so far has been the case.My Lords, I did not intend to speak either, but the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, raised one or two points to which I should like to respond. I have been involved in a number of primary school campaigns for my own children and I have to say to my noble friend Lord Hattersley that 20 per cent. is a very modest threshold to obtain. Certainly, in the campaigns in which I have been involved, mainly to do with school closures, we have had a huge level of interest from local parents. Therefore, I do not think that 20 per cent. is too high. Perhaps the position is different in Birmingham but in my area of London 20 per cent. is not ambitious at all.
In making my second point, I wish to reiterate what was said by my noble friend Lord Monkswell. We should welcome the principle of the ballot itself and the principle that those eligible to vote will be a far wider group than those sending their children to the school at that moment in time. It is appropriate that the ballot is being cast far more widely. My third point relates to the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, about the wording of the ballot. The noble Baroness may have a point. But, whatever the wording of the ballot, parents understand the issue extremely well. It is somewhat patronising to think that the way a question is worded one way or another will get the response which the Government are trying to achieve. All the parents I know understand the issue of grammar schools extremely clearly. They know what they think and they will express it that way in a ballot, whatever the wording of the question.12.15 p.m.
My Lords, as the Minister made particular reference to the London Borough of Sutton and, indeed, as the London Borough of Sutton is singled out for particular reference in several places in the regulations, I suppose I should start by declaring an interest in that I am the leader of the council in the London Borough of Sutton, although I do not speak in that capacity in your Lordships' House. However, I may be tempted to do so before I sit down.
I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, as I always do when he chooses to take part in our education debates. I suspect that I enjoy his speeches very much more than his own Front Bench does. I thought he made an extremely good and extremely eloquent case. I agreed with everything he said but for one thing. I thought his comments about London were superfluous. It is always a pleasure to be in London, whether on Friday or any other day. What is not a pleasure is trying to leave London on a Friday afternoon. But perhaps people should learn that they should not try. I wish to return to what the Minister said in his opening remarks. He said that he did not want to get into a debate on the pros and cons of selective education. I am inclined to agree with him on that. Those of us who fought for many long hours through the Bill under which the regulations are brought forward argued those points fully, exhaustively and exhaustingly. We know where we all stand on that issue—at least we think we know where we all stand on that issue—but let me state that the Liberal Democrats remain clear and unequivocal in our opposition to selective education. I am less certain whether that is true of the Government Front Bench any more, but it is certainly true in our case. We accept that decisions about admission arrangements for schools should be taken in those local areas by local people in accordance with local circumstances. Therefore, I do not want to debate the pros and cons of selective education. I understand the sincerity of those who hold different views. I hope they respect the sincerity of my views even though they profoundly disagree with them. As the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, said, the supporters of selective education believe that the proposals in the Act and in the regulations mean the destruction of grammar schools and the end of grammar schools. Those of us who do not support selective education believe, for all the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, expressed so eloquently, that almost the opposite is the case and that it will be extremely difficult to overcome the hurdles that are placed in our way. The Government may think, therefore, that, placed in the middle as they are, they probably have got it about right. All I would ask them to do is to consider who is holding which view and what views are held by their friends, or perhaps their former friends, before they decide to take too much comfort from sitting in the middle on this issue. I want to raise some specific concerns arising from the regulations. As has been said, 72 of the 166 grammar schools could be the subject of feeder school ballots. I would welcome some comment from the Minister on some points about feeder schools. First, with regard to parents with children at key stage one, if those children are in a primary school those parents will be eligible to take part in a ballot. If those parents have children in an infants school, which will now be required to have its own governing body, they will not be eligible to take part in a ballot? I cannot see the logic of that. The interest of a parent of a child at key stage one in the future secondary system in their area is as great regardless of the nature of the school or the class their child is in. Why do the Government intend to exclude parents of pupils in infants schools when, had they been able to or had they chosen to send their child instead to a primary school, they could have taken part in the ballot? I cannot understand the logic of that position and I hope the Minister will be able to explain it to me. Secondly, I wish to refer to the minimum limit of five pupils transferring. I am glad that the Minister made it clear that that is five pupils spread over three years. There has been some misunderstanding about this point and what he said is preferable to, as he put it. 15 pupils spread over three years. Nevertheless, there are a number of very small rural schools where they may well not achieve five pupils transferring over three years. There are schools with 30 or fewer pupils—never mind classes with 30 or fewer pupils. The parents of pupils at such a school do not, by definition, have any less interest in the future of secondary education in their area than if their children were able to go to a larger school where there would more likely be a greater number of pupils transferring. I still worry that there will be some small rural schools where parents who have a full and legitimate interest are excluded simply because they do not meet the threshold. The noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, made the point, which was also made by the Church of England, that some grammar schools—indeed, some grammar schools in the London Borough of Sutton—draw their pupils from a very wide area indeed and, because of that, some of the feeder schools meet the threshold; and, therefore, again, parents with a legitimate interest may be excluded. There is another category of parents who may be excluded. I refer to the parents of pupils transferring to a grammar school after the normal age of transfer—in many cases transferring from a secondary school into a grammar school. There may well be cases where that happens in a greater number of cases than five over a three-year period. I did not have time to check with my own authority but I suspect that it could well be the case. Not many manage to transfer into a grammar school, but some do, and there may well be more than five in one year. Yet although the parents of those pupils have a particular interest, they will be excluded from taking part in the ballot. That is unfair and unreasonable. Their interest is just as great as it would have been if the transfer had taken place at the normal time, or had their children been younger. I now turn to the particular concern that I have in relation to the regulations; namely, the ballot information code. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the code applies to everyone who will take part in the discussion and not merely the LEA or the school governing body, which are covered on the face of the Bill. Assuming that that is the case, there are matters in the regulations that cause great concern. On the face of it, all of us support fair, reasonable, unbiased campaigns—they will be campaigns—on this issue. All of us wish to see parents supplied with factual information. However, I worry that the ballot information code will make it very difficult those on for both sides of the argument. It is not a pro-comprehensive argument; it is an argument for all sides. For instance, there is a statement in the regulations that meetings arranged for parents on the future of a grammar school need to be open. I hope that the guidance will make it clear that if a number of parents wish to organise a petition in support of a grammar school, or for that matter in favour of non-selective education, they will not necessarily need to invite to the meetings parents who take a different view. However, the regulations could be construed in that way. I speak with 30 years' experience of campaigns for or against grammar schools. It has been an issue in the London Borough of Sutton throughout my political life. I can tell the Minister that merely a statement that a grammar school is likely to be changed is likely to cause alarm, concern and offence to a large number of people. I therefore wonder how the debates and discussions will be conducted if they are under the constraint that nothing can be said which is likely to cause alarm, concern and offence as suggested in paragraph 2.d of Schedule 4. Subparagraph e goes on to state that the meetings,In one sense I can understand that. However, it will be remarkable if political parties have nothing to say on the issues involved in the ballot. Of course they will—on both sides, and strongly. But that must be interpreted as party-political. Although that situation has not occurred in my own borough, were it to occur, the Conservative Party has already well and truly fallen foul of this provision in the statements that it has made and, I suspect, statements that would be made were we to find ourselves in that situation. I therefore worry greatly about the contents of the ballot information code and as to how it will work in practice. I hope that the guidance will make it clearer. However, I fear that parents will either be acting in ignorance of what is meant in the code because they will not have easy access to the right legal advice, or—and this is probably more likely—the Secretary of State will be inundated with complaints from both sides of the argument that it has not been conducted fairly and will find himself in the seemingly impossible position of having to adjudicate on almost every ballot that takes place. In conclusion, perhaps I may change to my role in this House as leader of the council in the London Borough of Sutton and make particular reference to Nonsuch. I see that the Minister is smiling, so it is my guess that this does not come entirely unexpectedly to him. The reason why my borough is singled out for particular mention is that we have one grammar school which is literally a few yards outside the London borough and inside the county of Sutton. I have lived in the borough for all but two years of my life. I know it well. That school has always been, and is still, regarded very much as a Sutton school, albeit that it is now grant-maintained and most of its pupils come from outside the borough, as they do for all our grant-maintained grammar schools. The Nonsuch ward is included in the regulation because of the geographical accident that I have mentioned. But it is a grant-maintained grammar school; it is not by any definition a neighbourhood school. There is no logical reason why that ward in the borough of Epsom and Ewell should be singled out to be part of a relevant area any more than any number of other wards in the borough, or in other London boroughs or elsewhere. The parents of pupils who happen to live in that ward will of course have a right to take part in the ballot. So they should have. But to include everyone who is eligible in the Nonsuch ward is a nonsense. I suggest that the provision is included merely because some civil servants without local knowledge have looked at a map and said that since that is the ward the school is in by a few yards, it must therefore be included in the relevant area. I hope the Minister will accept from someone who has local knowledge—not because I hold any particular view one way or the other; I have no idea how the residents of the Nonsuch ward may vote on this issue if they are given the chance—that it is a nonsense to include just one ward from the neighbouring borough because the school happens to be located there. I repeat: it is not a neighbourhood school, and that makes no sense. The noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, said that, were it appropriate to be dividing on these regulations, he would do so. Had he been able to do so, I should have joined him in the Division Lobby."should not in content, tone or presentation be party-political".
My Lords, had it not been for the conventions of the House, I, too, should have walked into the Lobby—not, I hasten to say, the same Lobby as the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Hattersley. I should have gone through the other Lobby, and for very different reasons.
In his introduction to this short debate the Minister said that the Government wanted a fair and workable set of regulations. Again for different reasons, I do not believe that they are fair, and they are certainly not workable. They will result in chaos for local education authorities, parents and children, and, as we must not forget, for staff as well. They represent a war of attrition on some fine schools in our country. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley. I have always had the highest respect for him. Throughout the whole of his career he has been politically honest, and on this subject particularly so. He makes no secret of the fact that, had he been master of the drafting of the Bill, it would probably have included a clause regarding the abolition of grammar schools, which would have been followed through by the necessary regulations to see that provision through. That might also have been the case for the noble Lord, Lord Tope. It is interesting that it is almost the policy of the noble Lord. Lord Hattersley, by stealth. I do not share the noble Lord's pessimism about the threshold, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and my noble friend Lady Perry. I am not at all sanguine about the 20 per cent. figure in terms of signatures to trigger a ballot. I believe that that is eminently achievable, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, also believed. Those of us who have been involved in campaigns know that one can gather the signatures over a long period; they can be gathered collectively by many groups of people. I therefore do not see this as an insuperable hurdle. I therefore put all vulnerable schools on notice that they need to be vigilant from the outset. The organisation with which the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, is involved is already active, and CASE is definitely active. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, agreed that franchises for the ballots are all right. He said that more or less anybody who is relevant and who needs to be consulted will be, and will be given a voice. However, many schools will be affected by these changes. The outcome will not be known until the ballot has taken place and the result is announced. Some schools will disappear as a result of these changes. I have looked at the size of these schools. I shall run through the figures. One school has two forms of entry, two schools have one form of entry; five schools have two forms of entry, 53 schools have only three forms of entry and 76 schools, four forms of entry. Dealing with six forms of entry—and that is still a small school for a comprehensive—it is only seven schools out of 166. Thus almost all the schools are not viable as fully comprehensive schools. It means that they may, disappear completely, especially in those authorities with many spare places. I see that the noble Lord shakes his head, but it is a possibility. They could be taken out altogether and the children could be dispersed around the authority.
12.30 p.m.
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. She is confusing the difference between a grammar school and a comprehensive school and a viable school based on its size. My understanding is that a comprehensive is a school which has a comprehensive intake of pupils without selection. Grammar schools in the secondary modern system effectively segregate pupils by some form of alchemy.
Whether a school is viable because of its size has nothing to do with whether it is grammar, comprehensive or secondary modern.My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord has examined the sizes of schools across the country. If he has, he will find that, where a school deals with a relatively narrow ability band, it tends to be smaller. Where a comprehensive school deals with a range of subjects and abilities, with the number of departments necessary to deal with every ability within an age group and with the small sizes of sixth form entry, more often there are seven, eight, nine, 10 and even 11 forms of entry. The truth is that many of the schools as comprehensives—which they will need to be within two or three years of a ballot—will not be viable. There will have to be a reorganisation. Some schools may disappear completely, some may be merged with other schools. I suspect that that will probably be the outcome. There may be all kinds of reorganisation problems, but that they will have to be reorganised is a certainty in many areas.
The Minister said that the guidance is not yet prepared or published; nor is the ballot information code. I believe that I am right—although I should like to think I am wrong—that the regulations will be implemented 14 days after some date next week when the regulations are passed in another place. If that is so, then signatures could legitimately be collected with a petition for what is left of this academic year ending in July 1999, with none of the advice and information that will be necessary. It would be helpful to have confirmation of that from the Minister when he replies. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that he and the Liberal Party stand four-square, behind the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, but, as a stepping stone to what the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, hoped for, they stand four-square behind the Front Bench. That is at national level. I have many Liberal colleagues who live in areas where there are grammar schools. They will be as active as many of the other people who support the continuance of their grammar schools. It is not enough to say, "We have a policy and it is unequivocal except at local level". It is at local level that it will matter. On the point about Conservative, Liberal and other parties being active, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is wrong. The guidance, regulations and law will prevent the grammar schools and the local authorities from acting in a particular way. But there will be no constraints on other bodies. There will be no constraints on CASE, for example, which will argue vociferously and actively and will be materially involved in ensuring that grammar schools do not exist at the end of the process. But other organisations outside LEAs and grammar schools will fight the other way. We know that grammar schools will not be allowed to produce anything other than factual information. But it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us the meaning and interpretation of the clauses in the Act on information to be provided by third parties. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, argued—and rightly presumed that I would join him in arguing—that there is an impact on an area where there are mixed schools, including grammar schools. However, it is not quite as he suggests. I hold here a table of the achievements of all local education authorities throughout the country. Where there is a mix of grammar schools, comprehensives and modern schools, those schools appear in the top 58 LEA achievers in the country. The bottom 71, with the exception of nine schools, contain authorities that are 100 per cent. comprehensive. It is clear from that that where there is a healthy mix of choice and diversity, all schools and the whole area of the LEA do better. The converse will apply. When we take out the high achieving schools, including many secondary modern schools which do extremely well because the staff deal with a relatively narrow ability band and are therefore able to be more effective in educating young people—My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? I shall retain the self-denying ordinance in not arguing the merits of comprehensive versus selective education. The question I raised under this heading was the influence of the grammar schools on the whole local authority area. This debate needs the answer to a different question which the noble Baroness has not given. Does she believe that, since the grammar schools affect the education of the whole area—beneficially in her view and detrimentally in mine—the ballot should be in the whole education area? That is the nub of the argument which the noble Baroness has not addressed.
My Lords, we start from different points. I agree with the noble Lord that ballots have no basis in logic. There is no intellectual explanation for the difference between the franchises. My point is that I would not do what the Government seek to do, which is starting a war of attrition on such schools. I believe that they make a valuable contribution to the education of young people in this country. There are young people better suited to a fast-track academic education, just as there are children suited to a different type of education. I do not disagree with the Government's basic aim of raising standards in the country, but if I were the Government I would retain my fire, energy and resources for concentration on that part of the education system that does not work and is not delivering good education to our children.
My next point is that there is nothing in the regulations that refers to the kind of reorganisation that will have to take place as a result of the ballot. The question on the ballot paper is a rigged question. It is a rigged ballot. We all come at it from different angles. The noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, believes that it is rigged one way; I believe that it is rigged another. If a person is asked in a market square, "Do you believe that school X or a group of schools should accept children of all abilities?", that does not suggest that the school may not exist at all, following that ballot. It is a rigged question. My noble friend Lady Perry made a good point when she referred to parents who would wish their children to go to a highly popular, highly successful grammar school. When asked, "Would you like your children to go to the school, irrespective of their ability?", the answer will be "Yes". The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, made an important point. When a question is posed to which people are asked to give an answer, the result of which will be serious one way or another, as it will mean either the continuation of the school or its demise, it is important to understand the consequences of the answer. If the answer is "Yes, I should like my child to go to St. Olave's School", the chances are that it may not even exist as a school. Therefore the question is dishonest and misleading and I believe that from the outset the whole thing is rigged. I have received a letter only today from the Birmingham schools that the Minister will know well. The Minister has shown his prejudice against those very fine schools quite publicly. They, too, say that the question is misleading and does not clarify exactly what someone is voting for when he or she comes to vote. Therefore, even at this late stage—because there is no urgency about this matter—the noble Lord would do well to withdraw it and have a longer period of consultation. Other noble Lords have already said that the catchment areas are very wide. Children will be dispersed equally widely if they cease to attend those schools. The notion that somehow it will raise standards in the area when one or two children at most will go into any class in a rather wide area is absurd. What will happen is that those children who enjoy a fast-track academic education suited to their abilities and aptitude will lose out. I believe that the regulations come into force 14 days after the commencement of this order and that the order will commence as it passes through another place. I should be glad to know from the Minister whether I am reading that wrongly. But I believe that the initial period will be only a part year. One question that springs to mind is what happens if a petition is completed by the end of July during the school term and, at the end of the petition period (as it is known in the jargon), the ballot takes place either in the holidays or at the beginning of the new term. Some of the children whose parents were signatories to that ballot during the previous academic year may have moved on. There will be new parents who would not have been eligible to vote. It would be helpful to have clarification of where the eligibility of parents sits with all of that and what will happen in that situation. Further, there is no definition of a parent. Perhaps I have missed the point and the matter is dealt with in the primary legislation, but I am fascinated by paragraph 4(3) on page 6 which provides:"A parent of the following description is not an eligible parent—
I understand that—(a) a parent falling within paragraph (1)(a) or (2) who on the date in question is resident outside the United Kingdom"—
"or
Can a parent be a group or more than one parent? What disqualifies a parent who is not an individual? What is a parent who is not an individual? Reference is made to breaches of a ballot. I understand all of that. There must be some means of knowing whether the rules have been obeyed. If not, parents are given an opportunity one way or the other to appeal to the Secretary of State to make a judgment as to whether the ballot should be declared void. I should like the Minister to comment on an article in the Financial Times of 6th November which contains some very interesting coded messages. The usual senior government sources state that they cannot say that the decision of parents will be upheld in every case. Should parents vote to abolish the 11-plus Mr. Blunkett would recognise "that they had expressed a view" but he would use quasi-judicial powers to make the final judgment on the basis of academic standards, not on the basis of breaches or anything else. It would be helpful to have clarification of what decision would be taken where there had been a ballot with no breaches of the regulations and what it would mean. Reference has been made to what would constitute fairness and reasonableness of information. We must await the information. It would be helpful to know when one is likely to see that information. Some grammar schools believe that as a result of their cessation there is likely to be a physical reorganisation of schools in particular areas. One has to think only of an authority like Kent where a very large number of grammar schools will go out of existence at the same time. One knows that there will be considerable reorganisation and that the local education authority is already working on some possible proposals and determining the costs. If the grammar schools concerned make intelligent estimates of the kind of reorganisation that follows such a ballot, is that deemed to be unfair or biased information? If its information is based on papers published by the local authority will that be considered fair or will it fall foul of the rules? Referring to paragraph 16(1), as I understand it the five-year moratorium runs from the date when the ballot result is announced. I understand that the petitioning could start some time before the fifth year; it could start in the petitioning period, which would be in the previous academic year. It would be helpful to know when that would be. For example, if a ballot result was announced in June 2000 my understanding of the regulations is that the next ballot could take place in June 2005. Therefore, petitioning could start in September 2004. Is that right? If a ballot was held in September 2000 and the next ballot could take place in September 2005, what would be the petition date? That would be the first few days of a new academic year. What would that mean for eligible parents, eligible schools and the petitioners, who would presumably want to be active as soon as possible? One knows that where a ballot is successful there will be a continuing war of attrition against those schools. For the Minister to say that there has been a move from one signature to 10 signatures to trigger the requirement for all schools to prepare registers and LEAs to produce the information is not much of a concession. It would be helpful to know when we shall see this information, just how much bureaucracy would be involved and who would have to meet the costs of providing it. Suppose that all of the parents in Kent ask for the registered list. Will the schools or LEAs be reimbursed for the cost of that provision? I can envisage a large number of people wanting to see that list. What facilities will be made available for perusing those lists? It is very important for the schools themselves to make sure that those who sign do so legitimately and within the correct period. Can we have some idea of the cost of reorganisation and to what extent those plans will be made available to parents before they sign rather than when they sign? I am sorry to refer again to the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley. Further, a very important point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. There is an interesting tension between those who want all of the grammar schools to go and those who do not. I am reading a little between the lines. Mr. Adonis at No. 10 appears to be slightly worried and has written about the continuation of grammar schools. I believe that he would like to see them continue and hopes that the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, is right that the hurdle is too high and the task too great to bring about the end of grammar schools. Yet the Secretary of State and his unreconstructed colleagues in the department want to see them go. It is helpful to know exactly where the department and the Government as a whole stand on this matter and what they want to see happen as a result of this policy. I believe that the regulations only confirm that the Prime Minister's place, as I believe he would wish, will be secured in history but not for what he would like to be remembered. He will go down in history as a constitutional and educational vandal. I have no pleasure whatever in having to stand back and watch these regulations pass through this House today.(b) a parent who is not an individual".
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I shall endeavour to respond to as many points raised as possible.
I start by making our position clear. It was made before the election. We do not support selection by ability at age 11; and we do not wish to see it extended. But we believe that it is right for the future of existing grammar schools to be decided by local parents. That was our position from day one. It was a commitment in the manifesto. It appeared in the White Paper, Excellence in Schools. It was carried forward to the School Standards and Framework Act. That Bill, and specifically the clauses relating to the ballots, were the subject of many hours' debate by both this House and another place before it became an Act. It probably is not worth while taking up your Lordships' time by going over old ground again. However, I thought my noble friends Lord Monkswell and Lord Ponsonby put the case well for the Government. My noble friend Lord Hattersley expressed some doubts about the action being taken by the Government. As a former secretary of his constituency party, it is always a delight to hear my noble friend talk on educational matters. However, I think that he is wrong in this case. I believe that the Government have drawn a correct balance in the regulations that they have laid down and adapting those regulations to circumstances ranging from a local authority area where there is a complete selective educational system to areas where either individual schools or a small number of schools adopt a selective policy. My noble friend also raised the issue of the 20 per cent. threshold. Sections 1 and 6 of the Act clearly state that the threshold must be at least 20 per cent., so regulations cannot introduce a lower figure. The Government believe that the 20 per cent. threshold is the best figure. It is sufficient to demonstrate clear support for the ballot while at the same time still being a realistic figure for those wishing to raise a petition. My noble friend Lord Hattersley referred to the different types of ballots: an area ballot, and that for feeder schools. There are good reasons for those differences. Our original intention was to define electorates by feeder schools. That was because grammar schools draw from schools from a wide geographical area on the basis of the selective arrangements rather than the location of the pupils' homes. Choosing feeder schools as the basis for the electorate is the right approach because they have a tradition of sending pupils to the grammar schools. The parents at those schools would have some likelihood of their children being considered, or indeed rejected, as possible pupils for the grammar schools. However, we realised fairly soon that there was a fundamental difference between areas where the whole area is a part of a selective system and those where grammar schools exist within an otherwise comprehensive system. We therefore brought in the concept of area ballots to recognise the fact that in areas where a selective system operates, change in the admission arrangements of all grammar schools will affect the whole school system in that area. My noble friend Lord Hattersley complained about the complexity of the regulations and said that they lacked natural justice. Following the regulations clear guidance will be produced which will enable the people involved to be clear about the rules and process under which those ballots and petitions operate. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, expressed concern that the current definition of a feeder school would be unfair to small schools, perhaps in particular those in rural areas. The definition of a feeder school was one of the subjects on which we received most comments during the recent consultation exercise. Those responses were not consistent. Some argued for the threshold to be lowered; others for it to be raised, suggesting that the current definition made the electorate unmanageable and enfranchised parents at schools which did not necessarily have strong links to the grammar school concerned. The Government considered the views expressed by both sides and decided that the proposed threshold struck the correct balance between demonstrating clear links to the grammar schools and not setting an unreasonable figure for schools to achieve. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, asked about the contract to run the provision for organising the petitions and ballots. I can assure the noble Lord that there is provision for the breaking of a contract if it is not going as it should. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, asked about the ballot question. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, suggested, to put it as its mildest, that the ballot question is open to misinterpretation. I can confirm that we have had many responses in the consultation about the ballot question. Our first principle was to make absolutely clear on the ballot paper what the question means. The formulation on which we consulted had two alternative statements. That was not popular and could have been confusing for parents. We decided that a single statement pointing to the possible change that might result from the ballot was best. Clearly it makes no sense to have a single statement proposing a status quo and not to mention the alternative. So it is intended that the ballot paper will contain introductory wording which makes clear that the ballot will determine whether or not the grammar schools concerned continue to select pupils for entry through examination of academic achievement—for example, using 11-plus type examinations—or whether admission arrangements are introduced which admit pupils of all abilities. In that context, the ballot question clearly means a change to the admission arrangements for all grammar schools. As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said, parents will well understand the issue, as they understand it at present, and will be well able to make up their own minds. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked questions about the rules governing the campaigns that will necessarily take place in localities. I can confirm that the Government will shortly be making available guidance—documents on the petition and ballot mechanisms—which will provide further information on acceptable forms of information. The Secretary of State will expect all parties concerned with ballots to have regard to the ballot information code which appears at the back of the regulations. I remind your Lordships' House of the restrictions put in place by Section 107 of the Act, limiting expenditure of public funds by local education authorities and governing bodies. They may only publish factual information, assessment of consequences of a ballot, and statements of intent. I remind your Lordships of the Secretary of State's power to declare a ballot void where he is satisfied that misinformation has rendered the ballot result unsafe. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, raised the issue of meetings. He asked whether the ballot information code could be invoked to stop meetings being held to gather support for either side. That is unlikely if meetings are fairly conducted. The code is intended to set a standard. It is quite reasonable to expect that people running a meeting for parents will give both sides of the picture before urging people to support one or other view, and not to distort the facts. The noble Lord asked why parents of children at infant schools were not included if there were a linked infant and junior school. Section 106 of the School Standards and Framework Act only allows those schools which have sent pupils directly to the grammar schools to be defined as feeder schools. He also raised the question of Sutton with which, as he said, he is well acquainted. The Sutton LEA has 33 per cent. of its secondary pupils in grammar schools. The Nonsuch Girls High School has always been seen as part of the Sutton system, and indeed shares admission arrangements with one of the other grammar schools in Sutton. However, geographically it is just inside Surrey and the Sutton LEA wished for it to be part of the area ballot for the Sutton schools. In order to cater for Nonsuch High School being balloted with the Sutton schools, an area is being prescribed in the regulations made up of Sutton and the ward of Nonsuch. We have considered the options available to us. It is not considered that any area smaller than a ward such as Nonsuch can reasonably be specified as part of an area for ballot purposes. It would not be possible to include Nonsuch High School with the Sutton schools unless it is part of an area ballot.1 p.m.
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps he can clarify a point about the ballot information code because the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and I have a different view of it. For once, I hope that she is right. Does the ballot information code apply only to the LEA and the school governing body, in which case I am happier in some of my concerns, or does it apply to anyone taking part in the campaign on either side, as appears from the regulations? That is my real concern.
While the Minister is waiting for the answer to my query, perhaps I may revert to another issue. I will not detain your Lordships' House on a particular Sutton point, but it might help the supply of the answer that I am seeking. The argument that has been raging between our director of education and the civil servants suggests that the Nonsuch ward is included because a slightly higher percentage of pupils in the first three years at Nonsuch High School happen to come from that ward. It is a little under 6 per cent. That was the reason we were given; not the reason the Minister has just given. If that were the reason, as set out in the letter from his official which I happen to have with me, there happen to be at least three other grammar schools wholly within the London Borough of Sutton, some of which are, as it happens, close to the Croydon border. I wonder whether the department has checked where the pupils from those schools happen to come from. Do most of them come from outside Sutton? Does anything approaching 6 per cent. happen to come from, for instance, a Croydon ward? If so, why is that not included in the relevant area? I am not suggesting that it should be; I am suggesting that it should not be, and neither should the Nonsuch ward. I hope that by now the Minister has the answer to my question.My Lords, perhaps as regards the Nonsuch ward it would be better if I wrote to the noble Lord giving him further information. I understand that the code applies to all parties involved in ballots—
My Lords, will the Minister give way because this is a very important point? An independent third party with no links whatever with a grammar school or even another school in an area may perhaps with a group of people feel particularly strongly about the continuance of grammar schools in an area. CASE, which operates quite legitimately but does not have a physical or formal link with schools in an area, will be moving around the country. What happens to free speech under the law? What prevents them from gathering together and taking a view about whether grammar schools should be part of the tapestry of education? What in law would they be guilty of if they came together in a village hall to discuss the Government's proposals? There is nothing in the Act as I understand it. If the Government are going to give answers in this fairly cavalier way, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain the matter. It is a most important point.
My Lords, my understanding is that anyone may campaign in relation to a ballot which is held, but that LEAs and school governing bodies may not use public funds to do so. Everyone who wishes to give information to parents should take account of the ballot information code.
My Lords, can I ask whether I shall be within the law? Tomorrow I am going to—
My Lords, the Companion states that the interruption of speeches should be brief questions for clarification. We have already had two speeches and the noble Baroness in winding up took 24 minutes, as against the 20 minutes suggested in the Companion. If there are to be interruptions they should be brief questions for clarification in accordance with the Companion.
My Lords, I am entirely happy to live within that constraint. I have a brief question. Tomorrow I am going to Birmingham to talk to a group of people about the continuation of grammar schools there. Will I fall foul of the code? The noble Lord said that the code will apply to quite independent third parties. Would he like to explain what that means?
My Lords, I wonder whether I can help in this situation because—
My Lords, the noble Lord is the Minister!
My Lords, yes, but I wish to have clarification. Unfortunately, it appears that what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, are saying is that they want to have the ability to campaign by telling lies and causing all sorts of aggravation. That is the impression that is being given because the ballot information code which is being discussed and which appears on page 27 of the order—
My Lords, that is not a question for clarification. Can we please get on with the debate?
My Lords, I really must rise. The noble Lord has impugned my integrity and my intentions. I am not asking questions in order to be able to go out and tell lies. And I am certainly not asking questions in order to underwrite anyone who wishes to go out and campaign in a way which would be illegal or illicit. I am asking whether any third party who believes strongly one way or another about the future of selective education in this country is bound by the code and, if so, in what way.
My Lords, the Minister will seek to abide by the recommendations in the Companion and to reply within the recommended time. I am sure that there will be questions he may wish to answer in writing. Further interruptions will make it more difficult for him to answer the questions that have already been asked.
My Lords, perhaps I may ask a genuine question for clarification on behalf of my noble friend Lord Tope. Would the noble Lord, Lord Carter, accept that the rule which he quoted from the Companion perfectly correctly might allow for an exception to enable information to reach the Minister by what the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, once described as that "curious process of osmosis" by which information reaches Ministers in this House?
My Lords, of course, another way of doing it is to keep on talking until the answer arrives and then give it.
My Lords, perhaps I may repeat what I said earlier. Anyone may campaign, of course, but LEAs and school governing bodies may not use public funds to do so—
No!
My Lords, that is what I said earlier. I am afraid that I did. Everyone who wishes to give information to parents should take account of the ballot and the information code. The significance for third parties of the code is that if it is breached the ballot can be voided if it significantly affects results.
Perhaps I may press on. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised the issue of whether there would be too much uncertainty about the future of grammar schools and she said that this would allow too much disruption for pupils and teachers currently at the school. The regulations make clear that petitions and ballots can be raised during any school year except when a five-year moratorium is in force. The Government have always intended to offer a five-year moratorium after a ballot in favour of the status quo, and the regulations will deliver that. The Government believe that that will allow a period of stability for grammar schools which have had ballots. We recognise that grammar schools which have had no ballots may have concerns about the issue remaining open. However, it is important to balance their desire for certainty against giving parents the chance to express an opinion. The issue of non-viability of grammar schools was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, if parents vote for change. There is no reason to assume that an end to selection must lead to large-scale organisation and school closures. There will still be the same number of children and the same number of places. It is a question of what needs to be done to adjust the different ability mixes. If wider changes are needed there will be time to develop and implement properly considered proposals as comprehensive intakes work their way up through the school. Of course, it is also important to recognise that the reorganisation of school provisions will have to be based on extensive consultation and co-operation between LEAs. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about the costs flowing from the likely reorganisation of provision. The ballots impact only on the admission arrangements for the grammar schools concerned. They place no automatic requirement to consider reorganisation more widely. When the ballot is in favour of the removal of selection, LEAs and other admission authorities in the area will wish to consider the implications for their own arrangements. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, quoted a senior government figure in the Financial Times on 6th November. The article in question got its facts slightly confused. The Secretary of State does have the power under Section 105 of the School Standards and Framework Act to declare a grammar school ballot void but he can do that only when a complaint has been made to him by one or more of the parties listed in that section. It is not the case, as the article may lead readers to believe, that all decisions are referred to the Secretary of State for final approval. In addition, any ballot which is declared void must be re-run. Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about the definition of a parent who is not an individual. That has puzzled me too but I am advised that that would apply to children in care and to a local authority acting as the parent. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be glad that such bodies do not have a vote on behalf of those children in such elections. I remind the House that the arrangements for grammar school ballots are specified in considerable detail in the School Standards and Framework Act, which, as I said before, were debated very thoroughly in this House and in another place. There are those who feel strongly that selective entry to grammar schools should end; others feel equally strongly that it should continue. Grammar school ballot arrangements are set out in the Act and these regulations favour neither party. However, they give local parents a fair opportunity to decide for themselves. I commend the regulations to the House.On Question, Motion agreed to.
Social Security (New Deal Pilot) Regulations 1998
1.11 p.m.
rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th October be approved [46th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Motion, I shall speak also to the Jobseeker's Allowance Amendment (New Deal) Regulations. Both relate to the help we will offer people aged 25 and over: one supports the pilots we wish to introduce later this month and the other will allow refugees to qualify earlier for the employment and training opportunities of the New Deal for those aged 25 and over which we introduced in June.
I shall deal first with the employment and training opportunities regulations. The amendments to the JSA regulations address a specific issue affecting refugees and those with exceptional leave to remain—a group who are in a unique position and for whom we want to do the right thing. The amendment regulations will ensure that people in that position do not miss out on opportunities available under New Deal for those aged 25 plus as a result of spending time on income support while their asylum application was determined. For refugees and those granted exceptional leave to remain in the country, periods on income support as an asylum seeker will be counted towards the two-year qualifying period for access to the New Deal 25 plus education and training opportunities.
I want now to focus on the pilot regulations. For over a year now the Government have been putting in place their welfare to work strategy. We are here today to debate regulations that will support another element of that strategy. At the end of this month we intend to introduce, in 28 parts of the mainland and across Northern Ireland, pilots which will help people aged 25 and over who have been unemployed for at least 12 or 18 months.
Those pilots build upon the New Deal which we introduced in June for people in this age group. We are running them to find new and effective ways in which to help people aged 25 and over back into work. Consequently, the pilots place a heavy emphasis on innovation and flexibility for the partnerships and organisations which are delivering them. We have also sought a diverse range of delivery arrangements: 10 of the 28 will be delivered by private sector organisations. The remainder will be delivered by the New Deal partnership set up to run our 18–24 programme. These range from partnerships led by the Employment Service, through joint ventures involving ES and other local organisations, to partnerships led by local authorities and TECs. We will be evaluating the impact of the various types of help at different stages of unemployment and across the whole range of labour markets and delivery models.
I believe that is a welcome extension to the help we offer people over 25, and one which will be of real benefit.
The pilots will include all those in the pilot areas who reach, or have at the point the pilot starts already passed, a certain threshold of unemployment. In nine pilots, those unemployed for 12 months or more will be included. In the other 21, those unemployed for 18 months or more will be targeted. We also want to measure the impact of offering help before the 12-or 18-month point to people who are at a special disadvantage in the labour market. In certain pilot areas, therefore, early entry will be possible for people in this position. The information we gather from these pilot areas about the demand for early entry will help us to make decisions about future provision.
The pilots will all follow a basic framework design which will encompass a gateway period, based on the lessons learned from the development of the 18–24 New Deal; a period of intensive activity to tackle barriers to work; and a follow-through period for those who have not found work by the end of the intensive activity. The pilots will begin with an initial gateway period, during which participants will attend a series of interviews with a personal adviser, who will give advice and help to identify the barriers a person may face to finding work.
Those who do not find work during the gateway will be required to attend an employment programme for 13 weeks, which will consist of individually-tailored help which could include work experience, job-specific training, and help into self-employment. During this time they will receive a grant of up to £200 paid over and above their JSA and other benefits. The pilots will emphasise the focus on the individual, and will provide help aimed at meeting individual needs. In return, people will be expected to participate actively in the help they are offered during this period. This Government believe it is important that people fulfil their responsibilities while claiming benefit, and that they are fully committed to and active in their jobsearch as a condition of them continuing to receive JSA. For those who do not find work during the period of intensive activity, or who do not stay in work for any length of time, there will be further help and advisory support.
A feature of those pilots is the focus on moving people back into work as early as possible. These are, after all, older jobseekers, most of whom will have experience behind them and some skills to offer. The aim should be to build on that experience and skill in order to return them to paid work as soon as possible. We also want to help people to stay in work, once they have found it. Too many people achieve the difficult task of getting a job after a prolonged period of unemployment, only to end up back on JSA again for lack of continuing support.
The pilots will, therefore, feature a continuous emphasis, throughout the gateway, the intensive activity and the follow-through period, on getting into work. Jobsearch activities will feature at all stages, and people will remain on JSA, with its labour market conditions. To help the move into work, we have lowered the eligibility threshold for the £75 per week employer's subsidy to cover all those in the pilots, whether unemployed for 12 or for 18 months. Follow-up support will be offered to those who do enter work, to maximise the chances that they will stay there.
We are encouraging partnerships and private sector organisations to propose adaptations, within the general objectives of the pilots, to this basic model, to take account of local circumstances and individual need. We have asked them also to consider innovative ways of using the employer subsidy.
The regulations I am proposing today support the pilots in four ways. First, they identify those people whom the regulations will cover, in accordance with the piloting powers in the Jobseekers Act. Secondly, they prescribe the employment programme so that it falls under Section 19 of the Jobseekers Act. That means that if, without good cause, a person refuses a place on the programme, fails to attend it, gives up his place or loses his place through misconduct, he or she may lose JSA for two weeks for his first offence or four weeks on second and subsequent occasions. However, the regulations ensure that individuals cannot lose benefit for leaving the pilot after they have completed 13 weeks on the employment programme. Individuals who are sanctioned retain the usual entitlement to apply for reduced payment on the grounds of hardship; that is, this right will, as usual, be available to those people who fall into the categories in Regulation 140. It includes people with children. People will also have the usual recourse to an appeals procedure.
Secondly, the regulations will ensure that the steps people take to become more employable and the financial support the pilots give them will not affect their entitlement to benefit. The JSA regulations already treat people as actively seeking work for any week in which they are participating for at least three days on an employment programme. I believe that during the pilots it is sensible that the other labour market conditions be applied in the same way.
We have made a similar provision within the regulations to treat a person as available while they are undertaking an employment-related course for at least three days as part of the employment programme. I hope noble Lords will welcome the measures which go some way to ensure that people do not lose entitlement to JSA and are left without financial support.
Finally, as I said before, participants in the intensive activity period will receive an additional top-up grant of up to £200 while on the employment programme. Participants may also receive payments to cover work clothing, fares, training or job search expenses incurred whilst on the employment programme. Regulations make provision to disregard all of those payments for the purpose of assessing their benefit. I believe that the pilots will offer the most effective ways of helping people back to work and I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th October be approved [ 46th Report from the Joint Committee].—( Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for explaining the two regulations and I agree that it is convenient to speak to them both together.
The regulations extend the jobseeker principle introduced by the last Conservative government; and if one can encourage employment in an efficient way, it is to be welcomed. However, I feel bound to point out that when the previous legislation in the last Parliament was going through the House, it was viciously attacked by Miss Angela Eagle who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. It will be interesting to know what comments she will make on these orders when they appear in another place. In fact, the jobseeker principle was a success—so much so, that the Government were committed to introducing a plan to deal with the young unemployed; and by July 1997, when they got round to announcing their New Deal policy, only around 125,000 were still in that position. The department was also remarkably successful in hanging on to the money which the Chancellor had intended it should have for this purpose. It is now using it to extend the principle to the over-25s. Can the Minister tell us what proportion of the total budget—I believe it is £5 billion over the life of the Parliament—is to be spent on the under-25s and what proportion is expected to be spent on the over-25s? Of course, the situation may change with the falling rate of growth which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now envisaging. That may have important implications also for employment. In his pre-Budget Statement the Chancellor said,How does the Chancellor know that that is so? We need an answer to that because we cannot have the Chancellor of the Exchequer making these remarkable statements if there is no basis for them. I turn to the first of the two sets of regulations, the ones concerned with refugees and those persons given exceptional leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom on humanitarian grounds. It must be the case that it is beneficial if those who are granted asylum in this country are able to find jobs rather than being a burden on the taxpayer. We welcome that. But I should like to raise one point in that context. The regulations specifically refer to whether or not they are on income support. The period they are on income support counts towards the qualifying period. But a recent view expressed by various outside groups referred to the non-cash system of support for accommodation provided on a no-choice basis. Can the Minister say—I genuinely do not know the answer—whether those who are in the position of seeking asylum or have been granted permission to enter or stay are always on income support? It may be that they are supported in some way other than the narrow definition of "income support". If so, will they still qualify in the way the Government intend or what is the situation in that regard? I am slightly surprised that the order was introduced, though its intention is clearly admirable. How many refugees and others are expected to be affected and what, if any, will the cost to the Exchequer be? One would have thought it was a relatively small number of people and clearly we need to obtain some idea of scale in relation to this specific order. I turn to the second order relating to the Social Security (New Deal Pilot) Regulations. Although the jobseekers' system worked well, the reality is that the efficiency of the New Deal is open to question. Indeed, the pilot schemes previously introduced were extremely disappointing. Regardless of that, the Government have pressed ahead; for example, with regard to the New Deal for lone parents: so much so that it looks as though the Government now require, under the new "Gateway" system, compulsion from those who would not otherwise respond to invitations to go for an interview. I must make one point at this stage. Over three decades or so I have seen a lot of statutory instruments, some better drafted than others. But this one is about the worst drafted one I have seen for a long time. Indeed, at one stage in the preamble the draftsman seems to resort to the wording used for the introduction of new Members into your Lordships' House. It reads,"Already, 29,000 companies have signed up to the New Deal and 30,000 have found jobs with employers, jobs they would not have had without the New Deal".
and so forth. It seems to be an extremely desperate form of drafting. But what is clear is that it is intended to be an experiment and perhaps the Minister can tell us what criteria are to be used for determining whether or not the experiment has been a success and whether it should be continued and extended beyond the various areas specified in Schedule 1. Having said all that, I hope that we obtain answers to my questions. Up till now the experiments have not been successful and if we are to engage in a further extension of the scheme, it is important to have some idea of the basis on which we will determine whether or not to go ahead with what is in fact, as a means of encouraging employment, on the face of it a very inefficient way of dealing with the problem. Other than that my points were largely technical. Can the Minister say whether there is to be a leaflet produced for those affected by this scheme which will explain to them, in words other than those employed in the statutory instrument, what the situation will be in regard to them applying for arrangements under the regulations?"and of all other powers enabling each of them in that behalf".
1.30 p.m.
My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for the elegant way he introduced these regulations and for reminding us that Dr. Pangloss is alive and well and living in Whitehall. I should like to associate myself with two of the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. The first concerns the people who have found new jobs because of welfare-to-work. Can the Minister tell us how the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows about that? The second concerns asylum seekers whose eligibility depends on receipt of income support, which is about to be taken away. I cannot help wondering whether no one had programmed the office computer with forthcoming changes. Indeed, these things have been known to happen.
I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, as regards the drafting, but I have seen worse. Fortunately, I have been very expertly advised on these regulations. Perhaps I may draw attention to one point in the drafting as regards Regulation 1(2) of the New Deal regulations which says:First, that is an example of the redundant words so regularly deplored by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The Secretary of State can always revoke regulations whenever he feels like it. Secondly, it indicates a more than usual awareness of the uncertainty principle of politics. When the Minister replies, perhaps he could give us some indication of why the uncertainty in this area is so intense. I am afraid that I have some moderately far-reaching questions about the regulations. On 4th November, the Department for Education and Employment said that in extending the New Deal to over 25s,"These Regulations shall cease to have effect on 29th November 1999, unless revoked with effect from an earlier date".
When he considers that question carefully, I wonder whether the Minister might think that those words have been just a little economical with the truth. This relates to two points. One is the use of sanctions and the other is the issue of the quality. We should look, first, at exactly what the manifesto said about sanctions. Those words apply to the under-25s and the under-25s alone. The exact words of the manifesto were:"we will be insisting on the same high quality standards and monitoring as we have been for the New Deal for the young unemployed".
There is a very significant difference between those words and the words of Tony Blair's Amsterdam speech of February 1997. Tony Blair's words were:"Rights and responsibilities must go hand in hand, without a fifth option of life on full benefit".
That was changed in the manifesto to the words,"There is no option of a life on benefit".
During the election, I remembered doing a radio interview on a particularly obscure radio station. I sat opposite Mr. Chris Smith who was then Opposition spokesman on social security. I said to him that I would love to be a fly on the wall at the moment when that drafting amendment was agreed. Of course, he treated that as an off-the-wall comment, as, indeed, he would. I also said that I had some interest in the question of whether the wording of Mr. Tony Blair or that of the manifesto would be applied. It turns out in fact to be the wording of the Amsterdam speech and not the wording of the manifesto on which the Government have consistently acted. I say that because total disentitlement to benefit is not sanctioned by the manifesto, although Ministers consistently confuse the two—most notably in Mr. Donald Dewar's recent reply to the objection to compulsion in the report of the Scottish Select Committee. Mr. Andrew Smith, again on 4th November, said in a DfEE news bulletin:"a life on full benefit".
It is not quite as clear an example of confusion as that from Mr. Dewar, but it is very definitely in the same ministerial family. In the light of that question, I should like the Minister to clarify the following points. First, what is the relationship to the manifesto of the extension of sanctions to the over-25s; and, secondly, are these sanctions for the over-25s total or partial? If they are partial, can the noble say in which proportions? This must have been a fairly recent change of outlook. If we look at the Secretary of State's Answer to my honourable friend Mr. Keetch during Question Time on 9th July, it will be seen that he said:"Unwarranted refusal will lead to loss of benefits".
Can the Minister tell us when the Secretary of State changed his mind between 9th July and today, and what reasons led him to make that change? This is a matter of some legitimate interest. I believe that the difference between those words is particularly clear. The issue of quality depends largely on the question of cost. I will accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, told me during the debate on the Statement on the Utting report. It was said in a slightly different context, but the point is the same. She said that the relationship between cost and quality is not exactly a constant. However, the fact that there is such a relationship is, I hope, something that the Minister will not consider denying. For the 18-to-24 age group the average cost of the employment option is £2,000 per person. For the other three categories, the average cost of those options is £4,000 per person. However, in the specification document for the pilots as regards this option for the over-25s the average cost is £1,300 per person. It may be possible, by a quite remarkable exercise of what Whitehall misleadingly describes as efficiency, for quality to be kept up even with that dramatic reduction in costs. But if that is possible, it would need a rather good explanation. I look forward to hearing the Minister provide it. There is also a question about the length of time for which training is available. As far as I can understand—I believe the Minister's mention of 13 weeks probably tended to confirm my view—there is no guarantee of training being available beyond 13 weeks. Indeed, we have been advised that training may under this option last as little as one day. I very much hope that the Minister can assure me that that is a mistaken view. The Minister also talked about learning lessons from the welfare-to-work projects applied to the 18-to-24 age group. That is well worth considering. We were told that the gateway should not last beyond four months, yet 20 per cent. of those on the under-25s pilots who went into the gateway in January were still there in August. As anyone who drives around London will know, gateways tend to involve traffic jams. There is also a good deal of thought to be given to the question of sanctions. Here again I refer to the DfEE news bulletin of 4th November which has some points to make in that respect. It makes mention of the categories of sanction and this information comes again from Mr. Smith. The categories were listed as follows:"Attending for interview is compulsory, but taking one of the options available … is not".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/98; col. 1223.]
"Failure to attend an adviser interview—623;
Failing to take up a New Deal Option—112;
Refusal to take up employment—45;
Leaving employment voluntarily—237;
Failure to attend an employment programme—82; [and]
Mr. Andrew Smith describes the latter straightforwardly as "abusing the system". I would not for a moment dispute that some of those are leaving the system. However, let us take just one example: the case of voluntarily leaving employment. There have been cases of people found guilty of voluntarily leaving employment in situations where I believe that either the Minister or I—and I believe that both of us are honourable people—would have done the same. Take, for example, a case in Cheshire of a man aged 60 suffering from severe angina whose work involved the lifting of heavy packing cases. He was advised by medical personnel that he could not expect to live if he remained in that job. He left it. He was found guilty of voluntary unemployment and deprived of benefit—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, so memorably stressed in the previous parliament—before appeal. If the Government are learning the lessons of these pilots, I hope they will consider the effect of disentitling people to benefit—possibly mistakenly—before appeal. I ask the Minister the question I asked the previous government; namely, why is it that a single, able-bodied person cannot be in hardship? Is it something to do with family values? That is a question to which I would like an answer, and perhaps a rather better answer than I received on a previous occasion. I would also like it explained how a person can be totally disentitled to benefit under any normal circumstances without being in hardship. I leave the Minister with the following question. If the Government are dedicated to preventing social exclusion, will they give their mind to monitoring what happens to people who are disentitled to benefit in order that they can find out information to rebut the charge which I shall most certainly make; namely, that in dealing with social exclusion they are creating it with one hand while combating it with another?Number of other reasons, including failure to attend training—253".
My Lords, a considerable number of questions have been asked during this debate. I shall do my best to answer them. First, I shall discuss the budget. The budget for the 18-to-24 years category is £3.115 billion. The June package for those aged 25 and over who have been unemployed for two years or more is £350 million. The budget for the pilots for those aged 25 and over is £126 million. As regards the pilots for those aged 25 and over, we expect to cover about 90,000 people. The 18-to-24 programme covers not only those 18 to 24 year-olds who are unemployed now but also all those who will cross the six-month threshold during this Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, referred to the 30,000 young people who had found jobs by the end of September. It is unwise to jump to too many conclusions about new jobs. What is clear is that we shall build up a more statistically robust picture by the New Year as we begin to start comparing different cohorts. Our aim is to consider openly and carefully all the data we are gathering to see what lessons can be learnt from them.My Lords, as regards jumping to a conclusion, the Minister said that these people obtained these jobs and that they would not have done so without the New Deal.
My Lords, there is no question that the New Deal has given much support to young people, many of whom would not have been in a position to find jobs without that support.
My Lords, that does not answer the question.
My Lords, that is the best that—
My Lords, can the Minister tell us of a case where the New Deal has created a single job?
My Lords, the New Deal is giving support to young people to enable them to enter work. It has done a considerable amount to help those people find work. That surely is the benefit of the New Deal. We are considering openly the results so far of the New Deal programme so that we can learn from the data and develop programmes in the future.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for those comments. What he says is clearly true, but is he not saying that jobs have gone to one young person rather than to another young person?
My Lords, I am not sure whether one can draw that conclusion. I am absolutely convinced, however, that by developing the New Deal we have been able to support people who ordinarily would have found it extremely difficult to obtain work. I think the scheme has proved to be successful.
I was asked about the validity of evaluation arrangements. We chose the pilot areas on the quality of their proposals, but the competition was arranged so as to produce a range of labour markets, a geographical spread and a variety of delivery arrangements. The broad objectives of evaluation are to measure the cost-effectiveness of the approaches tested in the pilot in getting people into work and keeping them there across a range of labour markets and a range of delivery models. The objective is to measure the costs and benefits of intervening at the 12-month stage of unemployment and at the 18-month point. We seek to measure the effectiveness of the approach in helping those aged 50 and over, and to test the response to opportunities for early entry for those groups who have been identified as facing particular barriers to employment. We shall monitor control groups in three different ways. We shall compare the pilot areas to the rest of the country as a whole and monitor a set of closely matching areas geographically separate from the pilot areas. In some pilots we shall also create control groups from half the jobcentres within an area, say Birmingham, while the other half of the jobcentres are in the pilots. Random assignment will be used in which participants are assigned in equal parts to either the pilot or the control group by a process designed to be random and therefore without bias. I was asked about information in relation to publicity. I can assure noble Lords that a range of publicity and written notice of any requirements will be made available. As regards asylum seekers and income support, asylum seekers are not generally allowed to claim jobseeker's allowance when they first arrive in Britain and must wait for a minimum of six months before they can be given permission to work. During this period they may claim income support, with the exception of in-country asylum seekers. When permission to work is granted, they can choose whether to claim jobseeker's allowance or income support. However, many choose to remain on income support as they are familiar with this benefit. Once they have been given refugee status they no longer have the option of claiming income support unless they satisfy one of the other conditions of entitlement, for example, because they are a lone parent or they suffer from a disability. Many former asylum seekers therefore end up claiming JSA for the first time only when refugee status is granted or they are given exceptional leave to remain in the country. At present the period in receipt of income support as an asylum seeker cannot count towards the two-year qualifying period for the New Deal education and training opportunities. I was asked about sanctions.My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but this is not perhaps an unimportant point. I did not perhaps put my question as clearly as I should. I understand that if an asylum seeker is on income support the period he is on income support is now to be part of the qualifying period. What I am not clear about is whether some asylum seekers who are not on income support but are supported in other ways—for example, they are given accommodation or other support by the Government—would now also qualify. The drafting of the measure is erratic, but should not that point have been covered?
My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord with more details on that point. There are no plans to extend the eligibility criteria to those asylum seekers supported other than through income support. New Deal eligibility is based on periods in receipt of benefits.
I shall now discuss sanctions. The Government have made no secret of their belief that people who claim jobseeker's allowance have an obligation to make every effort to find work. This mirrors an obligation on the part of the Government to provide high quality and relevant help to overcome the barriers which prevent those people from getting a job. These pilots are part of our strategy to fulfil our part of the bargain. I think we are entitled to ask unemployed people to fulfil theirs. The approach within these pilots is in line with the approach taken in the 18-to-24 New Deal where we have made clear that there is to be no fifth option of life on benefit without making efforts to find work. The evidence of the I 8-to-24 New Deal is that we will not see huge numbers of people sanctioned unnecessarily. The purpose of sanction is to encourage participation in the programme and a return to work. Decisions will, of course, be made by adjudication officers on the evidence provided and people will have the right to appeal. The issue of blockage in the gateway was raised. At the end of August, seven months after the New Deal started, 20 per cent. of those starting in January are still in the gateway, which, of course, was supposed to be for only four months. There are various reasons for that. Some, about a third, can be explained by simple lags in catching up with young people who have moved on. In another third of cases the young people are properly still in the gateway because they have left the New Deal—My Lords, I wonder whether the Government will publish their planning assumptions. That might enable us to discuss this matter rather more clearly.
My Lords, I shall be happy to find what information is available and send it to the noble Earl.
There is no doubt that some young people are waiting for the start of their courses on the full-time training and education option. From management information available, there is a big increase in the numbers of young people joining this option in September. Some young people left the New Deal and re-joined the gateway some time later. Some have had periods of illness. We are keeping in touch with participants on an individual basis to ensure that they move into the appropriate options. We will monitor progress closely but I shall ensure that the noble Earl is informed of the information that is available. The noble Earl also raised the issue of whether training is too short. We certainly anticipate that less training will be needed with this group. Many in this group already have extremely effective experience and skill, but we have the flexibility to give extended training in individual cases. I began the debate by setting out the Government's reasons for bringing forward these regulations. First, we are keen to give people who have been on income support for some time as asylum seekers the chance, once they are granted leave to remain, to get into work and become financially independent. Secondly, we wish to introduce pilots which help us to develop our strategy for helping all unemployed people aged 25 or more to get back to work. I ask the House to approve the regulations and I commend them to the House.On Question, Motion agreed to.
Jobseeker's Allowance Amendment (New Deal) Regulations 1998
I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 4th November be approved [ 47th Report from the Joint Committee].—( Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Contracting Out (Functions In Relation To Insurance) Order 1998
1.53 p.m.
rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd October be approved [45th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, responsibility for prudential supervision of the insurance industry was transferred to the Treasury from the Department of Trade and Industry at the beginning of this year. The draft order, if approved, will enable the Treasury to authorise another person to carry out most of its functions in relation to the insurance industry. The authorisation will be supported by a contract defining the service and the chosen contractor is the Financial Services Authority (the FSA). Though the FSA is not named in the order because other comparable orders may need to be made without naming a contractor, we have no intention of contracting any of these functions to anyone other than the FSA.
The draft Financial Services and Markets Bill, published on 30th July this year, proposes that the FSA will become the single regulator for the UK financial services industry. The Financial Services Authority was launched in October 1997 and has made considerable progress in bringing together operations under the Financial Services Act and banking supervision under the provisions of the Bank of England Act 1998. The proposed contracting-out of insurance functions which my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary announced on 30th July will maintain the momentum by adding insurance supervision to the FSA's responsibilities. It will thus promote the early integration of financial regulation and help achieve the benefits of a single regulatory culture ahead of the primary legislation. It will not, of course, give the FSA the new powers foreseen in the Bill, nor will it pre-empt Parliament's consideration of that Bill, since the authorisation may be revoked at any time. Indeed, the presumption must be that the authorisation proposed in this order will be revoked when the Act comes into force.
We are not proposing to contract out all the functions transferred to the Treasury. Part II of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act under which this order is to be made imposes some restrictions on the functions which can be contracted out. The powers to make subordinate legislation and certain activities which may affect the liberty of individuals, such as seizure powers and rights of entry, will remain with the Treasury. The power to raise fees will also remain with the Treasury. Most of the functions specified in the order are carried out under the Insurance Companies Act 1982, but a small number are conferred by other Acts listed in the schedule to the draft order.
Perhaps I may say a word about staff. In general, the civil servants currently engaged on insurance supervision have already been offered contracts by the FSA and if they accept they will transfer to FSA employment. Others will transfer to the FSA on compulsory secondment, preserving their existing terms and conditions. Those staff who do not transfer will remain employed by their parent department, which in most cases is the Department of Trade and Industry. None of them will be made redundant.
Finally, responsibility for the contracted out functions remains with Treasury Ministers, who will remain accountable to Parliament. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd October be approved [ 45th Report from the Joint Committed].—( Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for that clear explanation. It is perhaps a somewhat strange situation to have an order transferring authority from one department to an outside body ahead of the primary legislation. However, perhaps one can understand the reasons for that.
Perhaps I may say how glad I am that the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill has been published in advance. I think I was the first Minister—when VAT was introduced—ever to do that. It is an enormous advantage in terms of getting legislation right. The history of financial services regulation is perhaps not so happy. The complexities of the matter are not always realised. At all events, this seems to be an important measure and we understand the reasons why it is necessary to anticipate the main legislation. If I ask the Minister whether it will be in the Queen's Speech, he will reply that I must wait a little longer. However, it would be quite extraordinary if we agreed to this order and then there is no such legislation in the next Session. I have one or two points I should like to raise, particularly with regard to staff. As I understand it, some will transfer from the Treasury to the Financial Services Authority. The history on these matters is perhaps not all that happy. Will they retain the same pension rights? Presumably at present they are in an inflation linked non-contributory pension scheme. Will they continue to keep that when they transfer to the outside organisation? Perhaps I may clarify one point. I am somewhat puzzled. Prudential supervision of the insurance industry was transferred to the Treasury from the Department of Trade and Industry at the beginning of this year. I am not quite clear why it has switched back and forth in this rather strange way. It seems that some people will remain under the authority of the Department of Trade and Industry even after all these changes have been made, and the smile on the Cheshire cat's face will remain after the Cheshire cat has disappeared. Would not it be neater not to leave that small group of people in the Department of Trade and Industry but to switch them to the Treasury, where at least all those who remain in the Civil Service will be under one roof, so to speak? The schedule is rather complicated. I have apologised for raising one point on it, but I was surprised to find that there are a number of references to Lloyd's in the statutory instrument. Will the Lloyd's regulatory regime be at all affected by this measure? Quite specifically, as I began commercial life within the sound of the Lutine Bell, why is it that under Part II(62)(a), salvage operations as to the wreck of the "Lutine" are to be transferred from the Treasury to the FSA? I must advise the Minister that the "Lutine" sank a very long time ago. I am not clear why the provision needs to be perpetuated as opposed to the particular section simply being repealed. Other than that, these are complicated matters and it is important that we ensure that the position of the staff is protected, and especially that parliamentary accountability is preserved. To what extent will Ministers continue to be answerable for the operations of the FSA? Will they make regular appearances in that respect, or in what other way will they remain accountable?My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for his response to the order and for his acceptance, I think, of the necessity for it. With regard to the Queen's Speech, the noble Lord will get the answer that he expected. He will not have to wait all that long now to get the answer to his question about whether the Financial Services and Markets Bill will be included in the Queen's Speech. I do not think that I agree with the noble Lord that it would be extraordinary if this order were to be approved without that Bill coming before Parliament in the next Session. The order is justified in its own right.
The point about transferring insurance functions is that the FSA was established last October. It already has banking supervision functions under the Bank of England Act 1998. Putting the prudential regulation of the insurance industry alongside banking regulation is a step in the right direction which can be justified in its own right, even if there were to be no further progress, although, of course, there will be. The noble Lord is right to seek assurances about the rights of staff, particularly their pension rights. I assure him that staff will keep their pension rights, including inflation-linking. The new FSA scheme for future service in the FSA has been certified as being broadly comparable to that of the Civil Service. Both existing and future staff will be treated in the same way and will not lose out. The noble Lord asked why some members of staff are still treated as being DTI employees. It is because they chose to be treated in that way when the functions were transferred from the DTI to the Treasury at the beginning of this year. Presumably there are some advantages in continuity of employment with the same employer. The FSA will have a mixture of new FSA staff, Treasury staff and DTI staff, but none will lose out as a result of that. The noble Lord asked me about salvage functions and the Lutine Bell at Lloyd's. If he looks at the schedule to the order, he will see that the functions are transferred under the Lloyd's Act 1871; the point being that in this order we are transferring all the functions that we can transfer, consistent with the limitations placed on us by the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act under which this order is being made. I assure the noble Lord that we are transferring only the existing prudential regulation. As he knows, the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which has been published in draft—I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments about the value of that publication—includes provision for very much greater control of prudential regulation of Lloyd's, but the provisions in that Bill are not part of this order. There is no increase in the regulation of Lloyd's as a result of this order. Finally, the noble Lord asked about parliamentary accountability. The answer is that there is certainly no reduction whatsoever in accountability to Parliament. Responsibility for the contracted-out functions remains with Treasury Ministers who will remain accountable to Parliament. Both Ministers and senior FSA staff can be called before Parliament, if Parliament so wishes. On that basis, I commend the order to the House.On Question, Motion agreed to.
Meat And Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1998
2.6 p.m.
rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st July be approved [43rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Meat and Livestock Commission was established by the Agriculture Act 1967 with the aim of promoting greater efficiency in the livestock industry. It is an executive non-departmental public body which is funded by means of a levy paid by slaughterers, producers and exporters.
Funds raised from levies make possible the various functions of the MLC. These include the promotion of red meat on television, in the media and at the point of sale. Your Lordships will, for example, be familiar with the highly successful "Recipe for Love" campaign, which was launched by the MLC in 1994 and which has done much to keep red meat as part of a balanced diet and helped to restore the consumption of beef to pre-BSE levels.
But the MLC does not confine itself to beef. It is also concerned with lamb and pigmeat. At the moment the MLC is running a £3 million pigmeat promotion, working with the industry and with retailers. The MLC is also to be commended for innovation to help the industry; for example, it is at the moment developing pork mince. The MLC has also developed new stock products in order to help the catering industry adapt to the beef-on-the-bone ban.
I am pleased to tell your Lordships that we are making progress on the lifting of the beef export ban. Exports of beef from the Northern Ireland Export Certified Herds Scheme have begun. The Commission's date-based export scheme proposal was voted on by the EU Standing Veterinary Committee on 4th November. A simple majority of states, eight in total, supported the proposal. The next step is a decision by the Agriculture Council on 23rd and 24th November. If the Council votes the same way as the 4th November Standing Veterinary Committee, this would result in the adoption of the date-based export scheme.
Once the ban has been lifted, the MLC will continue to work closely with the industry to recover old markets and find new ones. The MLC is already helping the industry to export lamb, and it should be noted that exports of pigmeat are now at record levels. Such achievements would not have been possible without the work of the MLC, much of it in conjunction with Food from Britain.
The order is concerned with increasing the levy maxima, and I will concentrate on that specific topic. I well understand that levies are never popular, particularly with the farming community and when the market is depressed. However, as I mentioned earlier, they are essential for the work of the MLC, which is more important now than it has ever been. The MLC was careful to consult the industry about the increases proposed in this levy order and amended its proposals after the discussions to take account of the industry's views. I am pleased to say that these proposals are now widely supported by the industry organisations.
This new order will not, of course, increase actual levy rates. I stress that these are a matter for the MLC, in consultation with the industry. The order confines itself to increasing certain levy maxima and changing certain MLC levy collection procedures. When the MLC asked the Government for an increase in the maxima so that it could plan for three to four years ahead, we agreed on condition that it gave an undertaking not to seek any increase in the levy paid during the 1998–99 financial year. We also requested that the levy should not be increased after that date without full consultation with the industry. The MLC readily agreed to both stipulations. Indeed, it does not at present intend to increase the rates next year, although it is vital for them to have the flexibility to do so, in consultation with the industry, given the current uncertainties in the meat markets.
Turning to the detail, the maximum charges payable in respect of general and species promotion expenses for cattle will be increased from 219p and 280p per head respectively to 350p per head for both types of levy. The maximum charge payable in respect of general expenses for calves will be increased from 14p to 100p per head and for sheep from 39p to 40p per head. There will be no changes in respect of pigs or in respect of species promotion for sheep. At present the rates paid for the general and the species promotional levies are 205p and 230p per head for cattle, 31p and 32p for sheep, 40p and 60p for pigs, and 14p for general expenses in relation to calves.
The order will also provide for improvements in the levy collection arrangements in four particular ways. First, it will provide a statutory trust which will strengthen the MLC's claim on the producer component of the levies where a levy payer—for example, a slaughterer—goes into liquidation. In the past, producers' money which has been passed to slaughterers explicitly for onward transmission to the MLC has been lost to the liquidator when a company has been wound up. The change in the law will maximise the MLC's income and I know that producers will welcome it. Secondly, the order will permit the contracting-out of levy auditing to professional staff from national accounting firms, which will provide the opportunity for increased efficiency. Thirdly, the order will allow the MLC to recover interest on overdue debts. And, fourthly, the existing arrangement in respect of the collection of levy by auctioneers will be formalised by a change to the law in order to give auctioneers a statutory right to collect the levy.
Finally, I know that there is debate in many parts of the industry about the job that the MLC does now and what it should do in the future. However, these more strategic issues are most appropriately addressed in the quinquennial review. In the meantime, the MLC must carry out its obligations under the 1967 Act. The implementation of this order will allow it to do so in an efficient and effective manner. I ask your Lordships to support the Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st July be approved [ 43rd Report from the Joint Committee].—( Lord Hoyle.)
2.15 p.m.
My Lords, I welcome the making of the order and will not delay the House for long. I am grateful to the Minister for putting on the record an explanation of the work carried out by the Meat and Livestock Commission and for giving details of the history behind the preparation of this order. The noble Lord was right to say that nearly all farmers have some concerns and complaints about the levy. It is, after all, only human nature to resist levies of all kinds. Some dislike it intensely, and practically all will think that, if the budget of the Meat and Livestock Commission were handed over to them, they could do a better job of advertising their lamb, pig or meat products. The Minister is right to recognise that some of the projected rises in the levy are steep but, provided that they are not brought into force immediately and such a maximum lasts for only a few years, then that is acceptable.
The Minister is absolutely right to acknowledge that the industry faces a dire crisis. Some farmers do not even receive 40p per head for the sheep that they bring to market yet could then face a levy of 40p for each sheep sold. That is a sore point at our auction markets and a sign of the crisis facing the industry. In the past two weeks I have attended the Meat and Livestock Commission annual awards ceremony and the Meat and Livestock Commission Pigmeat Breakfast. At each event I heard at first hand from those who are struggling to continue their businesses in the crisis. They are responding, as they would, in every positive and competitive way possible, but still find that their profits, if they have any, are disappearing fast and that their overdrafts are rising relentlessly. I should be grateful if the Minister could respond to two questions on this issue which I hope do not stray too far beyond the boundaries of this short discussion. In the spirit of co-operation on this matter, I have given the Minister advance notice of those questions. Can he say whether the Government have responded to the statement made to them on 13th October by the National Beef Association; and, if so, what that response has been? The National Beef Association called for an increase in the levy paid by meat processors and the introduction of a levy on retailers. Robert Robinson, the MBA chairman, said that the money should fund production oriented projects geared towards helping beef farmers. Can the Minister also say whether the report on the Farmers Weekly Internet site of 6th November is accurate with regard to the statement that MLC staff have embarked on a three-month tour of Britain to offer advice to farmers on surviving the livestock industry crisis and to outline the work being done by the commission to ease the problems? If that is indeed the case, it would be a most welcome initiative. We on these Benches acknowledge the excellent work done by the Meat and Livestock Commission. Although, as I have said, farmers do not like paying compulsory levies and will always demand more say in the industry and more control over it, the Meat and Livestock Commission is their organisation and it is up to them to control it and run it as they wish. We are firmly convinced that if the MLC were not trying to promote British pigmeat, British lamb and British beef, our farming and livestock industry would be in even worse straits today. I will close by observing, however, that the Minister should not be in any doubt that the work done by the MLC to alleviate the crisis will be as naught unless the Government play their own part effectively. I support the making of the order.2.20 p.m.
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for welcoming the order. I agree with the noble Lord, and we recognise, that livestock producers are having an extremely difficult time. A number of factors have converged to give rise to the difficulties currently being faced by the livestock sector. The Minister is to make a Statement next week on the agriculture industry. We are paying attention to the matter.
These difficulties make even more important the part played by the MLC in promoting British beef. As I am sure the noble Lord will agree, never has there been a greater need to bring to the attention of consumers the excellence and quality of our home-produced meat. The measures contained within the order will enable the MLC to continue its sterling work. I now turn to the questions put to me by the noble Lord. I thank him for giving prior notice of them. He asked first about the possibility of extending the levy as proposed by the National Beef Association. I understand that the association has provided a written submission to the Five Yearly Policy Review of the MLC. The submission includes its ideas in respect of the levy. These will be considered fully in the course of the review. Ministers expect to see the report in 1999. Therefore I assure the noble Lord that those matters are being taken into account. As to helping the livestock industry through the present crisis, the MLC has produced a package aimed at beef farmers called Making Money Out of Beef, and one for pig farmers called Weathering the Storm. All commercial scale beef farmers and pig producers will have received a copy of the relevant package. In their regular meetings with levy payers around the country, MLC commissioners and staff offer a presentation to producers on what can be done to assist them. So steps are already being taken. Finally, I agree with the noble Lord that it would be a disaster if the maxima were introduced immediately on the levy. It is intended to phase them in gradually over four or five years. I stress that that will be done in conjunction with the industry itself. I submit that the measures before the House are necessary. They have been broadly welcomed by the industry. I commend the order to the House.On Question, Motion agreed to.
Social Security And Women's Role
2.22 p.m.
rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are the implications for social security of the changing role of women in society.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, while I feel inadequate to say this as a new Member of this House, I should like to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, to her first debate at the Dispatch Box.
The Labour Government have been celebrating 50 years of the welfare state—celebrating the past, but looking to the future. In the past few weeks we have listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, setting out the next phase of the Government's plans to reform the welfare state, based, as she has said,
"On that central objective to provide work for those who can and security for those who cannot".
We have seen the launch of the consultation paper, Supporting Families. It is the first time that any government have published such a paper on the family. Only the other day, the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, as Minister for Women launched the document, Delivering for Women, with its clear emphasis on women's income and employment and on family friendly employment policies.
These are heady days, when the rather creaking structures of 50 years of the welfare state are meeting the commitment of a Government determined to ensure that modern welfare provision responds to modern women's lives and is not based on the assumptions of the lives that women lived in the 1930s and 1940s. We have to get the massive job of welfare reform right—and "right" means in the interests first and foremost of the recipients of welfare provision.
In very many ways, women's lives have changed out of all recognition in the past 50 years. It is to bring oneself up with a jolt to re-visit the famous Beveridge Report, as I did the other afternoon in the Lords' Library, and see how women were viewed in terms of social security provision half a century ago. Beveridge, when discussing the special insurance status of married women, writes:
"Most married women have worked at some gainful occupation before marriage. Most who have done so, give up that occupation on marriage or soon after".
He goes on to record:
"On marriage a woman gains a legal right to maintenance by her husband as a first line of defence against risks which fall directly on the solitary woman; she undertakes at the same time to perform vital unpaid service … At the last census in 1931, more than 7 out of 8 of all housewives made marriage their sole occupation. It is undeniable that the needs of housewives in general are less than those of single women when unemployed or disabled, because their house is provided either by their husband's earnings or by his benefit".
Finally, before leaving Beveridge, a ringing call to arms to the women of 1940s Britain. He states on page 53 of the report:
"In the next thirty years, housewives as mothers have vital work to do in ensuring the adequate continuance of the British race and of British ideals in the world".
Just a small task to do, no doubt, before getting the tea on the table!
So, today, 50 years on, how is welfare responding to the needs and aspirations of women—young, old, from the ethnic minorities, disabled, middle-aged? The changing role of women in society is evident in the huge rise in women in employment. In Britain, most of the new jobs in the past 10 years and the next 10 years will be taken by women. Women now account for more than 40 per cent. of the European Union's labour force.
In this country, women's activity rates generally increased from the early 1970s to reach 72 per cent. by spring 1997, while men's working activity rates in the labour market slowed and decreased in the 1980s and 1990s to 85 per cent. in 1997. By the year 2000, it is estimated that in Sweden, for example, the percentage of active working women will overtake that of men in the 24-to-54 years age group.
But before noble Lords throw their hats in the air—if we had hats—and shout, "Hooray for women's progress towards economic independence", or ask, "Why are we debating this if women are doing so well in the labour market?", let us come back to bumpy reality. Yes, many more women are active in the labour market, but, no, the gender pay gap has not been resolved. Among full-time employees, women's hourly earnings are still only 80 per cent. of those of men. In each occupational group, earnings are lower for women than for men. Women tend on average to earn 73 per cent. of men's weekly average earnings. And age is a factor in the pay gap, because for those who are at the start of their working lives the differential between men's and women's hourly earnings is a small one but this gap widens markedly at older ages. For example, men aged between 50 and 59 years in full-time non-manual occupations earn on average almost £5.30 an hour more than women in the same category.
So for many women, while work outside the home is a major and growing factor in their lives, the low pay, part-time intermittent nature of their work still means that pension prospects are far from rosy. While the introduction of a national minimum wage will take at least 1½ million women out of poverty wages and is to be commended, I ask my noble friend Lady Amos to say what can be achieved through the social security system to tackle the real problem of low paid women being less likely to qualify for contributory benefits.
I also ask the noble Baroness who is to respond to the debate what principles of the Government's welfare reform can be drawn upon to ensure that there will no be generations of older women living in poverty in the 21st century. We know that actuarily and statistically women are more likely than men to face a longer, poorer old age. Affordable and good quality childcare becomes pivotal to women's access to employment. Working mothers still bear the primary responsibility for the care of their children.
The Government's emphasis on family-friendly employment policies is to be welcomed, and I hope that it will result in men as fathers being able to share with their, partners the demands of work and home, a task in which I am sure many men are eager to see equity. However, it is still essential that childcare is made the centrepiece of any modern social security system and responds to the needs of women as mothers and carers.
By 1996 as many as 67 per cent. of women returned to work after having children. That is why the new working families tax credit, with childcare tax credit within it, will offer those in work far greater help with the costs of childcare. As someone who in another place fought for 15 years for British women's access to better childcare facilities, I am proud that my Government are putting childcare at the centre of their policies and second Budget. There needs to be closer monitoring of the progress of working families tax credit, in particular the way in which one-earner couples will be able to choose how to receive payment; namely, via the pay packet or in the form of cash directly to the caring parent. We must ensure that there is no untoward fiscal transfer from purse to wallet.
Another development in the way we live now as opposed to the time when Sir William Beveridge wrote his report is the significant increase in divorce. Nine out of 10 lone parents are women. In 1996 lone parents headed about 21 per cent. of all families with dependent children in Britain—nearly three times as many as in 1971. Britain has the highest number of lone parents in the European Union. The Government's New Deal for lone parents is a welcome breakthrough in the recurring dependency cycles in which lone parents have found themselves. For those women who wish to work a path of advice, training and help to find a job is being custom-built through the New Deal for lone parents.
Given the present high levels of divorce in Britain today, the draft legislation that is being prepared by the Government on pension-sharing is to be welcomed. It will give many divorcing women the right to obtain a share of the pension rights that have accrued to their husbands. We live in a society where demographic change means that an increasing proportion of the population is over 60 years of age. As we get older we become dependent on carers, the majority of whom are women. I ask the Government to share with us their thoughts on what can be done to assist women carers who do valuable unwaged work to ensure that they do not find themselves badly penalised financially in the process.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, will know—we worked together in many of these areas—I spent five years chairing the European Parliament's Women's Right's Committee during the time when the former government attempted to block many proposals such as the maternity leave directive, the childcare recommendation and the parental leave directive. Is it not regrettable that that has happened? How will the Government use their new, positive relationship with Europe to assist British women's changing needs.
Finally, 50 years on from Beveridge many women in Britain are more confident, more educated, more economically independent than ever before. At the same time many women in Britain still suffer from low pay, loneliness in their child-rearing, low self-esteem as teenagers and a beckoning old-age of poverty. A new, reformed welfare state has a job to do for the next 50 years.
2.35 p.m.
My Lords, I warmly welcome the debate. We have great expertise on social security in this House, not least from the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who is not present. I refer also to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and my noble friend Lord Russell. They are recognised as foremost experts in social security. The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, may not be an expert on social security, but I am sure she knows a great deal on the subject from her former work with the Equal Opportunities Commission. I do not have such knowledge, but that does not stop me from venturing into the debate. I learnt quite a lot from working with colleagues, including the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on the Social Security Bill, especially from the successful attempt to delete the backdating clause.
The changing role of women is already here. Unfortunately, the system has not caught up. But assumptions still run through our social security system which are a century old. To bring those assumptions up to date is long overdue. However, this Government's approach is not up to date. That is in part because there is a mistaken back-to-basics patriarchal echo in government policy and in part because poverty is not high enough on the agenda. I turn to recent initiatives. The childcare element of the working families tax credit is a welcome initiative, and a good aspect of government policy. Another aspect is minimum pay. I wish that the figure could be varied regionally. I say that not least as a Londoner; London costs are higher. None the less, I have long supported the move for minimum pay. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, pointed out, the Government have not addressed the problem of the purse-to-wallet transfer as regards the working families tax credit. The Government's concept is that the working families tax credit is a work incentive to be paid through the pay packet. I regret that Ministers for women define themselves as not being feminist. To my mind being feminist is not about hating men but about promoting equality in power relations and in allowing choice. An understanding of the dynamics of power in relationships might have led the Government to a different conclusion. Recent research by the Policy Studies Institute demonstrates that women are more likely to spend income they receive on the family directly while men use some of their income as personal spending money. The same research shows that men as well as women are opposed to having a credit to top up income paid through the pay packet but would prefer it to be paid directly to the person who has the most direct responsibility for caring. I am concerned about the loss of independence. I hear reassurances that there is not loss of independence for women through the tax credit proposal, but I have not understood why. The justification given for the amalgamation of income and the working families tax credit is that it comes from the benefits rather than the tax stable. I fear that that incorporates a rather deplorable assumption that for poor women who are coming out of the benefits stable it is all right to amalgamate income and lose privacy, which middle-class professional women would not tolerate because of the loss of independence in the tax system. I do not like what that assumption seems to imply. Another problem which the Government have got themselves into is the emphasis on work as the only way in which people can acquire dignity. The single gateway, which makes an interview a pre-condition to benefit entitlement with limited exceptions, does not answer the question of what happens if a parent fails to attend an interview. Will single parents lose their entitlement to benefit if they decline to attend an interview? The problem about that seems to be that it undermines the legitimate choice of a parent, often but not invariably the woman, to stay at home and care for young children. I have always understood feminism to incorporate choice. The abolition of the lone parent premium struck at the position of the usually female non-working lone parent. It seems curious that when the Government are launching their policies to support the family, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, referred, they are attacking the parents who wish to promote family values by not allowing their children to become latch-key kids. Benefit cuts, which are in the air, are in my opinion a direct assault on the most vulnerable people in our society, usually women. Thinking again of the lone parent premium and its abolition and knowing, as we do, that nine out of 10 lone parents are women, I see no reason to revise the judgment that I made at the time of the Social Security Bill that the well-paid and sleek red braces at the Treasury or at the No. 10 policy unit are putting through the most severe single attack on women's standard of living that I can recall. Over 0.25 million parents—95 per cent. women—were affected by the cuts in the lone parent premium and over half the population of lone parents live in poverty. It would cost only £22 million, a very small amount compared with the total social security budget, over the next three years to exempt lone parents with children under five from the cuts in child benefit for lone parents. It would still cost only £225 million over the same period to restore the situation as regards the other lone parent benefits. I ask the Government to think again about that. We are concerned also about the hints of cuts in disability benefits which are bound to affect women disproportionately. Plans to restrict the severe disablement allowance to those whose disability occurred before they were 20 will affect women disproportionately as they form two-thirds of SDA claimants. Also, if incapacity benefit is to be available only to those who have paid at least one year's contributions in the past two years, those without a contribution record will be at a disadvantage. Our understanding is that there will be no contribution credits. The issue of child support has been addressed recently. We, the Liberal Democrats, would apply a maintenance disregard to ensure that a minimum level of the maintenance paid went to the child and was not deducted automatically from social security payments. Thus, it would be the child, not the Treasury, who benefited from the proper enforcement of the responsibility of the parent, usually the father. Surely that is a proper reflection of family values rather than the Treasury pocketing the money. The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, referred to the national insurance system and the way in which so many women, because of the contributory principle and the failure to accommodate flexible working patterns, fall outside the social protection of the national insurance system. Many low-paid employees—and most of those are women—are being denied a range of social security benefits: 2.5 million women as well as 600,000 men have weekly earnings below £64 so that they cannot claim contributory benefits or pensions. In addition, many women have fluctuating earnings during the tax year so that they may pay a number of contributions but not enough to qualify for benefit or pension entitlement. Those contributions are not even returnable. In effect therefore those low income women are subsidising the rest of the workforce, including highly paid men whose contributions are capped. Can that be fair? Could not the Government consider the EOC proposal for a cumulative system, as for income tax, or allowing partial contributions to be carried forward for future years? Surely the Government have a duty to address fundamental questions on national insurance if there is to be increased flexibility in the workplace as the Government want, whether it is job mobility or more temporary and part-time employment. Pensioner poverty was referred to. The Government are still not addressing that issue squarely. The problem of the missing million income support claimants—70 per cent. of whom are women who do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled—is a real one. As the Minister will be aware, the Liberal Democrats believe it should be addressed by increasing the age addition by £3 a week for the over 75s and £5 per week for the over 80s. That would go a considerable way to addressing the problem of pensioner poverty. We cannot comfort ourselves by saying it is a limited problem of current pensioners; it is also a problem we are storing up for the future. I should like to say a word about carers. Sixty per cent. of carers are women and only a tiny proportion—0.5 per cent.—of the social security budget is spent on carers. Many do not qualify for ICA, but of those who do three out of four are women. Our proposals to abolish the contributory requirement for the basic state pension would benefit carers in particular. In conclusion, we on this side support some of the work with which the Government are coming forward, like the child care tax credit. But we believe that the fundamental problem has not been addressed; that is, that the Government are not addressing poverty as a top priority and they have a rather odd view of women's place in society.2.46 p.m.
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on social security and the changing role of women. I too welcome my noble friend Lady Amos to her first debate.
The Government are right to re-examine the welfare state and to attempt to reform social security. There have been vast changes in the 50 years since Beveridge and they have been dealt with already to some degree by my noble friend Lady Crawley. Fifty years ago few women who married continued to work outside the home and divorces were far fewer. To have a child outside wedlock was widely regarded as a calamity and those who did were often treated with callous cruelty. Public perceptions have changed enormously, largely due to the work of previous generations of women and the introduction of equality legislation over 20 years ago. The Equal Opportunities Commission, of which I was once a member, has done a good job in ensuring that women have been able to enforce the rights given to them by legislation. The Government are right when they say that the social security system has not kept pace with those changes. It is believed that welfare help is not reaching those most in need of it. There are overlapping benefits. People, particularly the elderly, are not always aware of what may be claimed, and there is confusion as to what is available. Against that background, much of what the Government are proposing seems very much in the right direction. The intention is to put children at the heart of social security provision, so child benefit is to be increased. I am sure we all welcome that. Affordable and good quality child care has been promised. The working families tax credit will benefit working families. Those who can work will be assisted to find it and, through the Single Gateway, the intention is to help people through a first interview when benefits are claimed. We have been presented with three papers for discussion, including one on rights for the disabled. Those are to include a disability rights commission, which many of us sought at the time of the introduction of the last legislation on disability, but failed to get. With the minimum income guarantee, they are all moves in the right direction. Why, then, do I have doubts about some aspects of the package, doubts which I advance rather tentatively because, in general, I support what the Government are doing? My concerns centre mostly around the welfare-to-work concept. I am glad that it has been stated that the decision by a lone mother, for example, to take a job will be a voluntary one. Nevertheless, it is clear from the emphasis in the documentation that working is to be a preferred option. So pressure may build up for women with young children to "volunteer" for work. That may be fine for skilled, professional women with good jobs to go to, but it is less of a real option for poorer women, who are in the vast majority. After 20 years of equality legislation, women's weekly earnings, as we have heard, are still around 72 per cent. of men's—that is according to the latest EOC figures. This is because we still have the phenomenon of women's employment; namely, low status, low paid, although not always low skilled. Even with the minimum wage, which I welcome, it is still likely to be low paid. I question whether a woman—a lone parent—with a child or children is best employed stacking shelves in the local supermarket and having someone paid to look after her children when she may well be better off only to the extent of a few pounds a week. She has the inevitable expense of actually going to work. I have in mind fares, food, clothing and so on. Moreover, perhaps she worries about her children being in someone else's care. In the meantime, of course, she also has to shop and keep house for her small family. I understand that in a recent pilot scheme a majority of the women did not think that the kind of jobs available to them made this worth while. Incidentally, the few who did were those who had access to professional work. It seems to me that, when we rejig the system we must be careful not to imagine that things have changed more than they actually have. The EOC's recent report makes it clear that we still have quite a way to go. Another aspect of the proposed reforms to which I should like to refer is the issue of widows. I should declare an interest here, in that I am a trustee of the Widows Advisory Trust. At present, benefits are available to widows on the death of a husband, but they vary according to age. The full benefit is paid only to widows over the age of 55 when the husband dies. Between the ages of 45 and 55 the benefit is graded according to age. A widowed mother can also get a widowed mother's allowance. The benefits are contributory and based on the husband's contribution record. It is now being suggested that, while benefits presently being paid will be continued, they should not continue in their present form in the future. The issue has been highlighted by the fact of a reference to the European Court of Justice (the ECJ) by a widower claiming that it is unfair that these benefits are not available to widowers. However, to pay widowers' benefits on the same basis as for widows would, we are informed, be too expensive so benefits should perhaps be removed from widows in future and they should be encouraged into work. Apparently there is a belief that widows are no longer poor and that the system is unfair to unmarried partners. But, again, I believe that we are perhaps making policy on the basis of assumptions about changes which have not been as far reaching as many suppose. It is true that the better-off anyway tend to take care of themselves through life insurance and occupational pension schemes. But not all occupational schemes pay very substantial pensions, and the reduced amount awarded to a widow is often not enough by itself to keep her out of poverty. Moreover, a woman who has spent much of her life looking after a family and housekeeping for them is not likely to find a job outside the home all that easily. After all, these are contributory benefits. I think that there will be resistance to removing them simply because other claimants, including widowers, are being regarded as having an equal entitlement. Although things are changing, the majority of women still get married and there are many who simply cannot afford to make private provision. Indeed, if jobs are available—and it is a big "if"—they will not be very well paid. Far fewer women than men, even now, are in private pension or occupational pension schemes. I well remember when several years ago I was a member of one of your Lordships' committees on Europe dealing with the whole issue of pensions. At that time we had to consider a draft proposition from Europe to the effect that in future there should not be dependency benefits and pension schemes but that every adult should have his or her own independent pension provision and that the dependency provision should apply only to children. We gave the proposal some consideration—we thought that it was not a bad idea—but, when we looked at it in connection with British circumstances, we reached the conclusion that it would probably take 30 years before we could work through to such a situation. In those circumstances, we decided that we could not consider it seriously. The underlying philosophy of the new social security package has a great deal to be said for it. For most people, the way out of poverty is through work. But the work has to be available, as do family support services, and the pay must be worth while for people—women in particular—to be willing to take it up. I thank your Lordships for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It has been most interesting and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to some of the issues that have been raised.2.55 p.m.
My Lords, I thought that today I would share with your Lordships my happiness. I am happy that I have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and am able to participate in this important debate. I am happy that my noble friend Lady Amos will reply to this important debate. I am happy that I do not have the wondrous, if not awesome, command of statistics of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. But I am happy most of all because today is Ellen Rose's third birthday. She has opinions on everything. She has opinions on which way round the cereal box should be; what colour tights she should wear; which door she should go out through; and which colour socks she should have. Most importantly, she has opinions about her nursery. She loves it. It is called Bright Start and every day she wants a bright start.
When I was three my mother had to take me to work. She was the last live-in housekeeper in my village and being a single parent she had little choice. She had no nursery to turn to; no child benefit; no lone parent benefit; no income support; and no tax benefit. However, she did have supportive friends and she lived in a village community which, though moral, was very supportive. She would have given much for access to childcare. She could have done with the secure base of income support. The 1950s were not generous times for women workers. During the past 40 years much has changed. Family break up has increased; women now make up 44 per cent. of the labour force; more families depend on women as the major earner; 43 per cent. of women of working age have children; and 21 per cent. of women of working age are single parents. The result is that women live in more challenging and demanding times and lead more challenging and demanding lives. Perhaps they lead more stressful but ultimately more fulfilling lives. They perform better than men in education. They now compete harder for jobs, especially among the professions such as law, banking and accountancy. But because of the pressures of parenting, work and caring, they need more effective, better-targeted and more appropriate support to cope with the exacting demands which life brings to us all. So what should a social security system for the future, for the millennium, offer to enable, help and support women at work, at home and in their communities? First, it should be more flexible. It should help more women to move more easily between education, training, work and parenting. Secondly, it should enable choice: choice in education and training; choice in jobs; choice in childcare provision; and choice in career aspirations. Thirdly, it should provide greater freedom from poverty and fear of poverty; from discrimination; and from frustration and waste of life opportunities. Finally, it should provide for uncapped opportunities for personal fulfilment and development; for a life with meaning and purpose. For that reason I welcome the Government's commitment to give women a better deal. The publication this week of that document is a major boost for women. My mother could have done with all of that. My two daughters, like their mother, demand it! Measures such as the working time, part-time and parental leave directives will make a significant and lasting difference to their lives, as will the child benefit uplift next year, the national childcare and early years strategies, the New Deal for lone parents, the childcare tax credit and the working families' tax credit. Much more is promised for women: for example, for women pensioners who are often the poorest pensioners in our communities, for women's healthcare, for women at work and for women in public life and in politics. My mother worked hard. During her working life she was many things. She was a chemist, a florist and she worked in the Land Army. She worked in the national fire service as a fire-fighter. She was a farmworker, a housekeeper, a chef, a cook, and a bookkeeper. She did all of those jobs over 60 years of hard work. She was an intelligent and sensitive woman, public spirited and multi-talented, like millions of other multi-talented women. Like them she never had the chance to progress or to get on in the world of work. Her world was handicapped by circumstance, prejudice and the simple lack of opportunity. Ellen Rose at three has greater opportunities and greater expectations. Let us use our Government's programme and make sure that the social security system of the future helps rather than handicaps, as it did in the past, and provides rather than prevents, so that Ellen Rose and millions like her can use their talents and fulfil their potential, not just for her gain but for the benefit of us all.3.1 p.m.
My Lords, I intend to speak briefly, not least because I am mindful that this debate takes place on a Friday afternoon and my children will come out of school in half an hour and I have not seen them after school so far this week.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Crawley on initiating this debate. It is important for a number of reasons. In the midst of the practical business of making government work, it is always useful to reflect upon some of the bigger reasons and philosophy which lie behind the policies and actions that the Government pursue. One of these surely must be the implications of the changing role of women in society. More women enter the labour market every year. More women choose to mix being mothers with the world of work. The majority of us actually have little choice in taking part in the world of work and being mothers. For example, in 1979 only 24 per cent. of women returned to work after having children. As my noble friend said, this had increased to around 67 per cent. in 1996. I wish to consider briefly how the system needs to support women in their dual role of mothers and workers. The two aspects which I want to highlight I think illustrate the importance of working across government departments and, if you like, of the joined up thinking which needs to be brought to bear on resolving problems. Many people, and particularly women, who want to work and who live on benefits or are able to command only low wages are discouraged from pursuing work because of the difficulties of finding adequate childcare and the problem of affording it if they can find it. This lack is a real barrier to work. We know all too well the economic and social price which society pays for children brought up in poverty, for families who are unable to provide adequately and for women who are frustrated and depressed by the seemingly insurmountable problems of going out to work. I applaud the Government's approach, which recognises that the investment in providing financial support for childcare through the childcare tax credit part of working families' tax credit and through other mechanisms is worth while because it will help those families who are most in need of paid employment. However, all the financial packages and incentives to help women obtain work will come to naught if the childcare provision does not exist. That is why my second point is that the commitment to a national childcare strategy is of equal importance. It is a truism that, "You only get one shot at your children's childhood", and all parents want to do the best that they can. As a working mother I can testify to the fact that if one's children are not well cared for in a secure environment it is impossible to give of the best to one's working life. For many women, worries about their children's well-being has led to them giving up the struggle to go out to work despite the economic hardship which that decision may visit upon their family, thus depriving the children of the benefits that a working parent brings and also depriving businesses of the skilled and talented people who are unable to take up work. Many of us who have been involved in childcare campaigns for very many years have always believed that access to decent and affordable childcare is the cornerstone upon which women's effective participation in the labour market must be based. That applies to all women, whether they are high fliers or the low paid. That means that a range of childcare provision needs to be available: formal and informal, nurseries and nursery schools, after-school play centres and school holiday care, and youth centres for secondary school children. It also means ensuring quality in our childcare, which is often uneven. That, I feel, must be a priority. The social security system must take account of, and be sympathetic to, the childcare needs of women who wish to work. I welcome the initiatives which are being taken. The actions of the Government so far have demonstrated their commitment to support women in the labour market and to help parents to get back to work. I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate and I join others in welcoming my noble friend to her first appearance at the Dispatch Box. I look forward to hearing from her about the Government's progress.3.6 p.m.
My Lords, I too should like to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, to her first debate. I have listened in rapid succession to her first Question and her first Statement. I hope to listen in a moment to her first reply to a debate. She has been so obviously "to the manor born" that many of us have quite forgotten that she was doing it for the first time. I shall try to remember, but she makes it rather difficult.
I warmly thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for introducing this very necessary debate in what I found to be an excellent and extremely enjoyable speech. I agree with very nearly all of it. The quotations from Beveridge were illuminating. They make me think that, although an immense change has taken place in this area in my lifetime, nevertheless we are probably about half-way through one of the greatest changes in the social history of the West in the past 2,000 years. That change may be expected, before we are through, to take overall about 300 years. We will shorten that if we can, but we have to get on with it. I have been thinking of two travellers setting out to drive from London to Lancashire and Yorkshire respectively. For the first 100 or so miles of the journey they drive along the same road. But I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, who has just this moment left his place, would be the first to agree that the ultimate destinations are very different indeed. That image seems to describe quite well the relations between our two parties when we discuss many matters, not least social security. There are large and significant areas of agreement. We agree on a fundamental commitment to equality, demonstrated, among many other places, in the right and opportunity to work. We agree with what has been said, most notably by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about good and affordable childcare. We agree on family-friendly employment policies. We agree also on how vital it is that those policies should also give equal opportunities to men who need to take time off work for the purposes of childcare. I say that as one who has done so on many occasions—and I am very glad that I have. We agree in welcoming warmly the parental leave directive and the working hours directive, although by the time that it had been through the Department of Employment under the last government it had become known as the "Gruyére cheese" because it was so full of holes. One or two of those might be blocked up. We agree also in our warm commitment to the minimum wage. There are one or two points of detail between us. It could have been a bit more generous to younger people, but on all these matters, I think that we agree pretty thoroughly on the principle. We agree also in recognising some of the unsolved problems. I have listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, speaking on the Jobseekers Act, deal with the problems of, on the one hand, assessing in terms of household income, which creates poverty traps, and, on the other hand, assessing in terms of individual income, which means paying benefits to Mrs. Cedric Brown. Neither of those is satisfactory—and neither we nor the noble Baroness yet see any solution to those problems. However, we agree at least in recognising them and in many of the assumptions that we bring to try to tackle them. At the same time, we are two different parties with two different underlying philosophies—and there are a considerable number of differences in assumptions which show up clearly in social security policy as a whole and in relation to issues concerning women in particular. My honourable friend, Mr. Rendel, in a press release which is now just over four hours old, remarked that social security policy emerged as the area with the most glaring gap between our party and Labour. As my honourable friend stressed in a recent article in the Independent, we are now the party with the greatest commitment to doing something about poverty. We are, for example, considerably concerned about benefit levels which have led in many cases to malnutrition. We are aware of the cost of trying to do anything about that, but we should like to think that the Government may be in a position to commit themselves to saying that, as the number of people on benefit decreases, if it does, some of the savings could be ploughed back into addressing the question of benefit levels. As my noble friend Lady Ludford said so well, we are concerned about single parents. That has left a scar which will not easily heal. We also look at the question of equality first and foremost in terms of the issue of inequalities of power. Poverty creates inequalities of power. That is seen in the abuse of flexible employment, with employers changing contracts of employment to shorter hours, different working conditions, and hours that are not convenient for families, to which the latest citizens advice bureau social policy bulletin has yet again called attention. One sees it also in the continuing scandal of the illegal dismissal of women because they are pregnant. I have pressed the Government before—I press them again—to do something to ensure that that law actually bites and, in particular, to investigate whether the penalties are large enough to constitute a sufficient deterrent. We are also deeply concerned about choice in relation to all those with childcare needs who face the question of whether to go to work or to stay at home with the child. If one partner goes to work and the other does not, there is also the question of which sex will go to work. Choice matters vitally. The man should be able to elect to be the family childcarer without falling foul of the penalties of voluntary unemployment. We also strongly recognise the vital importance of the work done by carers. I do not want to mislead anyone. Many Ministers in this Government are quite as committed to freedom of choice on this as we are—and I honour them—but as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, phrased it so well, it is clear in government policy that work is the preferred option. We think that that is extending the power of the state into areas which are really not its business. It falls foul of the principle of subsidiarity. We will bend over backwards to help those who want to work, but to help them to do what they want, not what we want. We are concerned about the Government's attitude to spending. Once again, I draw attention to the report of the Treasury Select Committee of 27th July, which said about government spending plans all that the Liberal Democrat Treasury team has already said. It is rather less generous than the spending policy of the Major government. I draw attention to the specific area of domestic violence, which is a concern of mine. The section in the White Paper about that is, on the whole, encouraging. But there is absolutely nothing specific about building more women's refuges, starting them and providing care for children within them. That needs money—and that money must be spent. It would be an economy in the long run. There is nothing either about attention to rules, such as the ineligible services charge in housing benefit, or the change to which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, called attention last week about short-stay people not getting housing benefit for less than a week. These things are very inimical to the management of women's refuges. I would like to think that the Government are paying attention to them. We are also very much concerned about compulsion. We committed ourselves in our manifesto at the last election to helping people to get back into work without compulsion. Once again, I draw attention to the actively seeking work rules and the woman who left a late-night job at a wine bar because she had been assaulted many times in the job. She should not have been found guilty of voluntary unemployment and disentitled to benefit before appeal. We say the same things about CSA benefit penalty. We on these Benches fought that from the very beginning. We are also utterly committed to individuality. This shows up most clearly in our defined approaches to the CSA. Many things in this Government's approach to changing the CSA are good, but they still believe that they can treat people generally, by the application of a formula which is applied to everybody without regard to individual circumstances. We believe that that is treating people as if they were plasticine, and we do not agree with it.3.19 p.m.
My Lords, I follow the noble Earl in two important respects. First, I join him in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, to the Front Bench for her first speech. I have only heard her previously intervene from the Front Bench when acting in the role of a Whip and urging noble Lords to make short speeches. In many respects, no one could be better qualified to reply to this debate than the noble Baroness. She was chief executive of the Equal Opportunities Commission for some years and a council member of the Institute for Employment Studies. Both positions are extremely relevant to this debate. I join enthusiastically with those who welcome her.
Secondly, I join the noble Earl in saying how grateful we are to the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for initiating this debate. It is only a short time after her maiden speech—barely a month—in which she spoke about the European Central Bank. I would be happier speaking about the European Central Bank since that does not have the politically correct or incorrect pitfalls that this particular debate has as far as I am concerned. The noble Baroness raised a number of important points, not least with regard to what she described as the gender pay-gap, which is certainly a very relevant consideration. In addition to the two points that the noble Earl made, perhaps I may make one concerning him. Mr. Matthew Pan-is devoted his whole article today to him, and we are pleased to see that the noble Earl is still in his place on the Front Bench. If it were not so, it would significantly reduce the power of this House to scrutinise the Government on social security matters. Indeed, it would substantially do so. I am very glad to hear his contribution today. I have only one qualification about the noble Baroness's question. I am not sure that we should not have added at the end "or vice versa". She is asking what are the implications for social security of the changing role of women in society. I am not sure that we should not look at that the other way round. Clearly, social security policy also has a substantial set of implications for the role of women. It cuts both ways in one important respect, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, with regard to the position of lone parents. It is a slightly strange situation when the pressure of government policy seems to be to encourage lone parents to take work and then find other people to look after their children while they are doing so. This rather circular arrangement is not necessarily an efficient one, as opposed to the people who are otherwise engaged staying with their children and looking after them while the people who look after the children as carers go directly into work. The crucial point was made by the noble Earl and I do not think there will be any disagreement on this. It must be a question of whether the lone parent wishes to work. There is considerable concern about the single gateway proposals, where the implication is that there will be a degree of compulsion. As was pointed out in the debate the other day, the Single Parent Action Network is opposed to those who say, "You must go along for an interview" because it implies "or else". This is a very difficult area. The figures show that between 1971 and 1996 there was an increase from about 7.5 per cent. to more than 22.5 per cent. in families headed by lone parents as a percentage of all families with dependent children. That is a very significant change indeed and I think that the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, ought to be borne in mind by the Government. I turn to the question of the working families tax credit. When I made my maiden speech less than a year ago I said that if the Government had sensible proposals to put forward we would welcome them but if we thought that they were deficient we would certainly criticise them. It has become a tendency of the present government, particularly of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to say, "Today, I can announce such and such" when it has already been done two or three times before. Therefore, with some trepidation, I announce what my honourable friend Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith announced last week. After most careful thought we believe that there is a great deal to be said for a family credit as against the working families tax credit. There is a series of reasons why the working family tax credit causes problems. First, against the background of the Government being committed to cutting the social security bill in order to spend more on education and health, is the increase of no less than £1.5 billion for the working family tax credit as against the families credit. Secondly, there is the tendency for it to increase dependency, not to decrease it, even up to the level of people earning £38,000 a year. That is a quite extraordinary situation for the Government to create. Thirdly, there is a bias in it against the single earning married family which causes various problems. Fourthly, it incurs a number of costs for business which, when the situation in the economy is perhaps not very strong, are a problem. Fifthly, the stigma of applying for working families tax credit is greater than that so far as family credit is concerned. And as Mr. Frank Field has pointed out, the risks of fraud in relation to working families tax credit, given the relationship with employers and so on, is a serious one. I very much hope, and it is relevant to this debate, that the Government will consider whether this is a sensible proposal compared with the existing situation in regard to family credit. It is vastly more complex than the existing system. I turn now to the question of demography. In her opening remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, referred to Beveridge. I find myself statistically deficient. So far as concerns the life expectancy of men and women, the normal document that one relies on gives the figures for 1901 and those for 1971 but does not provide figures for the situation at the time of Beveridge. At all events, it has changed dramatically. In 1901, the rather precise figures given for men's life expectancy was 45.3 years and the figure for women was 49.2. By 1996—the last figures that are available—life expectancy for men was 74.6 and for women 79.7. It is a dramatic increase. Even at the time of Beveridge the average expectancy for what women would receive by way of pension or how long they would live to collect a pension was considerable. We are presently waiting for the Government's proposals on pensions. We do not yet know what those will be and whether, in the light of today's debate, there will be any proposal for a stakeholder pension, and if it will apply to women as well as to men. There has been an enormous change since the time of Beveridge, not least, regrettably, in regard to the statistics on divorce. As the noble Baroness on the Front Bench will know, the divorce rate in this country is the second highest in the European Union. Therefore the whole issue of pensions splitting is of considerable importance. It has been helpful to have the Social Security Select Committee in another place examining the matter. However, it raises a number of difficult problems. I wish to raise one other point that has not been touched upon during the debate; namely, the difficult position of a woman who is widowed with a company pension and who then faces the prospect of remarrying. It is very often the case that such women lose their company pension. Certainly if there is a big age differential, in which case the second husband is likely to live longer than the woman concerned, that is a real deterrent to remarriage. It is a problem that ought to be addressed. We should consider in the context of the pensions Bill what is the appropriate answer to this problem. Pensions splitting is an issue to which we shall undoubtedly return. Finally, I wish to take up a point arising from a Question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, on 22nd October in regard to the position of a woman who becomes entitled to widow's benefit, who automatically loses invalid care allowance even though she may still be caring for a disabled relative. As always on such occasions, the noble Baroness received a detailed response from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. One understands the arguments that were put forward. Expressing a purely personal view, we need to give more thought to this matter. The argument was that all successive governments have taken that line. That always gives me immediate cause for concern. There must be something wrong somewhere. Indeed, my maiden speech in the other place a long time ago was on the fact that all successive governments had denied to those who were left out of the Beveridge system the right to that part of the national insurance pension that had not been covered by contributions. It was the first thing we did when we came into office in 1970 when I was at the Treasury. It was a classic example of the fact that successive governments said: "That is our advice". One could not help feeling that the officials were determined that it should not be changed. I express a personal view on the point raised by the noble Baroness; it is something that we ought to do. I fear that I am out of time but I am only too happy to give way to the noble Earl.My Lords, am I correct in remembering that the late Lord Wilson of Rievaulx refused to deal with those cases without contributions to which the noble Lord referred on the grounds that they were all over 80 and therefore would soon be dead?
My Lords, I do not think that was the reason he gave. At all events, with a number of these issues, longstanding positions have been taken which we need to reconsider. No doubt in the course of doing so we shall have the benefit of the advice and views of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos. I must not detain the House a moment longer from listening to what she has to say.
3.30 p.m.
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Crawley for initiating this important debate. As she said, she and I have both campaigned for women's equality over a long time, so it gives me great pleasure to respond to the debate today. I also thank all noble Lords who welcomed me to the Dispatch Box for my first debate.
As usual in this Chamber, the debate today has been thoughtful and knowledgeable. Many noble Lords have spoken from their own experience, reflecting a range of views on a complex and important subject. I shall try to respond to as many points as possible, but I must apologise at the outset because I know that I shall be unable to cover all the points that have been raised in detail. I shall write to noble Lords on any matters which I am unable to cover. The last seven days have seen two significant initiatives which have women at their heart: last Friday the Equal Opportunities Commission introduced its proposals for the future of sex equality legislation. The Government welcome the EOC's proposals as a contribution to thinking on the promotion of equality between women and men. Of course, I have a personal interest in all this as a former chief executive of the Equal Opportunities Commission. On Monday, my noble friend the Leader of the House and Minister for Women launched Delivering for Women: Progress so Far, which sets out the Government's achievements to date and outlines the key new policy areas she will be taking forward. Welfare reform is about developing a social security system that meets the needs of people today. When our present social security system was formed 50 years ago, the world was a very different place. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and other noble Lords. The norm then was for male breadwinners who supported their families. Men looked to the state in times of need and women were expected to rely on their men. Couples were expected to remain married, divorce rates were low and cohabitation rare. Social security provided help through pension and widows' benefits to women when they lost their husbands. However, because women were not expected to support themselves, we have the situation today where women make up the majority of our poorest pensioners. Although there have been changes to social security since then, many aspects of the system still reflect society as it was. The picture for women now is very different and perhaps the biggest change is that more women are in work. This brings greater financial independence, not just while they are working but also by improving their own pension provision. Women are having children later, after achieving greater educational qualifications and establishing themselves at work. They are returning to work after having children, particularly where they are with a partner who works. Despite these changes there is considerable evidence to show that women's incomes over their lifetimes are significantly lower than those of men of comparable age and occupation. Having children is possibly the most significant factor that affects women's income and earning opportunities. It can mean a drop in personal income, a loss of momentum on the career ladder or leaving employment for several years. This can exclude some women from contributory benefits and occupational pensions and often sits unhappily with the rules for means-tested benefits. Women increasingly find themselves as the sole head of the family and less able to look to partners or husbands' work records to support them now or in old age. Social security must reflect these changes and provide a framework within which women can make informed choices about their lives. We shall be doing that with the personal gateway interviews. I repeat the comment of my noble friend Lady Hollis that the single gateway is a recognition that the knowledge of opportunity is itself about empowering somebody to make choices and lone parents will not be compelled to work. I draw that particular point to the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, both of whom have expressed concern. It is about choice. However, the action that is needed and being taken goes beyond the boundaries of social security. For the first time we see proper co-ordinated activity across Whitehall and beyond to make the changes that women in society need and want. Before I turn to the specific areas of employment, women's role as carers and women's needs in old age, I should like to touch on one point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in respect of women refuges. This is one of the priority areas for the Women's Unit. Only this week this was reaffirmed by the Minister for Women in terms of the safety and protection of women from violence. As part of this process, the Government have commissioned research to obtain a comprehensive picture of the current provision of accommodation and support services. This includes a survey of refuges, detailed exploration of the sources of funding and a comprehensive review of provision by local authorities. Once we have that information we shall look at the policy implications. We want to remove the barriers to women getting employment and make sure that work pays. We have already announced a number of initiatives which, taken together, will build a flexible workforce and employment opportunities. We have to provide an easy route for women to get the information they need to help them make decisions about work. This is part of the thinking behind the New Deal for Lone Parents. Through personal advisers women can get practical advice about the work and training opportunities that exist for them as well as help with childcare information. However, action in social security alone would never be sufficient. The Government understand how important affordable, accessible and high quality childcare is for women in making decisions about work. That is why the national childcare strategy must be seen as a key element in responding to the needs of women. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Bassam and my noble friend Lady Thornton. It is about recognising the needs of women but also putting children first. We want to make work pay. The fact is that 1.3 million women earn less than the national minimum wage and the gender pay gap remains a serious issue. The average hourly rate for women in full-time employment is only 80 per cent. of that for men. The combined effects of the benefits system, tax, low earnings and the cost of work can make work simply not worth it for many women, even though they want to help to support their families in this way; or it can subject women to a lifetime of very low incomes without the opportunity to safeguard their own financial future. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will agree with me that there is no single answer to the problem of poverty. We have put in place a number of initiatives to tackle the issue, including the New Deal, the working families tax credit—to which I shall return—the national childcare strategy, pension sharing and help for the poorest pensioners to claim their entitlement. The national minimum wage will increase the wages of up to 800,000 women earning less than the current threshold for national insurance. Working families tax credit will provide an income guarantee so that every family working full time will be guaranteed an income of at least £190 per week. And no family with earnings of less than £220 (half average earnings) will pay net income tax, reducing the wasteful overlap between the tax and social security systems. Families on lower incomes will be able to receive up to 95 per cent. of their childcare costs through the combined effect of the working families tax credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit. In response to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that the working families tax credit will lead to a transfer from purse to wallet, that is wrong. Government have already said that there will be no compulsory transfer from purse to wallet. Couples will be able to choose which partner receives the working families tax credit.My Lords, perhaps I may elaborate my noble friend's point. Accepting the family choice as the Minister has just set it out, is there a risk that the money is least likely to go to the woman in those families where she needs it most?
My Lords, as far as we are able to ascertain, in around half of the families receiving working families tax credit the main wage earner will be the mother; and for the other half where the main earner is the father, there will be no compulsory transfer from the mother to the father.
On the working families tax credit, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, pointed out that it will waste money on higher earning families. In fact scrapping the working families tax credit would penalise families. It would mean a tax increase of £17 a week for up to 1.5 million hard-working families on low to middle income. We want to recognise the needs of women as carers. We must acknowledge that women have caring responsibilities and wish to spend time caring for their children or dependent relatives. For whatever proportion of their time they choose to do that, they play a valuable role in society. The social security system has to respond flexibly to that by providing direct support to mothers. That is made through maternity benefits and the universal provision of child benefit, and a benefits system which supports women in work and recognises their role as carers, through carers' benefits and providing protection of pension entitlements. Those points were raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Crawley. We want to improve women's income in retirement. We need to narrow the pensions gap between men and women to give women more security and independence in retirement. Perhaps I may say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. The Government do not intend to abolish the widows' benefit scheme. The Government are considering reform of the current system of bereavement benefits as part of the welfare reform review. We hope to make an announcement shortly on that policy. I am rapidly running out of time. Before concluding, I wish to take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who stated that the Government do not have a clear sense of women's place in society. We are committed to looking at society's values, taking an integrated approach, looking at women's income over a lifetime, and at what happens to women at different phases and stages of their life. This Government recognise that women are not all the same. We want to build an inclusive society where independence is the goal. To do that, equality issues must be at the heart of policy development. Taken together, the initiatives upon which the Government have embarked will make it easier for women to enjoy economic security and independence. That is our goal.House adjourned at a quarter before four o'clock.