Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments)

HC Deb 18 December 1986 vol 107 cc1368-94 4.28 pm

Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West)

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Amendment Regulations 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 1961), dated 17th November 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th November, be annulled. The issue in regard to these regulations is simple. It is that no civilised society with caring values should allow thousands of its elderly people to die of hypothermia or cold-related conditions brought on by extreme cold during the winter. That is what happened last year and it must not be allowed to happen again this year.

Last year, it is said, 1,060 persons died of hypothermia. That is almost certainly an underestimate because some doctors are known to be reluctant to use the term on death certificates. Of course the Minister can intervene if he wishes. I am quoting his figures but they are the figures for the whole year. I accept that they are not just the figures for the winter, although that figure is high enough at 630. I must make it clear that the real killer is not hypothermia as such but the winter cold which increases the number of deaths among the elderly from heart attacks, strokes and bronchial pneumonia by tens of thousands. In one week earlier this year, in March, during a particularly bitter spell, the death toll shot up to no fewer than 16,000.

It is our contention that the level of benefits proposed by the Government and the quality of housing among elderly people is such that the same catalogue of preventable deaths is likely to recur this winter, yet there is no question that the toll of preventable mortality could be greatly reduced. Other countries have managed it, including those with much colder winters than ours. In France and in Sweden, where it is much colder in winter than Britain, the increase in deaths in February was 6 per cent. In the United States it was 8 per cent. In Scotland it was 19 per cent., and in England and Wales it was 24 per cent. If other countries can safeguard the lives of their frail citizens, why cannot we? The truth is that we can. The two main reasons for lethal chill among elderly people are clearly known to be low incomes and poor housing.

Only about 40 per cent. of pensioners live in centrally heated homes and about 2.5 million live on or even below the official poverty line.

It is now widely understood in geriatric medicine that the danger of pneumonia in the elderly increases at temperatures below 61 deg F. At temperatures below 54 deg F the blood thickens and its pressure rises, increasing the risk of strokes and heart attacks. What makes this so alarming is that we also know from the latest national survey conducted on the subject that more than half of pensioners—54 per cent.—have living room temperatures of below 61 deg F, the point at which the risk of fatal breakdown begins to rise significantly.

Clearly the present level of benefits designed to help pensioners with heating bills massively fails to keep all pensioners warm. The Government implicitly recognised that, and that is why they felt obliged to introduce severe weather payments as an extra in the first place. Our central objection to the regulations is that the Government's objective is completely invalidated by the pathetically trivial nature of the payments.

I asked the Minister about total expenditure but he would not give me an exact figure, so he can correct me if I am wrong. Total expenditure is likely to amount to only about £2 million to £3 million which, spread over 10 million pensioners throughout an entire winter, is almost an insult.

Our main protest is that the Government, having acknowledged as they do that top-up payments were necessary, then rigged the system to ensure that virtually no one would get them. The minus 1.5 deg C threshold for triggering these payments has not been picked by the Government by chance. The Government deliberately and carefully calculated it as the level which, on past experience, would ensure that only about one in eight pensioners would get a single payment of £5 once every five years. That is so minuscule as to be almost offensive.

Most pensioners will not be entitled to the payment at all. Let us consider the 64 weather areas. I admit that the fact that there are now 64, and not the 16 that I think that there were before, is an improvement. If we take those 64 weather areas into which the Government now divide the country for the purposes of this payment, and use the Government's table, we can see that in two of the winters since the Government came to office not one pensioner anywhere in the country would have got a penny. In two of the remaining winters only pensioners in one of the 64 areas would have got anything, and last winter, which witnessed arctic conditions and was certainly the coldest in living memory, or at least for 40 years, pensioners in more than half of the country would still have been excluded from getting anything. To pretend that such a massively restricted system is an adequate compensation against the bitter winter cold is an insult to pensioners and a reneging of the Government from their social responsibility to the frailest and most vulnerable of our citizens.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituency is on the north-west coast and that a strong cold breeze comes in from the Solway?

In many homes in my constituency elderly people simply cannot keep warm. Is he aware that many agencies in Cumbria now express anxiety over what will happen this Christmas? They cannot understand why the Government have to be so hard-faced about these matters, in refusing to spend the few additional million pounds that would ensure that those homes are kept warm. What can we do when Governments simply do not want to understand?

Mr. Meacher

The electorate will have an opportunity soon to do something decisive about it. The Government's record on the welfare state, and especially their incredibly shabby treatment of elderly people, will be an issue at the next election. I shall towards the end of my speech make some comparisons along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend but I will repeat the point that was made by the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander), who is about to leave the Chamber. He made the good point that on this very day the Government are contemplating spending many tens, if not hundreds, of millions of pounds on an airborne early warning system when they are not prepared to spend more than £2 million to £3 million, which is a fleabite, to keep elderly people warm.

I accept the Minister's point that the main thrust of Government assistance for heating bills lies primarily with heating additions and with one-off payments for draught-proofing. There are two powerul objections to his case. First, under the Fowler Social Security Act, all these extras are set to go in 1988. Certainly the money will be put back into the pool for what the Government call "client group premiums" which includes the elderly but it will mean that help will be targeted less on those with the highest heating costs and needs.

Secondly, the Government claim that the heating additions, which have improved since 1979, are now worth £140 million more in real terms than when the Conservative party came to office. I say unequivocally that that is welcome, but the Government do not go on to say that for every extra pound that pensioners have gained under the Government from higher heating additions, they have lost 30 times as much from the break of the link with earnings at each uprating. If the formula that the Labour Government used had been continued, single pensioners today would receive £8 a week more in pension and married couples would receive nearly £13 a week more.

It is welcome that pensioners are getting £140 million more in heating additions this year, but it is surely thoroughly deplorable that pensioners are getting £4,250 million less this year as a result of the Tory cut in the pension formula. That is the amount by which pensioners have been cheated by this Government, and it is growing every year. If pensioners now received what they were entitled to receive under a Labour Government, the House would not have to bother tonight with this pathetic little measure, which is footling by comparison, and there can be no doubt that many fewer pensioners would die this winter.

Mr. Pat Nicholls (Teignbridge)

The hon. Gentleman speaks about the Government cheating pensioners, but I am not sure which Government he has in mind. The Government who cheated the pensioners by reneging on that particular agreement were the one in which he served as an Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. That Government proposed that there should be an earnings rather than a prices link, and avoided their own legislation. When the then Labour Secretary of State for Social Services was attacked by pensioners for ratting on his own legislation, he said, with a fair degree of cynicism as I recall, that he had only to take those matters into account and did not have to get them right. Should not the hon. Gentleman be directing his strictures towards that Labour Government?

Mr. Meacher

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind, as pensioners no doubt will, that in that five-year period of office, the pension increased by 20 per cent. in real terms, which is an increase of one fifth over and above prices. In the seven years that the Conservative party has been in government, the pension has increased by, I believe, between 3 and 4 per cent. The difference in the level of pension is enormous.

Everything depends on the Government's priorities. This Government are increasing public expenditure this year by £4.5 billion, but all that they can find for pensioners who are facing another bitter winter is the fleabite of £2 million to £3 million in severe weather payments. The previous Labour Government made their priorities clear when they increased the real value of pensions by one fifth. Moreover, we now propose, as a priority for the next Labour Government, a £5 a week increase in the pension for single pensioners and an £8 a week increase for married couples. That is on top of normal upratings in line with earnings to ensure that pensioners keep pace with living standards. That will be paid for by withdrawing the tax concessions that have been handed out to the richest 5 per cent. in our society since 1979.

In addition, we propose a £5 a week winter premium, payable automatically for each week of winter to the 1.5 million pensioners on supplementary benefit and to the further 1 million or so who live on the margins of poverty. That is the only way to guarantee that necessary help at the level required reaches those who need it most when it is required. We believe that our programme of commitments would significantly reduce the scourge of hypothermia and cold-related deaths in our society, and we are proud of that claim.

I am sure that the Minister will ask where all the money is to come from. The answer is that it is all a matter of the Government's priorities. This Government showed their sense of priorities when they spent £800 million in abolishing the investment income surcharge: a tax to which the only people liable are those with more than £100,000 of investments on the stock exchange. By contrast, our priority is to spend £150 million on trying to ensure that the frailest and poorest in our society are enabled to keep warm in winter.

Money alone is not enough. Many pensioners live in appallingly cold homes, because the accommodation is poor, badly maintained, draughty and damp, with virtually no insulation. We believe that weather-proofing and insulating homes, and installing central heating, would not only protect elderly people—which is reason enough—but would create jobs largely for the unskilled, and thereby help all low-income groups, as well as ensuring energy efficiency.

For all those reasons, we deplore the Government's decision under the Fowler Social Security Act to end single payments for draught-proofing materials in 1988. It will also put a stop to the excellent work done by Neighbourhood Energy Action, which in our view should be strongly supported for having draught-proofed the homes of nearly 250,000 pensioners and others, and providing work for 5,000 people on the community programme. I very much hope that the Government will reconsider that extremely wretched and unfortunate decision.

These miserable little regulations—that is what they are—will do little or nothing to remedy the appalling but preventable scandal of hypothermia and cold-related deaths among the elderly. If the Government cannot bring themselves to accept the unanswerable case for bringing together greater warmth for the elderly, weather-proofing, insulation of the nation's houses, and increasing energy efficiency, the next Labour Government very soon will.

4.45 pm

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. John Major)

The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) opened the debate in a more restrained fashion than has often been the case when he and I have discussed matters across the Dispatch Boxes, and I am grateful to him for that. It may mean that we can examine the details of the regulations more carefully instead of simply exchanging statistics with which the House has become familiar.

I shall begin on a point of shared concern. There is no dispute between us or within the House about the concern that everyone feels for the traditionally high level of excess winter deaths in this country when compared with the level in several other countries. The hon. Gentleman will know that during the past 35 years there has been a steady reduction in the number of those deaths. That reduction has been continuous since 1959 with the exception of the period between 1976 and 1980, when a slight increase took place due to a variety of factors. However, I make no party point about that.

As the hon. Member for Oldham, West acknowledged, the problem is deep-rooted. However, the situation seems to be improving for a variety of reasons, and we hope that that trend will continue. Within that broad figure for excess winter deaths lies the smaller, but equally important, figure for hypothermia, to which the hon. Gentleman addressed some of his remarks. He acknowledged that the number of death certificates showing hypothermia as either a primary or secondary cause of death had stood at about the 1,000 mark for the past year.

The interesting point is that hypothermia is often shown not as a primary but as a secondary factor, which is attributable to reasons quite other than the insulation of the house or the amount of heating available. One of the interesting factors to emerge from the hon. Gentleman's speech was that, of those 1,000 deaths, about 640 were winter deaths, while the other 350 occurred in the summer, spring or autumn when hypothermia, which projects the image of people literally freezing, would be an unlikely proposition. That illustrates the point that hypothermia often appears as a contributory cause of death. For example, someone may have a stroke and be left immobile so that hypothermia becomes a secondary factor, which is unrelated to any action that any Government, however benevolent, could take. The hon. Gentleman's remarks put the hypothermia element into perspective, and I am grateful to him for that.

The excess winter mortality figures are startling. Between 1951 and 1955, the percentage of excess winter mortality was 68.2. By 1981 to 1985, the last period for which we have figures, as they are calculated broadly on a five-year trend, the figure had fallen to 29.3 per cent. The figure is still higher than I or the hon. Member for Oldham, West would like, but it represents a noticeable improvement which we hope and believe will continue.

Mr. Gordon Wilson (Dundee, East)

Does the Minister accept that the comparison should be made with other advanced countries in western Europe, and that in those countries the figures for excess winter mortality have dropped considerably over the years? By comparison, the United Kingdom's performance is utterly scandalous. Will he look at the files of his predecessors relating to meetings that I had with Ministers on the question of hypothermia? They refused to authorise research into the medical and hospital records of the Scottish Home and Health Department, which showed that many more people were hospitalised during the winter. A proper processing of those records would show that cold and the absence of heat contribute substantially to the discomfort and ill health experienced by the elderly.

Mr. Major

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but he bases his supposition on a premise that may not necessarily be true. His underlying premise is that the cause of excess winter deaths may be a lack of heating or poor insulation, or a combination of the two. They may be contributory factors, but the research by Professor Keating and others has shown that a variety of outher factors, many of them not within the control of Government, may play a significant part. The reality is, as we said when we last debated fuel poverty a few weeks ago, that we do not know the true, underlying causes of excess winter mortality. We can see the trend going in the right direction and wish that to continue, but neither the hon. Gentleman, Professor Keating nor I can be entirely sure why the figures are as they are or why they are improving. We can simply observe that they are improving and continue to take action while hoping that the trend continues.

Mr. Wilson

The hon. Gentleman is a reasonable man, and there are many factors, not all of which can be affected by his Department. Will he take it into account that we do not know why the excess winter mortality rate in the United Kingdom is so much higher than in other European countries, because then there is a case for his Department authorising expenditure to cover research into those reasons rather than complacently accepting that the fall is occurring? I hope that we all accept that the fall is insufficient in view of the numbers who die.

Mr. Major

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, and he will be aware that when we last debated this matter I said that the Department was looking at the underlying reasons. That will continue, but there is nothing further that I can say this afternoon.

Mr. Meacher

I can see that we shall have considered and careful debate and I welcome that. I accept what the Minister said about the slight decline in the differential deaths between winter and summer. However, the figures for deaths in which hypothermia is a factor over the past seven years show no decline. The figures for each of those years are 596, 939, 860, 717, 731, with the latest at 1,060.

Mr. Major

I think that in those figures the hon. Gentleman is again merging winter and summer, with the special factors that I mentioned. Winter deaths, which are the point of special political controversy underlying the debate, show no trend upwards or, alas, downwards in the broad measure of hypothermia-related winter deaths. A particularly high year was 1978–79. Taking the figures from memory, the average is 640 a year, and that has not materially altered over the past eight or nine years.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Does the Minister not understand that he is playing with figures? One cannot measure the pain felt by those who do not die, but are discomfited. Does he not understand that there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who want to keep their homes warm but cannot afford it? The Government give money away in tax cuts to the better off, but they fail to address themselves to this specific problem. All these figures are meaningless to such people, and the small amounts of money that the Department makes available are not relevant to the measure of their needs.

Mr. Major

The hon. Gentleman introduces a note of controversy so I shall make points that I would have left till later. The hon. Member for Oldham, West was gracious enough to concede the substantial increase in heating additions, specifically targeted at the most vulnerable. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of that, and of the fact that primary help with heating is now, as it was when his party was in Government, through the supplementary benefit scale rates. These have increased materially in purchasing power since 1979. The third factor is so relevant that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) should bear it in mind. We now have not entirely, but nearly, stable fuel prices, which is a novel and welcome innovation that was not at all the position five or 10 years ago. All those three factors are material and helpful factors of considerable assistance to the people about whom both the hon. Gentleman and I are concerned. He might usefully bear them in mind.

The exceptionally cold weather payments are the trigger for the debate. They came into effect on 11 December and provide for a single payment of £5 for fixed weeks, in any area where the average temperature falls to minus 1.5 deg C or less. Those eligible will be supplementary benefit households containing someone who is 65 or over, under two or chronically sick or disabled. This is because they are the most vulnerable groups and it is upon them that we wish to target the available assistance.

The arrangements that we are discussing are to do with extra help in times of exceptional winter weather. I stress the word "exceptional" as I fear it is often taken to mean a regular occurrence rather than an exception. In considering the proposals, I hope that hon. Members and those outside will bear in mind the fact that these provisions have always played only a restricted part in the total help available for claimants. That is largely targeted in the way that I have just outlined. It is also relevant, when considering the present position, to bear in mind the short but turbulent history of the exceptional severe weather payments.

Some of the comments made recently suggest that many people have short memories about the controversial nature of those payments. Before 1980, all the indications are that extra help with fuel costs in periods of cold weather was seldom given. The hon. Member for Oldham, West will recall that, for there was a Labour Government at that time, and he was a Minister. However, there was no statutory entitlement, and the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues did not introduce one. Perhaps the winters were less cold, or perhaps their comments are more related to expediency than principle. Discretionary payments were made only on occasion, and there is little evidence that occasional payments were made, and no record of the frequency and amount of those payments, at least none available to me.

Mr. Meacher

The Minister said that he wanted to avoid party controversy, and I hope that he means that. It is true that there were not the equivalent of exceptional weather payments before 1979, but they were not needed because the pension was significantly higher as a proportion of average earnings than it is now. It is much better for pensioners to have higher pensions than to have a fleabite of exceptionally severe weather payments on a lower pension.

Mr. Wilson

They still died of hypothermia-related diseases.

Mr. Major

The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has made the point crisply. People died of hypothermia-related diseases in the 1970s, and there was a high level of excess winter deaths in the 1970s. We have just trawled over the statistics and they do not show the Labour Government in an escpecially favourable light compared with before or later. That is not greatly productive ground for us to go over again, although it is a covenient territory for both of us.

Regulation 26 of the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Regulations was the first regulatory entitlement to assistance. That regulation, now replaced, was couched in fairly general terms. It referred to a period of exceptionally severe weather but it did not define it. It suggested a comparison of fuel consumption in bad and normal weather, again not clearly or properly defined, to decide payment. The regulation has proved to be all but impossible to operate. Every time it has been applied, it has been severely and, in my judgment, justifiably, criticised. Each time the criticism has led to a review of the advice to adjudication officers, with a completely new set of guidance then being issued. It has not been satisfactory, and it is worth setting out briefly the chequered history of this regulation, because it will put the present proposals in proper context.

The first time that the regulation was used, in 1981–82, the chief supplementary benefit officer issued guidance that it applied across the country. Single payments were made to cover the difference in consumption between that winter and the previous one. Where possible, this was calculated by comparing actual fuel bills, and where this was not possible a special formula was used.

Those arrangements were criticised on two main grounds that are relevant to the present regulations: first, the difficulty in defining a period of exceptionally severe weather and, second, determining the extent to which extra fuel consumption was caused by that severe weather. Those criticisms prompted a review of the guidance, to devise a more objective method of applying regulation 26. That result, too, was criticised in turn, since the mechanism devised meant that in order to qualify for help it had to be colder, in absolute terms, in those parts of the country where it was normally coldest than in milder parts of the country. I am glad that I carry the hon. Member for Oldham, West with me on that point.

That was absurd. It meant that in the winter of 1984–85 help was given in parts of England and Wales but not in Scotland, which was actually colder. Understandably, that led to considerable resentment, and it is not difficult to see why. If I had been a Scot, I should have resented it, too. The formula for calculating entitlement was also extremely complex. Very few claimants understood it, and I am not at all surprised.

The strength of feeling was such that the adjudicating authorities asked the social security commissioners to determine whether the guidance then in operation was or was not a correct interpretation of the regulations. Their response was no. That prompted yet further guidance in November 1985. This advised that decisions on whether the weather had been exceptionally severe should be made by adjudication officers in each local office and should be based on locally available information. Once a period of exceptionally severe weather had been declared, claims for single payments were to be assessed on the basis of the individual claimant's increased fuel consumption as a result of the severe weather.

This guidance was followed last winter and payments were made in respect of the prolonged cold spell last February, but once again the guidance was severely criticised. As in 1982, one of the main criticisms centred around uncertainty as to whether the weather was exceptionally severe. Now that the decision was to be taken at local level, it was alleged that it would be determined by an adjudication officer sticking his head out of the window. In practice, there was great uncertainty as to what exactly constituted a period of exceptionally severe weather. That was resolved only when yet further guidance was issued, following which, adjudication officers throughout mainland Britain declared that the weather in February 1986 was exceptionally severe.

I set out that tangled tale simply to demonstrate beyond doubt the unsatisfactory nature of past provision and to illustrate the principal problems that need to be solved—[Interruption.] It is hardly a question of the Government having finally conceded that point. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health said a considerable time ago that these regulations were weird and wonderful. There has never been any dispute about their unsatisfactory nature. We have now produced precisely what many people, including Opposition Members, asked for when they criticised the regulations.

It was clear from the criticisms last winter that the old regulation 26 simply had to go. It was not a matter of further guidance; the regulation itself needed revision. What was needed was a system with clear rules for determining whether the weather had been exceptionally severe, who should be entitled to extra help and how much they should receive. We believe that the new scheme, which came into operation a week ago, achieves those objectives. It provides for a single payment of £5 for each and every week of exceptionally cold weather. That means that there is now no need to compare fuel bills for different years. There is no need to attempt to guess how much of a fuel bill is related to illness or to the use of additional appliances in the home. Moreover, there is no need to produce an unpaid fuel bill at the date of claim, so that claimants who settle their bills promptly, or who purchase fuel in advance, are not penalised.

Mr. Wilson

Does the Minister concede that one of the great faults of the new scheme is that it does not take into account the variations in climate in the United Kingdom, except in so far as an absolute basic temperature of minus 1.5 deg C has been chosen? Does the Minister not agree that hardship is caused to tens of thousands of elderly people because there is a uniform level of benefit throughout the United Kingdom, although it costs 20 per cent. more to heat a house in Glasgow than it does to heat a house in Bristol and 30 per cent. more to heat a house in Aberdeen than it costs to heat a house in Bristol? Therefore, would it not have been better to recognise the diversity of climate in the United Kingdom and to introduce a generous scheme to take those factors into account?

Mr. Major

The hon. Gentleman will concede that the key criterion is temperature. However, temperature is not the only criterion. The cost of heating a home depends upon a variety of other matters: the precise situation of the home, the degree of insulation, the quality of the building and energy efficiency grants, which are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. It is not simply a matter of temperature; there is a whole series of related factors. It would not be equitable to suggest that a particular area required a higher level of weekly payment for that particular reason. I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument for a cold climate allowance, but I fear that I have been unable to accept it.

Payments under our new proposals will be available when a period of exceptionally cold weather is declared for an area. We have sought to ensure that the new rules are much simpler and clear-cut. Each local office is linked to one of 63 weather stations around the country. If the average weekly temperature recorded at that weather station over a seven-day period, from Monday to Sunday, is minus 1.5 deg C or less, a period of exceptionally cold weather will be declared in the linked local office areas. A declaration will be made speedily at the end of the relevant seven-day period. The weather stations have been carefully chosen to ensure that, among other things, they are able to provide that information quickly.

Those who will be eligible for these payments will be supplementary benefit households containing someone who is 65 or over, or under two years old, or chronically sick or disabled. They are the people who are most at risk from cold weather.

I must briefly remind the House of the general welcome that the Social Security Advisory Committee gave to our proposals. It said that the proposals represented a significant improvement on previous schemes, that they were simpler and easier to understand and that they would lead to more certainty of payment. All those are relevant factors, which the House should bear in mind.

The committee agreed also that simplicity and ease of operation should be major requirements of the new scheme and it welcomed the proposal to introduce a standard amount of payment and to eliminate the need to compare previous fuel bills, which it considered to be a particularly welcome simplification. It agreed, too, that an absolute standard of coldness, rather than a comparative basis, should be a fundamental requirement of the new scheme.

Finally, the committee showed that it understood clearly the meaning of the word "exceptional". It said that a system which allowed for a period of exceptionally severe weather to be declared on average every two years, for example, could hardly be described as catering for exceptional weather conditions. In its detailed comments, therefore, the Social Security Advisory Committee gave significant support to the main elements of our proposals. I am bound to say that those who occasionally quote the committee when it is critical of the Government have been silent on this occasion.

Mr. Meacher

The Minister is preening himself on having the support of the Social Security Advisory Committee, but he is taking amiss the thrust of its comments. According to my reading of the SSAC's comments, it seems to be saying that it does not regard this scheme as ideal. However, given that the Government have insisted that it should be an "exceptionally" severe weather payment, the committee accepts that the payments should not be reviewed every two years. However, the committee does not accept that it is desirable. The committee does not believe that the scheme is adequate and it would be wrong to construe its remarks in that way.

Mr. Major

I do not recall using the word "ideal", and I am sure that Hansard will record the fact that I did not use that word. I set out the material advantages of this scheme compared with its predecessors, whose disadvantages are understood and which I outlined to the House.

We made two specific changes in the light of the committee's more detailed comments. Firstly, the time limit for making a claim was extended from four to 13 weeks. Secondly, we have provided for one claim to be treated as a claim for consecutive weeks of exceptionally cold weather. Some concern was expressed about whether the effect of regulation of the single payments regulations, which refers to there being a need for the item in question, might prevent payment when the fuel bill had been paid. The regulations now in force specifically cover the concern expressed and ensure that payment is permissible in such circumstances. That will be generally welcomed.

The Committee also spoke about the importance of publicity arrangements and I agree with it about that. Since the new system will give help in the local areas that are coldest, the main thrust of publicity must necessarily be local and must alert people to help. Revised instructions which give detailed guidance on action to be taken are being issued to local offices. Local offices are to be instructed to place advertisements, which include a claim form, in the local press. In addition, leaflets, again incorporating a claim form, and posters will be distributed to as many local advice and information centres as possible. These will include social services departments, housing benefit offices, jobcentres, health centres, general practitioners' surgeries, gas and electricity showrooms, advice bureaux, libraries and other centres of information. Our local offices will also be instructed to display the leaflets and posters in their reception areas, and information will be available on the DHSS Freephone service.

Regional information officers will be briefed and available to appear on local radio and television programmes to publicise the availability of payments. Therefore, we have arrangements in hand to provide proper publicity whenever necessary. I do not rule out measures in addition to those that I have mentioned if these prove necessary.

The new arrangements will provide for a better system. There will be certainty through the objective criteria for deciding when an exceptionally cold period has occurred. The way that we seek to collect and disseminate information will enable it to be made known quickly that help is available, and there are now clear rules on who will be entitled to extra help. Finally, there will be a known, clear flat rate payment of £5 for each week of very cold weather without the need to worry about comparing past and current fuel bills. I am confident that the new arrangements in force provide a fairer basis for help in what is and always has been a limited part of assistance with heating for vulnerable groups. I ask the House to endorse that proposition and reject the prayer.

5.12 pm

Mrs. Elizabeth Shields (Ryedale)

Severe weather payments have rightly been debated in this House in recent weeks. The correlation between very low temperatures and the deaths of elderly people has been well documented since the 1960s. Following the particularly hard winter of 1985–86, the new system of payments for exceptionally cold weather announced by the DHSS last month and now in force are a step in the right direction.

The number of deaths between January and March this year rose considerably compared to 1985. In February, there were about 7,000 more deaths than expected and in a very cold spell of weather in March in one week nearly 16,000 people died. Many elderly people survived that cold weather, but suffered extreme hardship. It is estimated that about 578 hypothermia related deaths occurred during the period, and that is an average of about six a day. Disturbing as they are, those figures probably underestimate the true number of deaths resulting from this disease. Many cases go undiagnosed and death certificates are not necessarily a perfect guide to the number of people who have died from the cold.

As hon. Members have already said, not all deaths are attributable to hypothermia because intense cold tends to thicken the blood and causes heart attacks, strokes and respiratory diseases. Even long waiting times at bus stops can mean that old people literally catch their death of cold. Professor Keating, who has already been mentioned, said that the main exposure to cold outside the home was encountered in waiting for a bus. However, many deaths from cold in the home are avoidable, as is shown by international comparisons. Many countries, such as Finland and other Scandinavian countries, have colder temperatures than those in Britain, but they manage to safeguard the lives of their frail citizens rather better than we do.

I welcome the new exceptionally cold weather payments, but there are still too many restrictions which, taken to their logical conclusion, could prove difficult to put into practice and may even be somewhat ridiculous. One must remember that the problems and complexities associated with the claiming of this benefit may well prevent those people genuinely entitled to claim the benefit from so doing. Many old people do not want the hassle of form filling and sometimes further means testing.

As has been said, under the new scheme a payment of £5 is to be made to households of which one member is aged 65 or over or, at the other end of the scale, is under the age of two years. When a child becomes two in midwinter, does it mean that the child has suddenly become hardened overnight because of a second birthday? I hope that in such cases the allowance will be carried through at least to the end of March.

The payments will also be made on a basis of extremely cold weather—that is to say, weekly cold weather measured from Monday to Sunday. Does that mean that if a cold spell begins and ends on a Wednesday, claimants will not be entitled to the £5? Surely we all appreciate that in Britain we do not enjoy climate but have to endure weather that is unpredictable and no respecter of the days of the week.

There is another disadvantage. It is that any pensioner who has savings of £500 will not qualify for the allowance. Some 40 or 50 years ago £500 was a real nest egg, but half a century on it is a small capital sum and far too low an amount for the elderly to risk. In order to protect such savings, many old age pensioners will turn down the heating and hope to get by on less warmth.

The heart of the problem is that only about 43 per cent. of our elderly people have central heating and many old-age pensioners still live in substandard and often badly insulated houses. The Government have certainly encouraged schemes for the insulation of lofts, and currently provide 66 per cent. of the cost or £95, whichever is the lesser, and give a 90 per cent. grant to households in which there are pensioners or disabled people on supplementary or housing benefit. As many hon. Members may have found, those grants tend to be taken up by those who are somewhat better off rather than by pensioners who are living solely on a state pension and have no other private source of income.

The long-term key to this problem lies in sufficient, adequate housing for people of all ages, but with priority for the elderly, the disabled and the very young. There is a shortage of rented accommodation in my constituency and, indeed, all over Britain. Some 2,000 applicants are on the waiting list of Ryedale district council. I know one elderly lady living in a small terraced cottage who urgently needs a supply of hot water, a proper kitchen and bathroom, and central heating. She is 79 and very frail, but still has to fetch and carry coal for a fire which by no means heats her small living room. There is a centrally heated vacant flat in a block of fairly new council properties, but there are at least a dozen hopefuls for that flat, so her chances are small.

District councils should be allowed to make greater use of their capital receipts for new build, central heating and proper insulation, especially for the elderly, so that the councils can help to reduce the cost of special payments which the lack of proper housing necessitates.

One good scheme to help protect its senior citizens from hypothermia this winter is being run by Adur council in West Sussex. The council is inviting members of the local community to match pound for pound every public donation to what is called the Adur Warm Campaign. It aims to provide a £20 fuel gift voucher to its 1,500 elderly residents most at risk in cold weather. Gas and electricity boards have agreed to accept the vouchers as payment for heating bills, and the Solid Fuel Advisory Service has said that local businesses supplying other fuels such as oil, coal and paraffin will also accept the vouchers. Adur businesses, community groups and organisations are being asked to help, and Age Concern and Warm Aid are working closely with the council in this venture. I am sure that the Minister and hon. Members will agree that this is an excellent venture which could be copied. I am also pleased to mention that, because Adur is a Liberal-led council.

Perhaps the best outcome of the debate will be to publicise once again, nationally, the very real dangers of extreme cold weather to elderly people in particular, and to motivate local councils, groups and individuals in their own areas to keep a special watch out for their elderly neighbours and acquaintances so that no unnecessary deaths occur this winter.

5.20 pm

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)

I hope that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields) will not take it amiss if I do not follow her sequence of points because, in what will be a short debate, I want to make one or two points of my own. However, I assure the hon. Lady that I shall make one or two remarks about what pensioners may expect from an alliance Government, should such a bizarre event ever come to pass.

I start by finding a fair measure of agreement between myself and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I am sure that there is a fair amount of agreement between us, which, even if it went no further, would centre on the fact that with the most vulnerable members of society—those pensioners who are dependent on a retirement pension, topped up, no doubt, with supplementary benefit—Government have an obligation to ensure that they get it right. I am certain that that is the common ground between the hon. Gentleman and myself, and even if our agreement went no further than that, it would be something. The difficulty is that those words are easy enough to say. However, people outside the Chamber, namely pensioners, have to ask themselves, "What gives us the best prospect of seeing that rhetoric carried into reality?"

When the hon. Gentleman broadened his arguments on heating additions and exceptional weather payments to discuss the retirement pension he made a point that was dangerous for him, but which was nevertheless significant. I am sure that he would like to discuss that and it is again probably common ground between us. However, I shall not embarrass him by finding too much common ground.

Nobody would ever try to suggest that the energy requirements of elderly people should be met entirely by a payment here and a payment there, and by the use of a thermometer in certain circumstances to provide a little bit more. That is not how we look after pensioners. We do so by providing a proper rate of retirement pension.

It would be pie in the sky to suggest that we shall ever reach the position where a person who is on a retirement pension receives pretty much the same amount of money as anybody else. That will not happen and I doubt—though we shall see—whether Opposition Members would say that. The state must make a judgment about how much it can afford to give pensioners. Pensioners are right to ask themselves, "What is on offer? What are the promises?" In trying to assess the worth of those promises, it is worth looking at what has happened before.

The last thing that I want to do is to be unfair to the hon. Gentleman about his opening remarks. It was sad that they lacked a certain amount of the usual rant, but they did include those familiar noughts. I shall not attribute to the hon. Gentleman how many hundreds of millions of pounds he will spend on pensioners because, give or take a few noughts, it will be a great deal. We have heard it all before, we heard more than a hint of it today and we shall hear more about it during the election campaign. If that is what is on offer, the reality is slightly different.

History can sometimes be very unkind and it has been unkind tonight in bringing the hon. Gentleman here because he is in an almost unique position. The hon. Gentleman is the Opposition's main spokesman on social security matters—hoping, no doubt, that when the impossible happens he will be the Secretary of State for Social Services in a Labour Government. The problem is that at the back of his mind he is aware of a terrible embarrassment. Once upon a time—it seems so long ago now—he was a Minister responsible for social security in a Labour Government.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands pensioners' needs and the way in which hypothermia can affect us all. Nothing has changed; pensioners' needs today are exactly the same as they have always been. When the hon. Gentleman sets out his prospectus for the future of pensioners he knows that nothing has changed. Cold is cold and old age is old age. Perhaps, because of his ministerial experience, the hon. Gentleman knows better than most. Will the promises that the hon. Gentleman has made tonight and the assurances that he has given pensioners that, when he achieves office, everything will be as in the land of milk and honey, become reality? The hon. Gentleman talks about how high pensions were in real terms under the previous Labour Government—that is what he says—but he was not a pensioner.

Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North)

When does the hon. Gentleman ever listen to pensioners?

Mr. Nicholls

The hon. Gentleman rambles on from a sedentary position, I am sure that we all look forward to hearing his speech in due course, and that we shall follow every word of it with rapt attention. For the time being, the attention he is giving my speech has reminded me of what will be the next point in my speech.

It is worth bearing in mind what pensioners thought of their pensions at the time. I detect some blushing and misgiving on the face of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. I wonder why? I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman by asking him to cast his mind back to February 1975. The hon. Gentleman will remember that fairly well and I am sure that his press cuttings will remind him of that time. In February 1975 the hon. Gentleman addressed a meeting, not in this House where the standards of decency, decorum and good will to all men on each side of the House are by the by and are taken as understood, but a few hundred yards away in central hall, Westminster. There was not the amity and friendship there that I extend to the hon. Gentleman on this festive occasion. He was speaking, not to people who were talking about pensions as I am and not about people promising what they would do in the future. He was talking to people living on old age pensions. Were they pleased to see him?

Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley)

No.

Mr. Nicholls

No, they were not. I cannot imagine that my hon. Friend was there in a professional capacity, because he seems too young and charming.

The hon. Gentleman was addressing a meeting of pensioners. At that time—the hon. Gentleman will correct my chronology if he wants to—the hon. Gentleman had not announced to the House that he was yet again abolishing the Christmas bonus to help pensioners with their fuel bills.

Mr. Soames

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Nicholls

Not now, although I shall in a moment.

The record shows—my hon. Friend may be able to confirm it—that pensioners were so outraged by what the hon. Member for Oldham, West had done that he had to be rescued from the hall because the warlike pensioners wanted, to use a phrase, to take him outside.

Mr. Soames

Does my hon. Friend remember what reasons the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) gave for stealing the Christmas bonus from the pensioners?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. We are getting rather a long way from cold weather payment s, and I wish that we could return to that subject.

Mr. Nicholls

Without straying beyond the bounds of what may be in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it may be that one of the things that the pensioners were saying was that when they had to consider budgeting for the extremely expensive cost of energy at that time, they were not greatly aided in that endeavour by the loss of their bonus.

The hon. Member for Oldham, West tries to pretend that he is the pensioners' friend. He need not take my word for it, but the fact is that when he was in office he had to be rescued from pensioners because they knew the reality.

We have heard a great deal from the hon. Gentleman about how the Government have cheated the pensioners by reneging on the arrangement which Labour had. The Conservative party and the Government have never thought that one serves the interests of pensioners well by promising them the moon and giving them something rather less. The fact is that, when the hon. Gentleman's party was in government and dealing with elderly people with the ailments to which the flesh is heir, it said that it would give them a pension increase that was based on earnings. It did for a time but of course, the trouble is that it did not last. Christmas does not last for 365 days of the year.

The Labour party might have served its electoral purposes at the time, but the reality is very different. Having gone to those poor, grey-haired people in the twilight of their years and said, "Vote for us. There will be an earnings link", what happened? In 1976 pensions were raised by less than the increase in prices or earnings. In November 1978 the Labour Government gave a pension increase of 11.4 per cent., although earnings rose by 13 per cent. In March 1979 the Labour Government proposed a pension increase of 12.8 per cent., when earnings were rsing by about 15 per cent.

That was reality for a pensioner then. First of all there was a Father Christmas Government which promised that one's pension would keep up with earnings; then, suddenly, at a stroke, the Minister responsible for implementing the legislation that he had passed would not enforce it. When a publication called Pensioners Voice—its voice must have been frail and muted by then—approached the then Secretary of State for Social Services in a Labour Government it asked, "What about it? What about your legislation? Remember, you passed it. You gave us this legislation which would give us an earnings link." What did the Secretary of State say? He said: There is a statutory obligation to take these figures (i.e., earnings) into account, which was done, but no statutory obligation to get it right. That really is marvellous. That is really something that pensioners can look forward to.

Although statements so blatant and cynical as that will excite a degree of derision bordering on humour, the reality is that there was a Government who, I do not doubt, were compassionate—we all know about the hon. Gentleman's compassion; he sprays it around by the bucketful—and cared, but the reality was that they passed legislation that they were simply unable to implement. Then they had the brass nerve to turn round to pensioners and say, "Right, we have taken it into account, but we were not able to get it right."

Mr. Meacher

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Nicholls

Yes, gladly I am pleased that I have been able to prick the hon. Gentleman's memory.

Mr. Meacher

In the comic and childish interlude that passes for a speech, will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, despite all his remarks, the net effect was that at the end of five years the value of the pension in real terms, after taking account of inflation, had risen by 20 per cent., and that is after taking account of all the factors that he has mentioned? Whereas after seven years of Tory Government, it has increased by only a paltry 3 per cent.

Mr. Nicholls

I am greatly saddened that the hon. Gentleman should feel obliged to reply in those terms when I gave way hoping that he would deny that the Labour party had ratted on its own arrangements. I wondered whether I had that quotation wrong and the Secretary of State had said something else.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I welcomed the hon. Gentleman's intervention in the hope that he was going to lead us back to cold weather payments. I hope that we can get back to them.

Mr. Nicholls

I am sure that we can, Mr.Deputy Speaker. I apologise for the fact that I was led astray.

The point that, I am making is that when Labour Members talk about the ability of pensioners to manage their money so that they can pay for their energy needs, that, as the hon. Gentleman rightly conceded, has to be looked at in relation to the pension. I have pointed out only the worst of the fiddles. It may well be that the hon. Gentleman, or whichever of his colleagues applies to the debate, will be able to tell pensioners how the necessity to care for themselves in cold weather was helped by switching the method of calculation of the old age pension from the historic to the forecasting method. If the hon. Gentleman is wondering why that was done, he need look no further than Barbara Castle's diaries to see that it was not to help pensioners, but to save money.

When pensioners are trying to meet their energy costs it is not just the pension or special payments which are relevant; it is also their savings. Many pensioners do have savings put by. The hon. Member for Ryedale said that £500 was not much of a nest egg. I do not know how attractive that would be to many old age pensioners who do not have £500 as a nest egg, but be that as it may. But under the previous Labour Government pensioners' savings were wrecked. The hon. Gentleman has said nothing to us about that.

When the hon. Gentleman was talking about severe weather payments, another thing that he failed to mention was the cost of energy. It is fairly understandable why we did not hear too much about that. Again, under the previous Labour Government the price of energy rose massively. Let me help the hon. Gentleman by reminding him of the figures. Since the previous election, domestic gas and electricity prices have fallen in real terms—gas by 7 per cent. and electricity by 10 per cent. In cash terms since the previous election, the price of gas has increased by about 3 per cent. a year. By contrast, under the previous Labour Government it increased about four times as fast. Electricity prices have increased by about 2 per cent. a year under this Government. Under the previous Labour Government it rose 11 times as fast, or as much in six months as at the moment we have had in about three and a half years.

That is the reality for pensioners or those on a fixed income. More than anything else, they need a Government who can make a commitment which they keep. This Government have kept to their commitments. They need to know that energy prices will be stable and that their savings will not be wrecked by inflation.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that people on fixed incomes are so concerned about these matters that they have become a group of people who favour higher interest rates? We now have a group of people in society who are saddened when the minimum lending rate falls because they believe that it is a loss of income to them. Is it not an indictment when we build into our structures a group—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are debating cold weather payments and I hope that we shall eventually do that.

Mr. Nicholls

Again, without going down the byroads along which the hon. Gentleman was seeking to lead me, I can say that we have created a body of people who know that they will be dependent—some of them soon, some of them rather later—on a state retirement pension for the rest of their lives. One of the things that they will be concerned about is that the older they get the more their energy costs will matter to them. They will know that and they will—to be blunt—ask themselves who will give them the best deal and on whom can they rely.

It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to ignore and forget, and hope that the rest of us do the same, what his party did in office. It is not sufficient for him to hope that we shall forget why the calculation of the pension was switched from an historic method to a forecasting method. It is not sufficient for him to hope that we shall forget that the Labour Government implemented legislation and then spent the next few years wriggling out of it. We must concern ourselves with the fact that the Labour party may yet be able to get away with it, because the pensioners upon whom those tricks were performed have now, for the most part, been called to glory. The people who may be pensioners by the time we come to the next election are the sort of people who have no cause to remember what the 1970s were like because at the time they thought they were a long way from pensionable age.

I realise that in making these few remarks I have for a moment been unfair to the hon. Member for Rydedale because I promised that I would say something about the points that she raised that we might have to look forward to from a Liberal or alliance Government. The marvellous thing about severe weather payments, and many other matters, for the alliance, is that it usually tries to say that it has no record to be judged by. It can be sweetness and light to everybody — a problem which would not normally confront Opposition Members.

In this case, however, the alliance does have a record and we do not just have to look at what is happening in one or two obscure local authorities. When the Labour Government were performing such deceptions and trickeries, not as a result of any lack of compassion on the Opposition Benches but because of sheer fiscal ineptitude and the inability to generate the money that would take care of severe weather payments and such matters, they were kept in office, not by the Conservative party but by the Liberal party of that day. If the Opposition Benches swell and other Members come in to join the hon. Lady in her splendid isolation and try to dissociate themselves from the Labour party's record on this, they must be reminded that when they had the ability to choose they supported a Labour Government in such tricks and deceptions.

I started by saying that I saw common ground between myself and the hon. Gentleman. I hope that in terms of what we try to do, I can. But there is another common ground that will not go away. It is the record of past promises, recklessly made to win general elections, blatantly disregarded when the Labour party took power. The hon. Gentleman thinks that history has come full circle in putting him where he sits today. I respectfully suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it will not take him one jot further.

5.39 pm

Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North)

After enduring that pathetic episode from the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)—a display of what my mother would have described as a most accomplished blatherskite—I prefer to return to the main subject of our debate this evening—exceptionally cold weather payments. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has outlined most capably the reasoned case for the annulment of this instrument.

The Minister commenced most graciously by welcoming the tone of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West. However, the sugar soon fell from his words as he went about his business in his customary caustic fashion. However, he did invite us to "examine the details" for once. I am plesed that he has now returned to the Chamber because I would welcome his listening with some care to what I have to say. I would like nothing better than to examine the details with the Minister around a table together with representatives of the voluntary organisations that are saddled with the consequences of the circumstances we are discussing, representatives from the Department of Health and Social Security and perhaps one or two members of my own organisation, the Teesside Pensioners Association. I am sure that representatives from that association, in discussing exceptionally cold weather payments, would give the Minister an exceptionally warm reception. In fact, they may take issue with him on his period of exceptionally cold weather which is characterised as

a period of 7 days beginning on a Monday and ending on the following Sunday". That is stated as if it is some charitable giveaway. One does not have to be a great mathematician to point out that that definition could well refer to an exceptionally cold weather period lasting 19 clays and that, effectively, it is a way of denying a week's payment to any pensioner who may qualify for it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell)

indicated dissent.

Mr. Cook

I see the Minister shake his head. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this in greater detail, either now or later.

I wish to raise with the Minister a much more specific reference related to my own constituency of Stockton, North. I have scoured the document for mention of my constituency, but all my best efforts are to no avail for there is no such mention. Those more readily satisfied with a little learning and who can stay awake for a moment would counsel no cause for alarm by quoting section 4(b) of new regulation 26A which states: where the home of the assessment unit"— I hope the Minister is listening. where the home of the assessment unit is not situated within an area described in column (2) of Schedule 2A, it shall be treated as situated within the area described in that column which is nearest to it. Would that it were quite so simple.

The crucial phrase is: shall be treated as situated within the area described in that column which is nearest to it. The obvious solution would seem to be the issue of ordnance survey maps and scale rules to enable adjudication officers to determine which is the nearest point on the district boundary and which area is the neighbour to that point. Even that would be relatively straightforward.

However, thoroughly to understand the problem I am trying to present one needs to know that Stockton is bounded to the north-east by the borough of Hartlepool, whose district officers must make reference to the national climatological message station at Whitby coastguard, whereas the northern, western and southern boundaries of my constituency have as their neighbours the part district of Sedgefield and the districts of Hambleton, Richmondshire and Middlesbrough, all of which are required to use the inland station of Leeming.

One does not need the skills or expertise of an interstellar cartographer to realise that such predetermined circumstances can give rise to a situation that would be not only ridiculous but reprehensible. I refer, of course, to the prospect of close neighbours in the same geophysical location and suffering similar socio-economic deprivation being subject to evaluation on statistics that are quite different.

Mr. Soames

This is lunacy.

Mr. Cook

The hon. Gentleman may well express his boredom. I suggest that he should return to the bar that he left only five minutes ago before inflicting his presence upon us.

Under the original regulations, the Stockton office of the DHSS came wholly under the Leeming criteria so this anomaly did not apply then. Hon. Members may think that it is small beer my raising the question now. Hon. Members following my line of argument may be tempted to consider that the points are nit-picking — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is trying to interject again and saying that my statement is "bloody stupid". I am sure that the Teesside Pensioners Association—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Plain language is one thing, coarse language is another. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would prefer not to use that expression.

Mr. Cook

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am simply repeating the statement made by the hon. Member for Crawley. If he seeks to withdraw it I shall gladly accept his withdrawal. I am sure that the pensioners of Stockton, North, whom I represent, will note his remark with great interest and I am sure that the pensioners of his own constituency will also take note.

However, as I have said, hon. Members making the effort to follow my argument may be tempted to consider these points as nit-picking. In case that is so I offer some simple facts to illustrate the stupidity. Since 1981 the Leeming station has had seven periods of exceptionally cold weather. In the same period the Whitby coastguard has recorded only two. Therefore, added to the administrative chaos caused by the proliferation of scale rules and survey maps, we will have, if the measure remains in force, the gross inequity of one constituent qualifying for exceptionally cold weather payment while his next-door neighbour may not. As the hon. Member for Crawley said, it is stupid. In truth, it is even more ludicrous although most certainly not laughable.

One constituent in the north of my constituency will be assessed on the same basis as someone in Humberside while his fellow elector from the south side of the same Stockton street will be subject to the same data as are applied to a claimant from Castle Morpeth in Northumberland. That is a geographical difference approaching 140 miles. It is sheer madness.

The situation I bring to the attention of the House is only the latest in a long line of instances where the Government seek to pinch pennies from the poor and deprived. This week alone we have seen several instances of that sort of mentality, and this is the week before Christmas. If Christmas means anything, it should last 366 days not 365, as the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said. There are 365¼ days in a year. If Christmas means anything, this regulation should be annulled tonight and Christians on the Conservative Benches should vote for that annulment.

5.48 pm

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

I want to make an unashamedly simple speech because these matters are very simple and the public outside are concerned about the way in which the Government hide behind complicated indices to prove their statistical case when, indeed, they know the truth.

Last weekend I visited the house of one of my constituents in the town of Maryport. When I walked in the door the first thing that struck me—many might say that we are not even in the cold part of the year—was how cold the house was. As I invariably do, because I love heat, I asked how they managed live in that way. I was told quite simply that they could not afford to heat their home.

In that house both the parents were out of work and there were two children. I went there to discuss a case totally unrelated to this matter. It was to do with another affair where the Government have responsibility. I sat listening to them wondering to myself, how it was possible in these times for people to live in these conditions? I hear Government Back Benchers say things such as, "You should compare your pension with our pension," and various other arguments. All such comparisons are irrelevant. What matters is that the march of progress demands that we set different criteria.

The march of progress required that in 10 years we moved from mechanical systems to chip systems, perhaps by way of the transistor, and the state should set higher standards in what it believes is necessary for people, including the conditions in which they live. Unfortunately, we still set and use criteria that have existed for decades. We must look forward and not make comparisons with the past. An analysis that is based on the past is irrelevant and invalid. We should be thinking of how we intend to raise the living standards of millions, and especially the heating of their homes. Clearly the heating of homes is a living standard. For many people heat is as important as food. There are those in my constituency—

Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman because I am conscious that the Minister wishes to reply. The Minister will reply at the conclusion of my speech.

Mr. Cash

rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours

There are those who fail very often—this happens in my constituency—to feed their children properly—

Mr. Cash

rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours

—and for many reasons they arc failing similarly to heat their homes.

Mr. Cash

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I put a simple proposition to the Minister—

Mr. Cash

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Does the Minister accept that £5 per house over a five-year period—

Mr. Cash

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) must not persist in that fashion.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Does the Minister accept that £5 perhaps once every five years for my constituents, as set out in annex B of the very good report that deals with the proposals for exceptionally severe weather payments—the facts are set out in the report and the truth is that my constituents receive a fiver once in five years—is insufficient to resolve the problem that confronts many people?

Mr. Cash

rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I intend to allow the Minister to reply in a few minutes and I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. The Minister wishes to reply to the debate.

There are many organisations in my constituency that are demanding higher standards. Many of Age Concern's voluntary workers report that they are concerned about people living in cold conditions in the winter months. There is an unemployment centre in my constituency and those who work there make representations to me repeatedly that those who use the centre daily, perhaps to fill their time during their unemployment, are complaining constantly that they cannot afford to heat their homes. There are social workers in my constituency who ask me privately, "Dale, what is going to happen? Why don't the Government understand that standards are changing in the 1980s and that what was perhaps good enough in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s is no longer good enough?" Those who cannot afford to heat their homes know that down the road or in the next town there are those who can. They cannot understand why the great gulf or division has been allowed to open between those who can afford to heat their homes and those who cannot.

There is a responsibility upon the Government to bridge the gap that has opened but they refuse to do so. All that they are prepared to do is cut taxes for the better-off in our society. All Members of this place have received tax cuts over the past seven years of Conservative government, but we know that there are many outside the House who cannot afford to live and are faced day by day, week on week and year by year with additional, niggling little Government measures that only depress further their living standards.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

rose—

5.54 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell)

There have been some distinguished speeches in this debate and, if I may say so, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has asked a serious question which I shall seek to answer.

We are debating a scheme which is designed to give help to the most vulnerable in our society at a time when it is exceptionally cold. There will be common ground it the House that a reasonable scheme should fulfil the following criteria. First, it should operate when it is exceptionally cold, and in areas where it is exceptionally cold. Secondly, it must have clear standards. Thirdly, it must provide help in parts of the country where it is most needed and is very cold, and that takes up what the hon. Member for Workington was saying. Fourthly, it must be easy to understand. Fifthly, it must provide a definite amount of benefit. Sixthly and finally, it must be quick and easy to claim. No scheme is perfect, but the present one passes all the tests that I have set out and has won the approval and support of the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is the Government's independent adviser in these matters.

Mr. Meacher

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lyell

I shall do so in a moment.

As I have said, no scheme is perfect, but it is against the six tests to which I have referred that any scheme should be judged.

The House will remember that we are discussing a scheme for exceptionally cold weather. It is based on a crude average of once in five years' coldness. It is not the basic means of support, which is the current levels of weekly benefits, including additions. These sums will be put into the basic scale rates and the special premiums in 1988.

The basic support—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Workington made a thoughtful speech and I know that he will wish to listen to what I have to say. The basic support comes from weekly benefits, added to which are heating additions. As the House will recall, and as the hon. Member for Oldham West (Mr. Meacher) has rightly acknowledged, the heating additions have been a great deal more generous under this Government than they were under the previous Labour Government. They are up to £400 million per annum in money terms and £140 million more per annum in real terms, and these may be underestimates. It is against that background that I shall answer the questions that have been raised in the debate, but first I shall give way to the hon. Member for Oldham West.

Mr. Meacher

What is the figure within overall public expenditure that the Government have budgeted for the scheme for next winter?

Mr. Lyell

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate from his own experience that no one can forecast whether the coming winter is likely to be exceptionally severe. We shall find out in the next two months. The benefits are demand-led, and over recent years the amounts paid out have varied from nothing to quite small figures, up to about £12 million. The overall budgeting figures, which are demand-led, are well capable of taking any likely figure into account.

I take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Workington. The House should remember that the scheme is based on a standard of coldness which is a crude average. One of the benefits of the scheme, as recognised by the Social Security Advisory Committee, is that it provides more help to the parts of the country that are the coldest. I realise that the charts show that the constituency of the hon. Member for Workington would receive help about once every five years. Other parts of the country that are not exceptionally cold—some city areas are much warmer than other areas—would receive help much less frequently. The tables show that some areas have received help for many weeks over recent years. One of the benefits of the scheme is that it helps areas that are especially cold.

I shall refer later and briefly to the comments made by the hon. Members for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields) and for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). Most of the points made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West were rightly disposed of by the effective speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who put the hon. Gentleman on notice as to the weakness of his arguments. If I had longer, I should like to put him on notice rather more clearly still.

Mr. Corbyn

rose—

Mr. Lyell

I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman because he has not been in the Chamber for very long and he has not participated in the debate, as is true of most Opposition Members.

The hon. Member for Ryedale suggested that the dangers of extremely cold weather should be publicised. That is a good point. Professor Keatings, to whom the hon. Lady referred, has said that old people can look after themselves if they stay indoors and do not expose themselves to cold weather more than is necessary.

The new arrangements will provide for a better system. There will be certainty, through the objective criteria, in deciding when an exceptionally cold period occurs. The way in which we are collecting and disseminating information will enable it to be known quickly when help is available. I commend the system to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 265.

Division No. 47]	[6 pm
AYES
Abse, Leo	Boyes, Roland
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)	Bray, Dr Jeremy
Alton, David	Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Anderson, Donald	Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Buchan, Norman
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Caborn, Richard
Ashton, Joe	Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)	Campbell-Savours, Dale
Barnett, Guy	Canavan, Dennis
Barron, Kevin	Carter-Jones, Lewis
Beckett, Mrs Margaret	Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Bell, Stuart	Clarke, Thomas
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)	Clay, Robert
Bidwell, Sydney	Clelland, David Gordon
Blair, Anthony	Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)	McNamara, Kevin
Corbett, Robin	McTaggart, Robert
Corbyn, Jeremy	McWilliam, John
Craigen, J. M.	Madden, Max
Crowther, Stan	Marek, Dr John
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Martin, Michael
Dalyell, Tam	Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)	Maxton, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)	Maynard, Miss Joan
Deakins, Eric	Meacher, Michael
Dewar, Donald	Michie, William
Dixon, Donald	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Dobson, Frank	Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Dormand, Jack	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Douglas, Dick	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Dubs, Alfred	Nellist, David
Duffy, A. E. P.	O'Brien, William
Eadie, Alex	O'Neill, Martin
Eastham, Ken	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Evans, John (St. Helens N)	Park, George
Fatchett, Derek	Parry, Robert
Faulds, Andrew	Patchett, Terry
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Pavitt, Laurie
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)	Pendry, Tom
Fisher, Mark	Penhaligon, David
Flannery, Martin	Pike, Peter
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Forrester, John	Prescott, John
Foster, Derek	Radice, Giles
Fraser, J. (Norwood)	Randall, Stuart
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald	Raynsford, Nick
Garrett, W. E.	Redmond, Martin
George, Bruce	Richardson, Ms Jo
Golding, Mrs Llin	Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Gould, Bryan	Robertson, George
Hamilton, James (M'well N)	Rogers, Allan
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)	Rooker, J. W.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Heffer, Eric S.	Rowlands, Ted
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)	Sedgemore, Brian
Home Robertson, John	Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)	Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
Howells, Geraint	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Hoyle, Douglas	Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)	Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)	Skinner, Dennis
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)	Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)
John, Brynmor	Snape, Peter
Johnston, Sir Russell	Soley, Clive
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Spearing, Nigel
Kennedy, Charles	Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil	Straw, Jack
Lambie, David	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Lamond, James	Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Leadbitter, Ted	Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Leighton, Ronald	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Wareing, Robert
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)	Weetch, Ken
Litherland, Robert	Welsh, Michael
Livsey, Richard	Wigley, Dafydd
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Williams, Rt Hon A.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Wilson, Gordon
Loyden, Edward	Winnick, David
McCartney, Hugh	Young, David (Bolton SE)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
McKay, Allen (Penistone)	Tellers for the Ayes:
McKelvey, William	Mr. Sean Hughes and Mr. Ron Davies
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Maclennan, Robert

NOES
Aitken, Jonathan	Aspinwall, Jack
Alexander, Richard	Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Ancram, Michael	Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Arnold, Tom	Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Ashby, David	Baldry, Tony

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Galley, Roy
Batiste, Spencer	Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Bellingham, Henry	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bendall, Vivian	Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Benyon, William	Glyn, Dr Alan
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Grant, Sir Anthony
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Greenway, Harry
Blackburn, John	Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Grylls, Michael
Body, Sir Richard	Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Bottomley, Peter	Hampson, Dr Keith
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Hanley, Jeremy
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)	Hannam, John
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Hargreaves, Kenneth
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Harris, David
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Haselhurst, Alan
Bright, Graham	Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Brinton, Tim	Hayes, J.
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Hayward, Robert
Bryan, Sir Paul	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Buck, Sir Antony	Henderson, Barry
Budgen, Nick	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Bulmer, Esmond	Hickmet, Richard
Burt, Alistair	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Butcher, John	Hill, James
Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam	Hind, Kenneth
Butterfill, John	Hirst, Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Cash, William	Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Holt, Richard
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Chapman, Sydney	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Chope, Christopher	Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)	Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hunter, Andrew
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Jackson, Robert
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Jessel, Toby
Cockeram, Eric	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Conway, Derek	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Coombs, Simon	Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Cope, John	Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Cormack, Patrick	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Couchman, James	Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Cranborne, Viscount	Key, Robert
Critchley, Julian	King, Rt Hon Tom
Crouch, David	Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Dickens, Geoffrey	Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Dorrell, Stephen	Lang, Ian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Latham, Michael
Durant, Tony	Lawler, Geoffrey
Dykes, Hugh	Lawrence, Ivan
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Evennett, David	Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Eyre, Sir Reginald	Lilley, Peter
Fallon, Michael	Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Favell, Anthony	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Lord, Michael
Fletcher, Alexander	Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Fookes, Miss Janet	Lyell, Nicholas
Forman, Nigel	McCurley, Mrs Anna
Forth, Eric	MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)
Franks, Cecil	McLoughlin, Patrick
Fry, Peter	McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)	Shelton, William (Streatham)
McQuarrie, Albert	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Madel, David	Shersby, Michael
Major, John	Silvester, Fred
Malins, Humfrey	Sims, Roger
Malone, Gerald	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Marlow, Antony	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Soames, Hon Nicholas
Mather, Carol	Speed, Keith
Maude, Hon Francis	Speller, Tony
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Merchant, Piers	Squire, Robin
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Stanbrook, Ivor
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Stanley, Rt Hon John
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)	Steen, Anthony
Monro, Sir Hector	Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)	Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Murphy, Christopher	Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Neale, Gerrard	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Needham, Richard	Sumberg, David
Nelson, Anthony	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick	Taylor, John (Solihull)
Normanton, Tom	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Norris, Steven	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Onslow, Cranley	Temple-Morris, Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip	Terlezki, Stefan
Osborn, Sir John	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Ottaway, Richard	Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)	Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)	Thornton, Malcolm
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil	Thurnham, Peter
Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Pattie, Geoffrey	Tracey, Richard
Pawsey, James	Trippier, David
Porter, Barry	van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Powell, William (Corby)	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Powley, John	Waddington, David
Price, Sir David	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Proctor, K. Harvey	Waldegrave, Hon William
Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Wall, Sir Patrick
Raffan, Keith	Waller, Gary
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Rathbone, Tim	Warren, Kenneth
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)	Watts, John
Rhodes James, Robert	Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Wheeler, John
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas	Whitfield, John
Ridsdale, Sir Julian	Whitney, Raymond
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm	Wiggin, Jerry
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)	Wilkinson, John
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)	Winterton, Nicholas
Roe, Mrs Marion	Wolfson, Mark
Rossi, Sir Hugh	Wood, Timothy
Rost, Peter	Yeo, Tim
Rowe, Andrew	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Sackville, Hon Thomas
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Tellers for the Noes:
Sayeed, Jonathan	Mr. Michael Portillo and Mr. David Lightbown
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Question accordingly negatived.