Commons Sitting of 10 January 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    USSR (Military Reductions)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for United Kingdom defence policy of President Gorbachev's proposed military reductions.
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for United Kingdom defence policy of President Gorbachev's proposed military reductions.
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's defence strategy of President Gorbachev's proposed reductions in Soviet forces stationed in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and East Germany.
    Mrs. Beckett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for United Kingdom defence policy of President Gorbachev's proposals to reduce the numbers of tanks, combat aircraft and artillery systems.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archibald Hamilton): The British Government and their NATO allies have welcomed the reductions in Soviet forces announced by Mr. Gorbachev on 7 December. If implemented, these will be a significant step towards the elimination of the Warsaw pact's large numerical superiorities in conventional forces in Europe. Even after such reductions, however, Warsaw pact conventional forces would outnumber NATO in Europe by approximately 2·5:1 in tanks and artillery. It will still be necessary, therefore, for NATO to pursue its existing policy of maintaining adequate forces to deter aggression while seeking improved international relations through arms control and other measures.
    Mr. Bennett: Is that not a complacent and disappointing answer to the question? Does the Minister accept that the proposals are very significant, that they will save the Soviet Union a considerable amount of money, that they will enable it to get rid of obsolete equipment and that they will also be a significant step towards reducing armaments? Can the Government match that with some similar gesture? Is it not time that we got rid of Trident, which is extremely expensive and clearly will not work, as
    670
    we do not have an independent communications system? Would that not be a significant gesture in the same direction?
    Mr. Hamilton: The difficulty that we face is the appalling imbalances between the Warsaw pact countries and our own, so there is nothing to be said for balancing this. We want to see continued asymmetrical cuts bearing heavily on the Warsaw pact side. However, we very much welcome this as a good first step.
    Mr. Morgan: Is the Minister telling us that, until the reduction in the Soviet Union and Warsaw pact forces passes the level of the NATO forces on the way down, NATO, and the British Government in particular, will not change their defence policy or try to participate in the process of build-down that the Soviet Union now appears to want to initiate? Does he agree that, by the time President Gorbachev arrives on the re-arranged visit to this country, the Government will have prepared no new United Kingdom defence policy in answer to what appears to be a completely altered threat from an offensive strategy by the Soviet Union to a defensive strategy? Surely the Government must have some response to that.
    Mr. Hamilton: It is much too early to say that the whole Soviet threat has altered. We are seeing a reduction, or proposed reduction, in the numbers of troops, but the military capability of the Warsaw pact, in terms of its equipment, is improving.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister accept that the Soviet Union's package of proposals means that NATO should consider revising its strategy? Should not decisions such as those to base more nuclear-capable United States aircraft in this country be delayed until the full impact of the proposals has been taken into account?
    Mr. Hamilton: No. What we next want to see is progress being made on the conventional stability talks, which will reduce numbers on both sides. There are proposals to reach lower levels, and we are proposing that the number of tanks held by both sides should be 40,000.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that, even after the proposed reductions, the Soviet Union's massive superiority in numbers should give us cause for concern? Does he also agree that the demonstration given by the Mig at Farnborough last year shows clearly how the Soviet Union has caught up with the West in technology and ability and that this should also give us cause for concern, because, at one time, we thought that we had superiority in quality?
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right. Both Flanker and Fulcrum are sophisticated aircraft that have given the Soviet Union a great technological leap forward; we certainly cannot be complacent about the technical capability of the Soviet forces.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is strong support for the views of the Government and their attitude and reactions to the Soviet initiative, but that there is still a great deal of work to be done on verification, and that the best way of dealing with these matters is through the conventional stability talks rather than through unilateral NATO reductions?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, that absolutely must be true. It is important that the Soviet Union takes up a defensive posture over this rather than an aggressive one.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the reductions are welcome, they do not in any way affect the modernisation programme of sea and air-launched cruise missiles that the Soviet Union is carrying out, and that for many years the Soviet Union had a policy of keeping its older tanks as new ones come in and that the equivalent British tanks which correspond to those being scrapped on the other side left service many years ago?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, that is absolutely right. Modern Soviet tanks virtually outnumber all tanks held by NATO forces.
    Ms. Ruddock: Is it not a fact that Mr. Gorbachev has made it clear that there is real expectation in the Soviet Union that the unilateral cuts will take account of that notion and that there will be new tanks among those that are to be reduced?
    Mr. Hamilton: I should be surprised if we saw substantial cuts in the number of new tanks held by the Soviet Union. I remind the hon. Lady that it was Mr. Krushchev who said that he would reduce troops by 1·25 million, and that those reductions never took place.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that many eastern European countries go some way towards welcoming Mr. Gorbachev's announcement of these withdrawals, but would welcome even further withdrawals from their territory? Can he keep pressure on the Soviet Union to continue talks about the future of the balance between the Warsaw pact and NATO at the conventional stability talks in Vienna?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, we shall maintain all pressure. Several eastern European countries are grateful to see Soviet divisions withdraw, but there are no proposals to withdraw the large numbers of divisions from East Germany.
    Mr. O'Neill: The Minister said that the number of Soviet tanks which will be withdrawn are predominantly aged. Will he concede that the bulk of the tanks which are at present located in the German Democratic Republic have of necessity to be among the most modern? Given that a large proportion of the tanks which President Gorbachev has said are being withdrawn will be withdrawn from East Germany, surely it would be inappropriate for us further to enhance the instability of the position by going ahead and modernising our tactical weapons at a time when the threat that those weapons are supposed to be meeting will be considerably reduced?
    Mr. Hamilton: No. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, in practice the Soviet Union is modernising all its weapons systems, so it is important that we maintain the quality of our weapon systems even if we have fewer of them.

    BAOR (Tanks and Helicopters)
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy as to the correct balance of tanks and helicopters for the operational effectiveness of the British Army of the Rhine.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Michael Neubert)rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Neubert: Recent operational analysis has confirmed that both the tank and the helicopter have an essential role on the modern and future battlefield. We shall continue to invest substantially in both, but it is not the policy of this or previous Administrations to provide details of future levels of investment.
    Mr. Greenway: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box and am delighted to hear him for the first time in the House after his rather long period of enforced silence. May I tell him that the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before Christmas about the Challenger 2 tank has been widely welcomed throughout Yorkshire? Can he tell the House what role the Royal Air Force plays in support helicopters for the British Army of the Rhine? In achieving the right balance of tanks and helicopters, does he accept that, so far as possible, we must ensure that whatever equipment is purchased is the best available and is manufactured in Britain? Does he further accept that there should be no reason why those two points are incompatible?
    Mr. Neubert: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for the kindness of his opening remarks. It will be refreshing to give voice in this Chamber more frequently in future. He is right about our decision to commission at the demonstration phase the Challenger 2 tank which has met with a wide welcome in the House and in the world outside, but not in the Kremlin. My hon. Friend asked about command and control of support helicopters. Following a separate study of that question, changes have been implemented that we believe will constitute the best arrangements for guaranteeing support helicopters for land battle, and for providing the necessary confidence to Army commanders that support helicopter assets will be made available and deployed in accordance with their priorities.
    Mr. Dalyell: While we are on the subject of helicopters, are the Government egging on, or pulling at the shirt tails, of Sir John Cuckney in his bid for GEC?
    Mr. Neubert: That matter may arise later, if right hon. and hon. Members are lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
    Sir Jim Spicer: My hon. Friend may like notice of this question; if so, he will let me know. Do the Federal Republic of Germany's defence forces, and those of the United States, have a much higher ratio of helicopters to tanks than we do? If so, is there a lesson for us to learn from that?
    Mr. Neubert: It is not our practice, nor has it been the practice of previous Administrations, to indicate the precise balances of weapons and, in particular, to disclose the numbers of operational aircraft. It is clear that tanks and helicopters are both necessary. Certainly the Soviet Union thinks that tanks are needed, as do the Dutch and the Germans.

    Supplies (Monopolies)
    Mr. Thorne: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to ensure that after 1992 there will not be a monopoly supply situation in any branches of the defence supply industry.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The Ministry is committed to procurement by competitive tender, wherever practicable. We will continue monitoring changes to the supplier base and assess their implications for defence on a case-by-case basis.
    Mr. Thorne: When my hon. Friend's advice is sought over any bid for defence contractors in this country, and for the Plessey company in particular, please will he bear in mind the partners who may be involved in such a bid— especially in view of the fact that they may have nothing to contribute from a defence point of view—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's own question is about what will happen after 1992.
    Mr. Thorne: Following 1992, will we be careful to ensure that we do not make deals with people within the Community that will not be to the benefit of our defence interests, particularly when those concerned have little or no defence expertise of their own? That would mean sharing our secrets now, which might adversely affect our ability to obtain future contracts.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I know that my hon. Friend takes, understandably, a close interest in the defence activities of many of his constituents. I assure him that we shall look carefully at each bid that might arise after 1992, or before, to take account of all the relevant factors, including the ownership of any companies that may be involved in any such bid.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Can the Minister give the House an indication of his Ministry's strategy for ensuring that its procurement programme is not in any sense disrupted or adversely affected by the takeover of companies either now or after 1992?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we attach the greatest importance to maintaining competition among our suppliers, because we believe that that is the best possible way of promoting efficiency and therefore giving us value for money. We consider any circumstances that may arise, including bids of the kind to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers, in the light of that strategy.
    Mr. Burns: Important though events after 1992 are, will my hon. Friend bear in mind events prior to 1992? Does he agree that, important though it is to have a non-monopoly, it is equally vital that Britain's largest defence contractor, GEC-Marconi, is not allowed to become partly owned by a foreign state-owned company? Does he accept that many people in my constituency and elsewhere believe that, if that situation were to arise, it would be the height of folly?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be proper or helpful for me to speculate on possible bids which have not yet been made and the nature of which we do not know.
    Mr. Douglas: Given that the Minister is looking ahead to 1992, will he enlighten the House with his definition of "monopoly"? I accept the confidentiality of this, but what advice has he been given by the Civil Service about the blocking of bids which might result in large defence contractors which are now under threat being taken over or substantially controlled by foreign creditors?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that only one definition of "monopoly" stands up: when there is only one supplier. That is the one that we intend to stick to.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that, both before and after 1992, there is a great deal to be said for big, Great British companies remaining British?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that we can take considerable pride in the competence of British defence contractors. I am sure that we can also agree that we can look forward to continuing to have a flourishing and successful British defence industry.
    Mr. Rogers: In 1986, the Government told the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that they were against a GEC-Plessey merger on the grounds, first, that that would reduce competition in defence procurement, and secondly, that it would mean a financial loss to the MOD of between £600 million and £900 million. May we assume that the Government, who pride themselves on being consistent, still hold the views that they propounded in 1986?
    Mr. Sainsbury: As I think is already known, the Office of Fair Trading has asked all interested parties, including the MOD, for advice on the bid for Plessey, and we have provided that advice in confidence in the normal way—
    Mr. O'Neill: Have the circumstances changed since 1986?
    Mr. Sainsbury: As I have just said, we have provided that advice in confidence in the normal way. Sir Gordon Borrie will make a recommendation to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on whether the bid should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If there were a referral, we would expect to be asked for our views by the commission, and in due course it would publish a report which would. contain our views.
    Mr. Nelson: Does my hon. Friend agree that conditions have changed significantly since the original bid was made? Moreover, when considering, as the question does, the situation after 1992, does he agree that the defence procurement needs of this country will be far better served by companies on a European basis that have the collaborative research strength and base to compete with some of the biggest defence contractors internationally? I very much hope that, for those reasons, my right hon. and hon. Friends will not make representations to the DTI which will prevent the shareholders of GEC and of Plessey from being able to decide for themselves how best to dispose of their assets.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that the important and relevant factors to which he refers will be fully taken into account in any observations that we make about bids that are made, as opposed to bids that might possibly be made.

    AOR Programme
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the AOR programme.
    Mr. Sainsbury: There are currently two auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels on order. These vessels, with their ability to replenish both solid stores and fuel, represent a new capability for the Navy. We expect to order further vessels, but no decisions have yet been made on the size and timing of such orders.
    Mr. Brown: When does the Minister expect AOR 1 to be in service with the Royal Navy? In the meantime, will he confirm that Swan Hunter will be asked to bid for the work on HMS Southampton?
    Mr. Sainsbury: On the first part of the question, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware we do not give precise in-service dates for new ships. As he will appreciate, AOR1 is at a relatively early stage of construction, as is AOR2, and it will be two or more years before we expect it to be in service.
    HMS Southampton is at her base port, and no decision has yet been made about the best way to re-provide the operational capability that she represents. An investment appraisal is being prepared and will receive urgent consideration.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister confirm that AOR I is proceeding at Harland and Wolff with the ability that it has displayed in the past and that any delays that may occur are not necessarily the responsibility of the main contractor, because some of the larger subcontractors may not be delivering according to the time specifications?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I can confirm that the construction of AOR1 is proceeding. I have been to Harland and Wolff myself to see the work in progress. It would not be helpful for me to speculate about any arguments or disputes that might take place between principal contractors and sub-contractors on any delays or difficulties that have arisen.

    Tank Recovery Vehicles
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future programme of orders for tank recovery vehicles.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Subject to detailed contract negotiations, we intend to place an order with Vickers Defence Systems Ltd. for the supply of a further 47 Challenger armoured repair and recovery vehicles in the near future.
    Mr. Cousins: Will the Minister accept that, on the Scotswood road in Newcastle, where the six prototype tanks of a heavier type to support the Challenger 2 tank fleet are being built as a result of competitive tender, his statement will be widely welcomed?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments and I appreciate that the order for a further 47 important armoured recovery and repair vehicles clearly will represent a considerable amount of useful work for Vickers Defence Systems Ltd.
    Mr. Marlow: Could I ask my hon. Friend yet again to look five to 15 years into the future and to look at the potential survivability of the tank and the recovery vehicle? When he comes to the conclusion that many other people have come to—that there is no survivability at all—will he save the money and spend it instead on helicopters?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in bringing in his argument about the relative values of tanks and helicopters on the battlefield. I assure him that the Ministry of Defence always looks five and 15 years ahead in determining its requirements. It seems that others, such as the Warsaw pact countries, still attach great value to tanks and believe they have a considerable survivability, even on the modern battlefield, because they commit large resources to continuing to produce highly capable tanks.
    Mr. Tony Banks: What is wrong with our tanks, then, that they require so many recovery vehicles?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman may be familiar with the fact that, if there were a conflict on the central front—we all hope and pray that there will not—there is a likelihood that some tanks would be hit and would need to be recovered.
    Mr. Banks: Send the AA.
    Mr. Conway: Despite the criticism of my hon. Friend by the Opposition, may I assure him that the order for 47 vehicles is very much welcomed in Shrewsbury, where the engines are made? Can he tell the House whether this generous order—which will bring much-needed work to my constituency—could have been placed if the Government had taken the Opposition's advice and cut conventional defence expenditure?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right in identifying the point that such an order not only provides work in the location of the principal and main contractors but for a large number of sub-contractors. He is also right to say that we continually hear Opposition criticism of new orders being placed and suggestions that the equipment is not necessary. If their policies were put into effect, the implications for those employed in the British defence industry would be serious.

    Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles
    Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the United States Secretary of State for Defence on the development and deployment of the tactical air-to-surface missile.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: We are continuing to study a number of options for the replacement of the United Kingdom's free-fall nuclear bomb. A collaborative approach to the development of a successor system remains highly attractive. In this context, we are keeping in very close touch with the United States Government.
    Mr. Doran: The Government announced earlier that they were interested in the tactical air-to-surface missile. Will the Minister confirm that they are also interested in the nuclear tactical air-to-surface missile which is being developed by the United States Government? Can he also

    677
    confirm that if the missile is developed, it falls within the same category as the cruise missiles, which appear to be being abolished under the INF agreement?
    Mr. Hamilton: The answer to the second part of the question is no. The system will be shorter range than anything that comes under the INF agreement. We are interested in this development, but the warhead would be developed by this country.
    Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important to provide a stand-off capability for the Tornado aircraft as soon as possible, because its ability to bomb with conventional or, indeed, nuclear free-fall bombs is being degraded progressively by the increased effectiveness of Russian defences?
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do not think that the free-fall bomb will be effective after the end of the century, and we must look for a successor if we are to maintain our policy of flexible response.
    Mr. Cartwright: Has the Minister seen recent press reports suggesting that Britain is likely to replace the WE177—a free-fall nuclear bomb—with the United States SRAM T system? Can he say whether there is any truth in those statements, and whether discussions are still continuing about the possibility of an Anglo-French tactical air-to-surface missile?
    Mr. Hamilton: We are very interested in the successor to the ASMP French missile rather than the existing one, which will, I think, be getting very old by the time we are talking about bringing the new missile into service. As for our discussions with the Americans, we are looking at two United States systems, one of which is the SRAM-T—the short-range attack missile. I do not know what the "T" stands for. We are also looking at the SLAT— supersonic low-altitude target—drone. No decision has yet been made, however.
    Mr. Thurnham: When my hon. Friend meets the United States Secretary of State for Defence will he remind him how necessary it is for American forces to be stationed in Europe, despite the remarks of the West German Admiral Schmäling at the weekend?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, indeed. We are constantly reminding our friends in the United States how essential it is that they remain in Europe, and hoping that there will be no withdrawals by United States frontline troops until agreement has been reached under the conventional stability talks.
    Mr. Cohen: Although the nuclear-capable TASM—the tactical air-to-surface missile—is classified as a shorter-range bomb, when the bombs are flown from aircraft can they not be lobbed into the range where the INF agreement applies? In that case, would not the forces be cheating on the agreement?
    Mr. Hamilton: It is not our intention to breach the INF agreement with the replacement of the free-fall bomb.

    Independent Nuclear Deterrent
    Mr. Summerson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what point in the arms control process the Government will be willing to discuss a reduction in the United Kingdom strategic independent nuclear deterrent.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: Our policy remains as set out in paragraph 222 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988", to the effect that if Soviet and United States strategic arsenals were to be very substantially reduced, and if no significant improvements had occurred in Soviet defence capabilities, we would want to consider how we could best contribute to arms control in the light of the reduced threat.
    Mr. Summerson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that Mr. Gorbachev has been in power for only about four years, and the Communist system remains in its entirety? Will the Government bear that fact in mind when considering future changes in nuclear weapons, so that the future defence of this country may be upheld?
    Mr. Hamilton: It is true that the offensive capability of the Soviet Union remains, and we must have a deterrent to stop any Soviet attack in the future.
    Mr. Cryer: Is the United Kingdom not obliged, under clause 6 of the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty—which we honour and to which we conform—to get rid of our nuclear weapons? Is it not a breach of that treaty and a discouragement of the 135 non-nuclear nations that signed the treaty to deploy nuclear weapons as we do?
    Mr. Hamilton: The United Kingdom is not covered by the non-proliferation treaty.
    Mr. John Greenway: Is it not a fact that Mr. Gorbachev has recognised that the United Kingdom nuclear deterrent is not to be included in the nuclear arms control talks at present?
    Mr. Hamilton: That is true, but what we are supporting is the strategic arms reduction talks, which propose a 50 per cent. reduction on both sides. There is no question of our deterrent being included in those talks.
    Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister recognise that we are signatories to the non-proliferation treaty, but cannot be signatories to the first Start treaty, although we could well be signatories to the second Start treaty? Have the Government given any consideration to making British nuclear weapons available in the second round of arms reduction talks, following the early completion of the present round between the Soviet Union and the United States?
    Mr. Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman knows well, we put much greater importance on the conventional reductions and the global chemical ban, which we think should come first.
    Later—
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked a supplementary question to question No. 10 on the United Nations non-proliferation treaty. The Minister denied that Britain was a signatory to the treaty. Is it possible to allow a correction to Hansard to be made by the Minister because he was incorrect? I know that he is new to the job, but he should be accurate. We are signatories to the treaty. The Minister was corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), but the record in Hansard will be misleading. It will show the Minister to be incompetent and will suggest that Britain is not prepared to honour clause 6 of the treaty which obliges us to get rid of nuclear weapons.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I said that Britain was not covered by the treaty; I did not say that we are not a signatory to it.

    Chemical Weapons
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last had consultations with his United States counterpart on the deployment of chemical weapons.
    Mr. Neubert: My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with his United States counterpart on a wide range of defence issues. However, the United Kingdom has not been approached about the possible deployment of United States chemical weapons in the United Kingdom.
    Ms. Quin: Will the Government urge the United States to make a speedy response to the recent Soviet announcement on the elimination of chemical weapons stocks? Will they also urge the United States to come up with a timetable for disposing of its own stocks rather than building them up, as seems to be happening at present?
    Mr. Neubert: The hon. Lady should not forget that the Soviet Union has the largest and most sophisticated chemical weapons capability in the world. For 18 years, between 1969 and 1987, the United States observed a moratorium on the production of chemical weapons with no response from the Soviet Union. In fact, it was only 18 months ago that the Soviet Union acknowledged that it had any. The Russians have a long way to go, but I am sure that the United States, like Britain, will be glad of their response.
    Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend agree that the rapid progress being made in talks on chemical weapons has a great deal to do with the Government's initiative in the exchange between scientists at the chemical defence establishment at Porton Down and its Russian equivalent last year?
    Mr. Neubert: My hon. Friend is right to point to that sequence of events, but it was disappointing that on our bilateral visit to Shikhany we were refused the opportunity to inspect a building that was clearly part of a chemical weapons complex.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Is it not the height of hypocrisy for America to point the finger at Libya when the Americans are continuing to manufacture and to build up stocks of chemical weapons?
    Mr. Neubert: The United States is right, as we are, to be concerned about the possibility of Libya acquiring a chemical weapons capability. That regime is a self-proclaimed sponsor of international terrorism and the prospect of it having chemical weapons must be of concern to all of us, including, I hope, the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Latham: Is not the only honourable policy to be followed that which Britain followed many years ago—to destroy all stocks of these abominable weapons as soon as possible? Should not any country thinking of building chemical plants abandon the idea immediately?
    Mr. Neubert: My hon. Friend is right to point to Britain's record. We abolished our stocks in the late 1950s.
    680
    However, the American moratorium met with no response and there is always doubt about the effectiveness of such unilateral measures.
    Mr. Heffer: Why do the Government always have a negative response to anything that comes out of the Soviet Union? Is it not clear that Mr. Gorbachev has the generals and others breathing down his neck while he is trying to get rid of weapons of all kinds in order to help Russia's economy? Is it not about time that the Government gave a positive response to what Mr. Gorbachev is doing?
    Mr. Neubert: We and the Americans have given a positive welcome to what the Soviets have proposed, but, as I have made clear, they have a long way to go and we shall want some assurance, particularly about verification, before we can be satisfied that their proposal will meet the objectives that we all seek.
    Mr. Devlin: Are not consultations urgently needed with the American Defence Secretary on the possibility of chemical weapons falling into the hands of terrorist organisations, particularly as one state seems happy to hand over all types of weapons to terrorists? Should not we be intervening to stop that as soon as possible?
    Mr. Neubert: My hon. Friend is right. We have close consultations with the Americans on that issue because the proliferation of such weapons in Third world countries which take a different view is a matter of concern to both our nations. The United Kingdom and the Americans are seeking a comprehensive global and verifiable ban, and that will be the best thing.
    Mr. Boyes: I welcome the Minister to his new post, particularly after his six years of silence while I have been a Member of the House. I hope to hear some words of wisdom from him, including an undertaking to ask the United States for a commitment to destroy all the 155 mm shells that they have armed to deliver chemical agents on to the battlefield.
    Will the Minister also ask the United States to cancel the sixfold increase in the budget for the manufacture of the Big Eye bomb and to match the Soviet Union in a series of unilateral and bilateral steps to eliminate all the obscene and horrendous chemical weapons by the end of 1989?
    Mr. Neubert: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. It must be for the Americans to dictate the pace and choice of their weapons policy. They are keen to achieve a comprehensive ban. It was President Reagan's initiative that brought about the Paris conference last weekend. Their good faith is not in doubt.

    USSR (Military Reductions)
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation short-range modernisation programme of President Gorbachev's proposals for military reductions.
    Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation short-range modernisation programme of President Gorbachev's proposals for military reductions.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: President Gorbachev's proposals for a reduction in Soviet conventional forces, if implemented in full, will be a welcome step towards removing the Warsaw pact's significant conventional superiority. However, NATO's requirement to retain the full range of capabilities, nuclear and conventional, in support of its strategy of flexible response, will not change. In order to maintain deterrence at the minimum level of forces, Alliance capabilities must be kept effective and up to date.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister agree that the Montebello decision, rather than short-range weapons, is outdated now that we have the Gorbachev proposals? When will the Prime Minister be big enough to match the proposals? If it is possible to remove troops and tanks from central Europe, is it not time to withdraw nuclear weapons too?
    Mr. Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, at Montebello it was agreed to reduce nuclear stockpiles and remove 1,400 shells. However, at the same time, it was agreed that it was necessary to put forward proposals to update our short-range nuclear systems and that is what we are examining now.
    Ms. Short: During the afternoon we have constantly heard welcomes for President Gorbachev's disarmament initiatives together with the response that we intend to do nothing in return. Could we think again and be more imaginative and generous? The Minister knows that the plan for short-range modernisation is dividing NATO and is deeply unpopular in Germany. Here is a chance for us to reciprocate, to say that we shall not modernise, but will attempt to achieve further disarmament. Or are the Government not really in favour of multilateral disarmament?
    Mr. Hamilton: I must put the hon. Lady right about the deep unpopularity. An agreement was reached to update short-range nuclear systems in October last year. Therefore, there is unanimity on that. If we made other gestures of reductions, we would, merely widen the imbalance between the number of Warsaw pact forces and our own. This is a first step and is welcome, but we want to see subsequent steps which will continue to reduce the imbalance between the forces of both sides.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: It would be churlish not to welcome the latest Soviet proposals. However does my hon. Friend agree that so long as the Soviet Union maintains its present enormous numerical advantage over NATO, and while the Gorbachev era is still at an early stage, it would be the height of folly for the West to be lulled into a false sense of security and to beat its swords into ploughshares?
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is correct. The Soviet Union still maintains an aggressive first strike capability in Europe. We must see a change to a defensive posture. That has not yet happened. We must judge the Soviet Union not by what it says but by what it does and by the factual situation in Europe.
    Mr. Mates: Will my hon. Friend remind the House of the lessons of the INF treaty? Is it not the case that without our resolve to modernise our weapons there would be no
    682
    treaty? Is that not the prime reason why we must press ahead with modernisation, while welcoming any steps that the Russians may genuinely take to lower tensions?
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right. We must continue to negotiate from a position of strength. Any unilateral gestures would undermine our negotiating position rather than enhance it.
    Mr. Sean Hughes: Does the Minister envisage a role for tactical nuclear weapons when a conventional balance is reached?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, I think that as part of the flexible response we shall continue to need tactical nuclear weapons, although, of course, we do not exclude any weapons system whatever in the future.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend agree that we have short-range nuclear weapons because of the very large disparity in conventional forces in the field? Will he further agree that while Mr. Gorbachev's proposals are welcome, we would wish to see actual and real reductions before we could ever think of reducing our modernisation programme?
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are at present talking in terms of proposals and we have not seen any changes on the ground. We must wait until we see those come through and see subsequent reductions as a result of the conventional stability talks which should be going ahead this year.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Chris Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.
    The Prime Minister Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Smith: Many families in this country are this month facing increases in their mortgage repayments of between £50 and £100 a month. For how long will millions of home owners have to suffer as a result of the Chancellor's blind determination to use one weapon arid one weapon only—interest rates—to control the explosion of credit which the Government have themselves helped to generate?
    The Prime Minister: The Chancellor puts as top priority the reduction of inflation — [Interruption.] I notice that this question is asked by a member of a party which during its term in office never got inflation below 7·4 per cent. The top priority must be the reduction of inflation, and the interest rate weapon is the main one. I should also point out that the Chancellor has a more than balanced budget—unlike the position under Labour Chancellors—and that, too, is a significant feature in his fiscal stance.
    Mr. Hanley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hanley: Those affected by the tragic air disasters that have occurred in the last few weeks, in Scotland and in the east midlands, will be grateful for the interest and compassion shown by the Prime Minister in visiting the sites so promptly. Will she do all she can to guarantee to keep the skies as safe as possible for those who travel by air and for those who live under the flight paths?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. Of course I went to the scene in all cases of recent tragedies and of course we all thank most earnestly the wonderful emergency services—the ambulances, doctors, nurses, police and armed forces who have been helping. They are different teams on each occasion. They are all excellent.
    The most difficult thing, as my hon. Friend points out, is giving condolences to the bereaved. There is very little one can do to comfort them, except to be there and know that they realise how much we feel for them. We all want the skies to be safe. There will be a fuller statement on both these matters later, after Question Time.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Returning to the question of interest rates, will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that interest rates in West Germany, which has no oil reserves, are at 3·5 per cent. as against our 13 per cent. plus? Surely part of the reason for this must be related first to an imprudent budget and secondly to our continued failure to join the European monetary system.
    The Prime Minister: No. It is due to years and years of discipline in the German financial system, with the German people accepting that they must, above all, have policies which keep inflation down and that they must watch their unit labour costs accordingly.
    Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the people of Lockerbie and bereaved families from many countries deeply appreciate her two visits to the town and her support and comfort to all concerned? Will she accept that the visits of her Ministers to the town were also welcome, and that the fact that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House attended the memorial service was also much appreciated? Meanwhile, the thoughts of Lockerbie are with Kegworth and the British Midland casualties.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Those of us who went had the greatest possible respect and admiration for the way in which the people of Lockerbie and the local services met the appalling tragedy which befell them one evening, and similarly, for the excellent way in which the people of the east midlands tackled their great tragedy. It is almost impossible to think that we should have two such tragedies in such a short time. If anything was obtained from the disasters it was the marvellous spirit that arose in tackling the problems.
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Prime Minister explain her honour to Mr. Evelyn de Rothschild whose main contribution was to set up in Switzerland to pay less United Kingdom tax?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not ask questions about the honours list in the House.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Prime Minister comment on her new proposals for the poll tax? We all know that folk are about to be hammered and hounded for the poll tax. Why should they not resist when the message from the Government's supporters, honoured by the Prime Minister, is "Can pay, won't pay"?
    The Prime Minister: I quite understand that the Opposition oppose the community charge because they do not want readily available criteria by which Labour local authorities can be judged on their extravagant expenditure.
    Mr. Curry: As John McCarthy spends his 1000th day in captivity, will my right hon. Friend reassure the families of British hostages held in the middle east that the Government will use all honourable means, eschewing contact with terrorists, to guarantee their release?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. Our thoughts are very much with the British hostages and their families, particularly at this season. As my hon. Friend knows, we follow up every possible lead on their whereabouts. Our ambassador in Beirut is particularly active in that, but he knows that it is not easy to find answers to those most difficult subjects. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, during his visit to the Gulf has made it quite clear that we think that the hostages should be freed and that now is the time to do it. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) did the same at his recent meeting with the Iranian Foreign Minister. As my hon. Friend said, we shall not pay ransoms or do deals for hostages. Any civilised nation should do the utmost to see that hostages are released.
    Mr. Kinnock: First, I strongly commend the efforts so far made on behalf of Mr. McCarthy and others and urge upon the Prime Minister further similar efforts to achieve the result which every civilised person must want.
    Secondly, is the Prime Minister willing to allow GEC to fall into foreign hands?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know precisely what is the law passed by this House on any proposed merger. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I must act in accordance with the law passed by the House. Under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Director General of Fair Trading has a legal responsibility to advise the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on whether a merger should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is required to take into account the advice of the director general in reaching a decision on whether to refer a bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The right hon. Gentleman should be very much aware that we have to follow the law passed by the House.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am well aware of the law and the interpretation which the Government have successively put upon the law. I am also aware of the activity of Sir Gordon Borrie. Surely the Government have a view about an issue of such strategic industrial and technological importance. Will the Prime Minister give us the Government's view? Does she consider that it would be in the national interest for GEC to fall into foreign ownership?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is inviting me to prejudge the result of a legal process which, by law, we must undertake. Is it his policy that we should be able to override the law passed by this House just because he asks us to do so?
    Mr. Page: As it is impossible to wipe out the knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, if every country with nuclear weapons were persuaded to remove that capability and if a conventional war broke out and we were winning, she could give a guarantee that the opposition would not use that knowledge of how to make a nuclear weapon to redress the balance—[Interruption.]—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Page: If my right hon. Friend cannot give that guarantee, is not the best solution for the security of this nation a small, powerful nuclear deterrent?
    The Prime Minister: History has shown that conventional weapons are not sufficient to ensure the defence of freedom in this country. If ever they were totally abolished and a conventional war were to break out again, the race would be on to see who could gain nuclear weapons first and we should be back in the same kind of position that we were in at the end of the last war. Nuclear weapons have kept the peace for 40 years. We should not abandon them until we are sure that we have something even safer to protect us and to deter any aggressor.
    Mr. Boyes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Boyes: Does the Prime Minister share the concern of Opposition Members that the Government's target take-up of 60 per cent. for family credit has not been reached and that the take-up is currently below 40 per cent.? What do the Government intend to do about that? Will the Prime Minister look especially at form FC1, which has 16 pages, 13 sections and almost 200 questions? That form is unacceptable, unnecessarily complex and should be simplified as a matter of urgency.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware—we have debated this subject before—that it is our intention to do everything possible to increase the numbers of those who can claim family credit to obtain it. We have looked carefully and recently at the numbers of people who do not claim family credit. Generally we found that those families that could expect a substantial amount from family credit claim it and that those who do not claim are those who are only on the margin. That is the broad, general conclusion. We do our level best to see that all who are entitled can claim.
    Mr. Conway: During the course of her busy day, will my right hon. Friend take time to speak to the chairman of the anti-British Broadcasting Corporation about the "Panorama" programme that was screened last night, which showed a Sinn Fein spokesman, with an actor's voice dubbed over, attempting—pathetically—to justify
    686
    the murders of Light Infantry soldiers last year? Will my right hon. Friend ask the chairman of the BBC when the widows and children of those murdered are likely to get a right of reply?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made his own point effectively and I have no doubt that it will be noticed in the appropriate quarters. I well remember the letter that I received from the mother of a soldier who has been murdered. Referring to the electronic media she stated:
    "They talk about the freedom of the press and the media. Where is freedom of my son?"
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Prime Minister recognise that in the first seven months of this financial year, the Burnley office has used only 17·1 per cent. of the money available in community care grants under the new social fund and that that figure is higher than the figures for some other offices? Does she further recognise that many people in this country are suffering extreme poverty and deprivation as a result of the new system? Will she also acknowledge the words of her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to the Select Committee on Social Services just before Christmas and undertake to hold an urgent review of the procedures and the rules to ensure that such people get the help to which they are entitled as speedily as possible?
    The Prime Minister: We are anxious that people should get the help to which they are entitled. That is the way in which the local offices discharge their duties and the appropriate appeal procedures. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the enormously increased resources that have been made available for all the social security services, going up from about £17 billion 10 years ago to £50 billion this year—an increase of 38 per cent. in real terms. That is what the Government have been able to do to increase the amount of money available for the poorest section of our community.
    Mr. Brazier: As my right hon. Friend comes towards the end of her first 10 years as Prime Minister, will she confirm that during that time we have had exactly 10 Budgets—not one more—and that the reason we enjoy so much greater prosperity today is precisely that the Government have consistently stuck to clear, long-term aims, rather than bending to the latest fashion in economics?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I warmly endorse that. We shall keep the reduction of inflation as the top priority. I am the first to accept that it is the steady and right economic policies which have greatly increased the prosperity of the people of this country and the amount going to the social services, and which have kept us with a staunch and sure defence.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in relation to Question Time.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take it after the statements.

Air Crash (East Midlands)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the aircraft accident that occurred on Sunday evening, near East Midlands international airport.
Just before 8 pm last Sunday evening, 8 January 1989, a British Midland Airways Boeing 737 aircraft began a scheduled flight, BD 092, from London Heathrow to Belfast. About 15 minutes into the flight, the pilot reported a fire in the starboard engine. The fire was apparently successfully dealt with and the captain asked for permission to divert to East Midlands airport for an emergency landing.
Eye witnesses report that, during the final approach to East Midlands airport, the aircraft descended below the normal path with the engine, or engines, making unusual noises. The aircraft crashed just short of the airport onto the M1 motorway, near Kegworth, coming to rest in three main pieces on the motorway embankment.
There were 126 persons on board, including eight crew. Forty-four fatalities have been recorded. Most of the survivors are injured to a greater or lesser degree. Some are still seriously ill and in intensive care.
Accompanied by my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping and my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, I went to the scene of the accident. My colleagues and I were greatly impressed by the skill and the efficiency of the rescue services and the help given by local organisations and residents. The fire, police, hospital, ambulance and rescue services involved all deserve the highest praise. Without their speed, skill and dedication, there would have been many more fatalities. The House will wish to join me both in praising all those involved and in an expression of deepest sympathy to the relatives and friends of those who died, and wish a speedy recovery to those who were injured. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
My chief inspector of air accidents went to the site on Sunday evening with nine of his staff and immediately began an investigation. Representatives from the manufacturers of the aircraft and engines—from the United States and France—arrived on Monday to assist in the investigation.
Investigators found evidence consistent with a shut-down in flight of the right engine before impact, and evidence of a fire in the left engine. They are now concentrating on information about the engines from the flight data and cockpit voice recorders, both of which were recovered. We do not yet know the precise cause of the engine failure and, as in all such accidents, speculation can be not only unproductive but positively misleading.
I shall ensure that the House is kept fully informed of any significant findings of the investigation and that a bulletin will be published as soon as possible.
Mr. John Prescott: On behalf of the Opposition, I offer our deepest sympathies to the relatives and friends of the dead and to those who have been injured in the British Midlands Airways Boeing 737 crash.
The whole nation is horrified at two major air disasters in less than three weeks. The calamity of a crash on a village community was clearly averted only by the supreme
688
efforts and skill of the captain and his crew. Even in these tragic circumstances, the House and, indeed the nation, will want to record our deepest appreciation to Captain Hunt and wish him, the crew and all other survivors a speedy recovery.
In less than four weeks Britain has suffered three major transport tragedies involving rail and aviation, with more than 300 deaths. The House and the country once again express admiration and heartfelt thanks to those in our public emergency services—the police, the armed forces, the fire brigade, the ambulance and hospital services and, at Kegworth, the Automobile Association, a miners' rescue team and other members of the public. Undoubtedly their efforts saved lives.
We have come to expect the highest professionalism, dedication and courage from our emergency services, which on every occasion, rightly earns them the deepest gratitude of the nation.
An unprecedented collection of transport tragedies involving shipping, aviation, oil rigs and the railways have occurred in all parts of the United Kingdom. They have involved not one national elite emergency force, but different regional emergency services, which have all provided excellence that is not only a credit to their professionalism, but of great comfort to those involved in such tragedies. They are a credit to our country, and we rightly salute them.
Today is not the time for searching questions. The inquiry is under way and the answers and the lessons will be available soon enough. However, I ask the Secretary of State to consider some issues that have been brought to my attention and to which the inquiry should address itself. Will he consider instructing the inquiry to go beyond the traditional approach of rightly discovering what went wrong, by specifically considering the extent and type of the injuries suffered by the passengers and crew?
Will the inquiry consider how, in crash landings, passengers may be better protected by, for example, having the seating facing the rear of the plane, as in military air transport? Will the inquiry also take evidence about the advisability of long flights over water by twin-engined commercial aircraft? In the event of a double engine failure, that would inevitably mean total loss. Is there not a danger of being lulled into a false sense of security by quoting the statistics for the chance of such a failure as being many millions to one?
The Secretary of State will be aware that the East Midlands is one of our fastest growing airports and that it has been considering extending its runways to bring them within yards of the M1 and the A43. Such an area is known as the public safety zone, which prevents building in the flight path area. Will the inquiry take into consideration the possibility of tunnelling major roads under the flight path, which undoubtedly would have have allowed that aircraft a better chance of landing safely?
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, especially for his initial remarks, which I am sure the whole House supported, in particular his references to the AA and other local people and organisations that helped so much on this appalling occasion.
My right hon. Friends and I will carefully consider the last point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). There is more than one side to the argument about backward-facing seats. Backward-facing seats would give a greater chance of

689
survival in a relatively small number of accidents. In minor accidents, the present seats and belts are adequate. In a major accident, the disruption to the aircraft structure releases any form of seating restraint and that can result in fatalities and serious injuries. Of course, that does not mean that we will not reconsider this matter, but the argument is not one-sided.
The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about the possibility of twin-engined aircraft flying on one engine over water. Special rules apply to twin-engined aircraft that must fly for more than 90 minutes from an aerodrome at which they could land. That did not apply to that particular aircraft.
Before I get into questions of engine failure and what should happen to such aeroplanes in those circumstances, it would be wiser to discover exactly what did occur on this occasion. I shall, however, consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his firm refusal to speculate in advance of the inquiry report upon the causes of this accident has given great comfort to the professionals in the air transport industry and, I believe, to those who are involved in any way whatsoever? Is he also aware that the similar reluctance of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will also bring comfort? Will he undertake that this investigation will be pressed forward and that at least preliminary results will be made available as soon as possible in order not only that all those concerned can take the appropriate actions but that confidence can be restored in the air transport industry?
Mr. Channon: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am sure it is wrong for me, or indeed for anyone, to speculate at the present time, and I am grateful for his support on that issue. This investigation will be pressed forward as quickly as possible, and if there are things that can be said, possibly in the not too distant future, they will be said at the earliest possible moment, so that we may have the effect that my right hon. Friend has in mind.
Sir Russell Johnston: Is the Minister aware that we on this Bench wish to associate ourselves very much with the condolences already offered to the victims of this ghastly crash and to those whose families were suddenly and sadly bereaved? We applaud the courage of the pilot and we also very much congratulate the rescue services on their care and efficiency. I think that most Members of Parliament fly regularly, and it is very easy for us to associate ourselves with this appalling accident. The Minister quite clearly cannot give us detailed answers, but he will know that we will want the most rigorous examination and, most particularly, assurances as soon as possible about the aircraft type's continued safety in use.
Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right on all those points. I appreciate what he has said. I appreciate the House's desire to have information at the earliest possible moment. We will do what we can in all those areas.
Mr. David Ashby: I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for coming so promptly to my constituency following the tragedy to give comfort to the bereaved and injured and encouragement to the
690
services. May I also join the villagers of Kegworth in paying tribute to Captain Kevin Hunt, the captain of the airliner? He showed courage and tremendous skill as a result of his training in getting his crippled aircraft almost on to the runway.
I also pay tribute to the services themselves and also to the training of the firemen and the police, which showed through when it was required. Finally, does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest tribute should be paid to the army of helpers, to the Salvation Army, to the social services, to the many volunteers and the many voluntary services and also to the villagers of Kegworth, who showed great heroism at the time in helping the injured and bereaved?
Mr. Channon: Yes. I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend says and, as he will know from his own experiences in the last 36 hours or so, the remarkable thing was the number of helpers who came forward. Indeed, there were so many helpers that at one moment, some almost had to be turned away. It was a remarkable local effort, as well as one by the emergency services to whom tribute has been paid. I endorse everything my hon. Friend has said and I am grateful to him for his remarks.
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: As my party's spokesman on transport and the constituency Member for the Belfast international airport, which was the destination of flight BD 092, may I join the Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members in their expressions of sympathy to the bereaved and their hope for a speedy recovery of the injured? Will the Minister pass on the grateful thanks of the Northern Ireland relatives and friends of passengers involved in the crash to the emergency services for their tremendous efforts during the rescue operation; and, of course, our admiration for the pilot, whose skill in minimising the crash was admirable? Our thanks also go to the local hospitals which have done such a good job in looking after the injured.
I am sure that the Minister will also wish to join me in congratulating the Belfast airport and British Midlands staff, who, along with clergymen, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Samaritans and the Salvation Army, among others, were magnificent in looking after and comforting relatives during the long and stressful night after the announcement of the disaster. I believe it to be a privilege to have been allowed to share in that work during the early hours of the morning. Therefore, I speak from first-hand knowledge. I welcome the full investigation that is taking place. I hope that the result will be announced as soon as possible.
Mr. Channon: Again, I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. What he has said has been said to me during the last day or so by many people from Northern Ireland who were on the flight. I have seen many of the relatives and some of the injured in the hospital that I visited. They were full of praise, as the hon. Gentleman said, for the emergency services and for the work of the hospitals. I am very glad that, as a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament, he should have said so in this House. I strongly support what he said, and I am grateful to him.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: While expressing sympathy with those who have suffered in this tragedy, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider another point which is also relevant to the Lockerbie and Clapham

691
disasters? Some of the suffering may be alleviated if those who fear that relatives or friends may be involved in a particular accident can establish whether that is so as soon as possible. Will my right hon. Friend consider whether there should be a single emergency number for such purposes and whether suitable arrangements could be made with the telecommunications services to ensure that replies are given as urgently as possible?
Mr. Channon: I am not sure that that is a matter for me, but I shall consult my right hon. Friends on that point. The one point of criticism that one hears is the difficulty of getting through on the lines to obtain information, because it is often not available. People do not want to give inaccurate information. However, my right hon. Friend has made a perfectly valid and good point and I shall look into it.
Mr. Alfred Morris: While joining in the expressions of sympathy to the bereaved and injured, can I press the Minister to do all that he possibly can to speed up the process of inquiry? Does he recall that the fire accident in a Boeing 737 at Manchester airport, which cost over 50 lives, occurred on 22 August 1985? We are still awaiting a full and definitive report on that accident and, while I accept that there is need for deep thoroughness in investigations, will the Minister accept that, if speeding up inquiries can save lives, then urgency is extremely urgent?
Mr. Channon: The right hon. Gentleman made a similar point to me not long ago in a supplementary question. I have considerable sympathy for his point. Very special circumstances surrounded the Manchester disaster. The report will be published in March. I take note of the general feeling throughout the House that we want to get to the bottom of this tragedy at the earliest possible moment. Even if the full report cannot be published for some time, I know that there is a general desire in the House that we should take steps to provide an interim report, or an interim bulletin, which might satisfy the House. I am determined to do that, and I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: As my right hon. Friend is aware, the pilot and a large number of those in the emergency and hospital services are my constituents. Captain Hunt's family has asked me to pass on their thanks to everyone concerned for all their help and for all their good wishes. I thank also my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other right hon. Friends for the dignity and the compassion that they have shown on their visits to the east midlands and on other visits of a similar sad nature. Those visits are very much appreciated by the local people. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the marvellous co-operation between the emergency services from three counties was a model of its kind? Will he ensure that the lessons of how it should be done are learned for the future?
Mr. Channon: Yes, I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about that. The liaison between the various hospitals was quite extraordinary and extremely efficient. I know that Captain Hunt is one of my hon. Friend's constituents. I saw Captain and Mrs. Hunt yesterday and I know that my hon. Friend has been in touch with them.
692
I am sure that the whole House wishes Captain Hunt a speedy recovery from his injuries. I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Greville Janner: May I join in expressing sorrow to those people who have suffered and are still suffering as a result of this tragedy and in paying tribute to the rescue workers from Leicestershire and other neighbouring counties who saved so many lives? However, having regard to the deep concern felt by all air crew and all air passengers as a result of this and similar accidents, I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) in asking that steps be taken urgently to check the engines of the sister aircraft. Many people are worried because the accident involved a comparatively new aircraft. In those circumstances, surely it would be wise to make checks on other aircraft now rather than waiting for the result of an inquiry, when we have already waited so long for the result of an inquiry into a similar accident. Meanwhile, rightly or wrongly, thousands of people feel that they are at risk.
Mr. Channon: I understand the hon. and learned Member's concern and I agree with the first part of what he said. I visited Leicester royal infirmary yesterday and I can say from first-hand knowledge that its accident department has done a remarkable job.
At present, there are only four aeroplanes with similar engines in this country. None of them is in operation at present, so I can meet the hon. and learned Gentleman's point while the investigation makes progress.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the Minister will be aware that some of my constituents were killed and others injured in the tragedy that took place on Sunday evening. I am also sure that he is aware that I and the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) had the sad duty of conveying to some of the relatives the tragic news about their families.
The Minister will be aware that those people deeply appreciate the work done by all the emergency services and especially the heroism—I use that term deliberately—of the captain of the flight. The people of Northern Ireland are grateful. As I sat with the relatives, they said that everything was in good hands and that everything possible was being done to alleviate the situation. I should like to put that firmly on the record. I am grateful for the expressions of gratitude made by Members on both sides of the House. When I visited my injured constituents in the three hospitals yesterday, they all paid tribute to the nurses, doctors and those who have looked after them so well.
I wish to ask one question. Will money be available immediately to those people who may need financial help? Families have been completely devastated; in some cases, the breadwinner of the family has gone and there may be a need for immediate financial aid. Can the Minister help us on that?
Finally, as there is so much talk today about the plane's engines, will the Minister assure the House that the inquiry's findings will be fully published so that everyone will know the facts?
Mr. Channon: I met quite a few of the hon. Gentleman's constituents yesterday, and I endorse what he said. I am grateful to him for his comments about the work of the emergency services and the hospitals.

693
I shall certainly take immediate steps to inquire about the point that the hon. Gentleman rightly raises about money being made available immediately to those people who are in financial difficulty as a result of this appalling disaster.
As to the hon. Gentleman's point about the engines, and in answer to other points made earlier, I should make it clear that the air accidents investigation branch passes its recommendations to the Civil Aviation Authority immediately. It does not wait until the report is published, so, even if the final report is not published for some time, any action that needs to be taken in the interim is taken. I undertake to ensure that that is done.
Mr. Keith Vaz: As a fellow Leicestershire Member, may I join the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) in praising the emergency services of the county—in particular, the work of the royal infirmary? In passing, we should note that there are proposals to close eight of the hospitals in Leicestershire; I hope that, because of the work of the emergency services, that will be reviewed.
On 5 January, I wrote to the Secretary of State about aircraft flight paths over urban areas. Although that letter dealt specifically with low-flying aircraft and this aircraft was flying at a high altitude, my constituents are anxious and distressed about the various activities in Leicestershire's aerodromes, specifically at air displays, which have resulted in nuisance. Vulcan bombers have often flown over houses in Evington. Would the Secretary of State look carefully at that issue and reply to me as soon as possible so that I can reassure my constituents?
Mr. Channon: I shall certainly reply to the hon. Gentleman. I hope to make an announcement on the regulation of air displays in the near future which I hope that he will find satisfactory. I endorse what he says about Leicester royal infirmary. His remarks about the closure of hospitals are more properly directed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, to whose attention I shall draw them.
Mr. David Wilshire: In echoing sympathy to the relatives of the victims and thanks to the emergency services, I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to one issue which arises from this dreadful tragedy: that Sunday's tragedy happened close to an airport, where the local police were trained in air crash victim recovery, as they are at Heathrow, which sent 23 officers to Lockerbie. In the circumstances, will my right hon. Friend ask the Home Secretary to ensure that the police experience gained in these tragedies is recorded while it is still fresh in mind, and is made available to all police forces? Will he consider discussing with the Home Secretary the possibility of setting up a national police unit which will be available to any force to assist with air crash victim recovery, should it so dreadfully be necessary again?
Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend is here and will have taken note of what my hon. Friend said about that important matter. The need to pool the best experience in this area is obviously clear and must be done. All the evidence is that in these appalling disasters the emergency services have functioned with the utmost skill and success, and it is almost impossible to think of ways in which they
694
could be improved. My hon. Friend puts his finger on a point which may need consideration, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will consider it.
Mr. Jim Marshall: May I join other Leicestershire Members in paying respect to the professionalism and expertise of the emergency services and the armed forces, and in particular, to those at Leicester royal infirmary, which is in my constituency? They showed a high level of expertise and skill, and certainly have done a great deal to save many lives. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not feel that it prejudices the inquiry if I ask whether he can say whether the East Midlands airport at Castle Donnington was the nearest suitable airport for the aircraft to land.
Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I had the privilege of visiting Leicester royal infirmary yesterday. It did a remarkable job. Many volunteered, and it was a thoroughly professional operation. People were brought in by helicopter from the site. I am sure that the hospital should be and is proud of its performance. Clearly, the inquiry will have to establish whether it was the nearest suitable airport for the pilot to attempt a landing. I had better not comment on that this afternoon. All will become clear in the not-too-distant future.
Mr. Peter Rost: May I add my tribute to and admiration of all involved in the emergency services, many of whom come from my adjoining constituency of Erewash, and of all those members of the public who courageously contributed to the rescue work, in stark contrast to the large crowds of ghoulish spectators who arrived on the scene and hindered the rescue operation?
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree with his comments about the enormous number of people who helped and did an excellent job.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: In view of all the accolades and tributes that, quite properly, have been paid to the public sector fire service, public sector ambulance service and public sector hospital services—with BUPA nowhere to be found—may we have the Minister's guarantee, especially since the Prime Minister is seated next to him, that none of those services will be privatised?
Mr. Channon: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. James Kilfedder: I join the expressions of heartfelt sympathy to the relatives of victims and those injured in this terrible tragedy, which claimed the lives of a number of my constituents. I pay tribute also to the emergency services, whose actions, as the right hon. Gentleman said, undoubtedly helped to save a number of lives. Will the Secretary of State again consider the question of compensation? Not only is there a need for immediate payment of compensation due under the terms of the Chicago convention: in the light of present circumstances, does he accept the need for an enhanced volume of compensation for the victims of civil disasters such as this?
Mr. Channon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's first comments. As to compensation, he will appreciate that it was a domestic flight. As I understand the compensation rules, they are governed by United Kingdom law, and all UK-licensed airlines are required to

695
enter into special contracts providing for liability limits of about £70,000. That arrangement must be reviewed from time to time.
Mr. William Ross: We have been continually reading and hearing that the odds against two engines of an aircraft failing are many millions to one. Does that figure have any practical application? Can the Secretary of State put it into perspective by telling the House how many twin-engined aircraft flights take place worldwide every year? Also, can he say whether, on the aircraft that crashed, the two engines' coolant or lubricant systems were in any way linked?
Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important question, but it is one for the investigation to consider; I hope that he will forgive me if I do not answer now. It is a factor that will be examined, along with many others, in the course of the investigation.
I do not have to hand the number of flights by twin-engined aircraft taking place worldwide every year, but possibly the hon. Gentleman is making a point that, in general, remains very true—that, among all forms of travel, air transport is still extremely safe.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), if, in advance of establishing the cause of the accident, it is possible to make an interim announcement at least eliminating some possible causes about which there has been speculation, will my right hon. Friend give favourable consideration to that course, so as to give some reassurance to the travelling public?
Mr. Channon: Yes, Sir.

Lockerbie Air Disaster
4.2 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I fear that this will be a somewhat longer statement. I am sorry to inflict two statements upon the House, but it will wish to be kept in touch with events relating to the Lockerbie air disaster.
On 28 December, the inspector in charge of the accident investigation at Lockerbie announced that the aircraft had been destroyed by the detonation of high explosive. A team from my air accident investigation branch, assisted by people from the local emergency services and armed forces, has been working to find out where in the aircraft the bomb was placed. The chief inspector of air accidents is today issuing a bulletin that narrows the area to that of the No. 1 cargo and baggage hold just forward of the wing. It is too early to say yet where the article containing the explosive orginated.
It may help the House if I explain how the investigation is organised. Because the incident happened in his area, the chief constable of Dumfries and Galloway is in charge of the police investigation under the supervision of the procurator fiscal. The chief investigating officer is a chief superintendent of the Strathclyde police, and he is being given extensive assistance by other police forces in this country, including the metropolitan police, and by the FBI both in Lockerbie and in the United States. The investigators here have close links with the German police who are investigating the incident in Frankfurt, and other authorities in Europe and elsewhere who may be able to help to trace the movements of the passengers and their contacts immediately beforehand.
It is an enormous task recovering the wreckage and indentifying and tracing the passengers. It is being tackled with great professionalism and dedication. We owe all those involved a great debt of gratitude. Every effort is being made to find the perpetrators of this outrage and to bring them to justice.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are also very deeply aware of the traumatic effects of this disaster on the people of Lockerbie. The Government have contributed £150,000 to the Lockerbie air disaster fund, and my right hon. and learned Friend and his officials are pursuing with Dumfries and Galloway regional council the question of wider costs arising from the disaster.
It is essential that we discover who put the bomb on the aircraft and how it got there. We must await the progress of the investigation. The signs of the use of a high performance plastic explosive—which was very probably, but not certainly, Semtex—point to a well-organised and well-supplied terrorist group. If that proves to be the case, I am sure that the House will join the Government and the Governments of most nations to condemn not only the despicable murderers themselves but any country which has supplied them, trained them, housed them or encouraged them.
There has been much speculation about the origin of the article in which the explosive was placed on the aircraft. I hope that the extensive, painstaking and detailed work on the wreckage, which is still being recovered, will eventually establish which consignment contained the bomb. It cannot help those seeking to discover the facts to speculate, and I am not prepared to do so.

697
The fact that a bomb was on board an aircraft flying from Heathrow obviously raises questions about aviation security in this country. Security at our airports is acknowledged to be among the best in the world. Yet an aircraft with all its passengers and crew has been lost, and there have been grievous casualties on the ground. Immediate steps, in consultation with the Federal Aviation Authority and with the United States airlines, have been taken to increase security for those airlines' scheduled operations at Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester and Prestwick.
Those measures were promulgated as soon as the accident investigator's announcement that the aircraft was destroyed by an explosive device was made on 28 December; the came into effect the next day. They require additional hold and cabin baggage checks, including checks of all baggage transferred from other aircraft, and more stringent requirements for protecting aircraft while they are on the ground. I am grateful for the co-operation we have had from the United States authorities and airlines and the airports.
Subsequently, on 5 January, I met the National Aviation Security Committee, which held a special meeting to discuss the implications of the Lockerbie disaster. The committee, which comprises representatives of the aviation industry, police and Government Departments, was joined by representative's of the FAA and the police team investigating the incident. The committee endorsed the measures already taken by my Department and the FAA. In the light of the committee's discussion, I decided to take immediately further measures in relation to cargo, misrouted baggage and cabin baggage. Other measures, which are now being vigorously pursued, were identified for the longer term.
One aspect of the tragedy that has attracted particular attention is the so-called warning in a security bulletin issued by the United States Federal Aviation Administration to United States airlines. Warnings and threats of one kind or another are an all too common occurrence in the civil aviation industry. My Department arranges for each one to be assessed in the light of other intelligence, and then considers whether any changes need to be made to the relevant security measures. In the rare circumstances when such changes are considered necessary, the airports and airlines concerned are always informed of the warning and of the action that they should take.
The United States aviation authorities operate a different approach, which is to issue frequent bulletins to their airlines and overseas officials giving details of the threats received. A copy of the FAA bulletin in question was received by my Department on 9 December. As is usually the case, it contained the explicit caveat that it was not to be further disseminated without the specific approval of the FAA's director of civil aviation security. It referred to a warning made by an anonymous telephone call to the United States embassy in Helsinki on 5 December.
The bulletin was subjected to the assessment process I have already mentioned. In this case, the United States authorities were asked for their assessment. We were given to understand that they had been in touch with the Finnish authorities. The Finnish police had made a full investigation of the call and previous calls of a similar nature and had concluded that these calls had little credibility. United States airlines were already subject to
698
enhanced security measures. The warning was no more significant than many others received in the past, and it was concluded that it did not warrant enhancing those measures still further.
While the warning identified the airline and the Frankfurt-United States route, no mention was made of London, and the warning threatened that an attack would take place within two weeks, which expired before the tragedy took place on 21 December.
Aviation is an international industry and terrorism knows no boundaries. The security procedures we follow derive from international standards laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. We have joined the United States Government in asking the council of ICAO to condemn this attack against aviation and to work urgently to improve standards of security. We shall also mobilise the support of friendly countries and pursue the subject in other appropriate international fora.
This was a hideous, murderous and indiscriminate attack on innocent people. It will have served only to intensify our efforts to protect travellers and to fortify our implacable resolve to defeat international terrorism.
Mr. John Prescott: The House will welcome this full statement by the Secretary of State confirming the rumours at the time of the last statement that the aeroplane was destroyed by a high explosive and raising the major issues of who and why, and of airport and aircraft security.
This morning I received a rather moving telephone call from a mother whose son died in the tragedy. She complained about the difficulties of identifying bodies in these circumstances —they were also evident in the American example. I hope that the Secretary of State will take this opportunity to examine the procedures for identifying people who have died in such tragedies and for allowing relatives easy access, when possible, to do that.
By confirming that this was a bomb, the Secretary of State raises the question why the Government did not inform the House earlier—on the last occasion when the right hon. Gentleman made a statement—about information that they held. The right hon. Gentleman knows, and his statement confirmed, that the information received about the company, the plane, the route and the time—to within two days—was all accurate.
The fact that the Secretary of State says that the information did not identify the fact that the flight would pass through London is not a source of comfort but another example of the way in which the Government ignored the seriousness of the threat. It is another example of how the Secretary of State—he has confirmed this in a letter given me a few minutes ago—deliberately withheld this information because he did not want to fuel speculation about the cause of the loss of the aircraft.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I appealed to the House on the day of his previous statement not to speculate about the cause. So why did the Secretary of State, within half an hour of leaving the House, confirm on public radio precisely the information that he has now confirmed to the House so many days later? Why did he confirm on radio on the Friday morning exactly the information which would presumably have fuelled the speculation that he wanted to prevent—the reason he used to justify not giving the information to the House?
I wrote asking for such a justification, but I was not aware then that the Secretary of State was leaving for his

699
holidays, a judgment with which I publicly disagreed— [Interruption.] I now ask the Secretary of State to justify why he was prepared to give this information to a public radio programme half an hour after the House had heard a statement which was incomplete. We expected nothing less than a full statement from the right hon. Gentleman.
The Secretary of State must be aware that, when he makes statements at difficult times, hon. Members will refrain from asking certain questions—that has been evident from earlier statements—because of the tragic circumstances. But that requires him to observe the obligation to provide as much information as he can to the House so that we can make a proper assessment. Does the Secretary of State accept that, if he had given the information to the House, many of us would have changed our line of questioning—naturally—to airport and aeroplane security?
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now justify why he deliberately withheld this information from the House. It is a serious matter. It shows the difference between the way in which the Secretary of State acted on the information and the way in which other authorities —the Americans and the Germans—did. Does he accept that their response to the same quality of information was to increase security at their airports and on their aeroplanes and, in the case of the American authorities, to warn American embassies, some of which carried the warning on their notice boards? That shows the importance and the priority that they gave to this quality of information.
Do the same procedures for evaluating the many bomb threats that the right hon. Gentleman's Department receives in Britain still apply now? Clearly, they failed to deal adequately with this threat. The Secretary of State has told the House that, on receipt of this information, he inquired about and reviewed safety at Heathrow and on this airline, and was satisfied that the enhanced security was sufficient. So why was the British Airports Authority not informed of the enhanced security, or of the threat? Why did the American and German authorities increase security in response to it more than we in Britain did?
Is not the real tragic lesson of Lockerbie that it revealed muddles in procedure, excessive secrecy and insufficient priority for security cover at Britain's airports, which was exposed in a report by the Select Committee on Transport, issued in October 1986? That report was initiated at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who was concerned about our airport security, and it exposed the inadequacies of security at Britain's airports. I ask the Secretary of State and his Department to review their response to that report. They rejected many of its major recommendations—the establishment of an aviation security inspectorate, and the re-establishment of an aviation security fund, paid for by levy, to pay for necessary equipment. Such a fund was established by a Labour Government in 1978 and dismantled by this Government in 1983 to cut costs.
We ask the right hon. Gentleman, too, to replace the many confusing private security firms, with a national airport police, and to reverse the trend of issuing advisory notes, rather than directions, on security. Above all, will the Secretary of State now reject his Department's response to the Select Committee's recommendation for
700
banding machinery? It rejected the proposal not only on the grounds of cost but— apparently—because of the lack of available power points and space at counters in our airports. That attitude is not acceptable in the Department responsible for security at our airports.
Finally, it is clear beyond doubt from the many public expressions of support for such things, that the travelling public are quite prepared to wait a little longer and pay a little more if that will improve aviation security. They expect the Government to ensure that an adequate level of safety and security is established; they are far from convinced that that is being achieved now.
Mr. Channon: I shall start with the non-controversial point made by the hon. Gentleman about the procedures for the identification of bodies. I shall certainly look into them, but in the distressing case of Lockerbie I believe that only 39 bodies could be identified in the normal way. So, while it is difficult to know how to improve such procedures, they will be examined.
I strongly refute the hon. Gentleman's remarks about security matters. I refute what he said about muddle: there was none. When I came to the House on 22 December I was aware of the existence of the warning, but it was important, so soon after the disaster, to refrain from speculation about the cause—the hon. Gentleman said as much himself in a supplementary question that afternoon.—[Interruption.] That was the hon. Gentleman's remark—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Channon: Also, an FAA bulletin stated that it was not to be referred to without the specific approval of the FAA's director of civil aviation security. I refute the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of events and of what I said later.
As I have already said, we are reviewing the whole question of aircraft security. I reject what the hon. Gentleman said about our attitude to the Select Committee's report. My predecessor accepted the overwhelming majority of the recommendations some years ago. The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to banding machines and to a levy. On the levy, there are no financial considerations that would lead to inadequate security being allowed. Security costs can always be passed on in an appropriate way. I see no reason at this stage to consider an aviation security levy, although I would not rule it out for all time. Banding machines play a limited part in increasing security and do not make the difference that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East pretends they do.
It would have been wholly irresponsible of me at that stage to release that warning. The House in general understands that, so I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman seeks to drag up this red herring to try to divert attention from some of his more foolish remarks recently.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that no praise is too high for the rescue services, the police, the fire services, the local council, the regional district council, the community workers, the Churches and countless thousands of others from voluntary organisations? My right hon. Friend may still be discussing the matter with his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but can he give an assurance that no part of the cost from the awful

701
tragedy that stemmed from a terrorist bomb and which has now led to an international murder hunt will fall on the local community?
Mr. Channon: On the second part of my hon. Friend's remarks, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is pursuing with the Dumfries and Galloway regional council the matter of wider costs arising from the disaster and he will note my hon. Friend's remarks. I know that the whole House agrees with my hon. Friend's comments about the emergency services and their reaction on the occasion.
Mr. David Steel: We all admire those who were involved in the collecting and analysing of wreckage from this terrible incident. Tribute has been paid to the professional services, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will also wish to thank the volunteers from the forestry organisations, for example, and the mountain rescue teams from the south of Scotland and over the border who helped in this incident.
I want to ask a few questions about the security aspects. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, immediately after the accident, a check was made that nobody was able to book through from Frankfurt to New York, check in baggage and then leave the plane at London? Can he confirm that that possible route has been ruled out? Secondly, can he confirm that the Czechoslovakian Government are now willing to engage in methods of identifying Semtex plastic explosive, which they have not been willing to do before? Thirdly, will the Secretary of State give the House some idea of the number of false bomb warnings received each year by his Department, so that we may keep the matter in perspective?
Mr. Channon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. There were many volunteers at the disaster and they cannot be praised too highly. On the matter of checking baggage, I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he has asked. I hope that the House will understand that on some questions I do not answer fully and that there may be good reasons for not doing so. On the question of Semtex£
Mr. Prescott: Where is the national security in that?
Mr. Channon: I dispute that. I am trying to deal with an important matter. As to the question of Semtex, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) has had a meeting with the Czechoslovakian Foreign Minister today. I believe and hope that a constructive result will follow from that. I understand that a Czech team will visit this country, beginning tomorrow, so I hope that the matter will be energetically pursued.
About 215 bomb warnings are received annually and there are a large number of other warnings as well.
Mr. Michael Colvin: My right hon. Friend is right to describe aviation terrorism as an international menace. The House will be relieved to know that the matter is top of the agenda at the meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation in Montreal. It is hoped that the organisation will agree on an international strategy for meeting the threat, although once measures are identified, there is the matter of their implementation. I accept my right hon. Friend's comment that there is no needed for a levy on passengers in the
702
United Kingdom. We are a developed nation, but there are other countries that are not as developed, in which a lack of resources may result in such measures not being taken.
What is my right hon. Friend's reaction to the suggestion that there should be a $1 levy per ticket for every civil aviation passenger, which would raise about $180 million a year, which could be paid to ICAO for use internationally to ensure that measures are introduced at all airports? Security is like a chain, because it is only as strong as its weakest link. Surely our aim must be to eliminate the weak links.
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend has raised a very important point. Clearly, there will be discussions within ICAO about aviation terrorism in the next few weeks—indeed, such discussions have already begun. I shall consider my hon. Friend's remarks and whether it would be appropriate for us to raise that question with ICAO. I should like to examine in detail the implication of my hon. Friend's proposal.
Mr. David Marshall: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred to the Select Committee on Transport report on airport security, which was published in October 1986. It made 21 recommendations, 18 of which were accepted by the Government. Can the Secretary of State tell us exactly how many of the recommendations have been implemented fully since then and what monitoring has taken place to ensure that they remain fully implemented?
Will the Secretary of State now do as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East demanded and introduce the immediate banding of all hold luggage, which was the Committee's first recommendation and which was rejected by the Department of Transport in November 1986? Does he accept that it was nothing short of criminal not to pass on notice of the bomb warning to the appropriate people at Heathrow airport?
Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension on his last point. As I have said already, when assessments are made and it is decided that steps need to be taken, the warning is, of course, passed on. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was under a misapprehension when he said that the enhanced American measures already in force were not known to the British Airports Authority. Of course they have been known for some years and I have discussed them myself with the BAA. There is a misunderstanding about that.
I am grateful that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), unlike some other hon. Members, confirmed that the Government accepted the overwhelming majority of the Select Committee's recommendations two years ago. [HoN. MEMBERS: "What have you done?"] The overwhelming number of those 21 recommendations have been accepted and implemented. The hon. Gentleman referred to the recommendation about banding. My predecessor and the Department concluded that the recommendation on banding would not produce significant security benefits. If the hon. Gentleman or the Select Committee wishes to pursue the matter further we shall re-examine it. However, it was my view and that of my predecessor that that recommendation would produce few security benefits.
Mr. Terry Dicks: May I first congratulate my right hon. Friend on his strenuous efforts to keep us informed and on taking such an interest in this dreadful tragedy? The Opposition criticisms of his behaviour are totally unacceptable. Conservative Members believe that he has done an excellent job, and should be praised for that.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether he is concerned—as I am—about the way in which security is handled at Heathrow. There are too many people involved and no one person has the responsibility to make decisions. The British Airports Authority, the airlines, the baggage handlers, Customs officers and immigration officers are all involved, but no one has the final responsibility for security. It is no use having an airport committee that sits down and discusses the matter. I suggested to the Select Committee—this was also the view of the chief constables—that responsibility for security at airports, especially Heathrow in my constituency, should be with the police. I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider that possibility, so that we know where the buck stops.
Finally, is my right hon. Friend aware that many people travelling through Heathrow and other airports would be prepared to wait much longer if the baggage that leaves them when they check in was thoroughly checked on airside? Many of us know that that does not happen at present, and would like the opportunity to be at the airport much earlier—perhaps two or three hours earlier—and of knowing that the baggage would be checked once it had gone past the check-in desk.
Mr. Channon: I shall certainly bear that in mind, and I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said in his earlier remarks. I have no evidence at present that leads me to believe that security requirements laid down at London's airports are not carried out efficiently. I know of my hon. Friend's concern, however, and I shall examine all that he has said—and the similar points made by other of my hon. Friends—and get in touch with him.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the most urgently needed requirements is the establishment at all airports of explosive-detecting devices, and that the drive for improved security should not take place only at international airports? I do not wish to be alarmist, but if Americans are thought to be the prime target —that, apparently, is how the right hon. Gentleman's mind is working—will he take account of the large number of Americans resident in the north-east of Scotland who use Aberdeen airport? Finally, will he give the House an assurance that cost will not inhibit increases in security wherever necessary?
Mr. Channon: Of course we want as high a level of security as we can reasonably expect, and we must have security comensurate with the level of threat that exists at any particular moment. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. We are carrying out research into new technology: at present we have a programme with the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence researching several promising new techniques for detecting explosives and weapons. I want to speed that up as soon as possible, and I am discussing the matter with my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while security standards at British
704
airports, and at Heathrow in particular, have been very good, there must always be room for improvement? Does he agree that although, in the aftermath of a tragedy such as Lockerbie, passengers say—no doubt genuinely—that they will accept any extra cost or delay, sadly, once the months have passed, complaints about both costs and delays begin to grow, and there is pressure for a reduction in security standards in the interests of expediting the flow of passengers?
Finally, does my right hon. Friend agree that to give publicity to any, or very many, of the warnings received by airports, airlines, and possibly my right hon. Friend's Department, would undermine security? Would it not provide an incentive for more hoaxers and mischief-makers to put out more false warnings, thereby confusing the security services and, indeed, causing them to disregard even warnings that appear genuine?
Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with all these points, particularly my right hon. Friend's last and extremely important point about the treatment of bomb warnings—and any other sort of warning. As my right hon. Friend said, there is always scope for further improvement in security, and I shall keep that under continuous review.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Obviously members of the nationalist parties represented in the House have already associated themselves with the expressions of sympathy and the rightful tributes to the rescue services at Lockerbie, and we extend them to those involved in yesterday's tragedy.
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the statement made by the Secretary of State for Energy in the wake of the Piper Alpha disaster? He made it clear then that no cost would be spared to preserve the lives of those who work in the North sea. May we have a similar assurance of the Government's readiness to spend money on airport security? Will the right hon. Gentleman look particularly at the problem of overcrowding at Heathrow, which is surely a major problem in itself for the security services because of the volume of traffic there? Is there not perhaps an argument for decentralising some flights to regional airports elsewhere, thus making it possible to ensure that security standards are observed and fully met?
I am delighted at what the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has said. Could we not have a full debate on security at airports, perhaps in a few months, when we are a bit more removed from the immediacy of the tragedy and our awareness of the implications of our remarks for the families involved?
Mr. Channon: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Lady says. Her last point, however, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who will no doubt wish to consider it. I am sure that the hon. Lady is right in saying that we should not debate the matter for a little while, until we see how the situation develops.
We must of course ensure that we have adequate security commensurate with the threat, and that must be achieved whatever the cost. The hon. Lady asked about overcrowding: naturally, as she has been one of the first to point out, we want to see as much traffic as possible— traffic of all kinds—going through regional airports. There are some encouraging trends: the proportion of traffic being borne by regional airports is going up and will, I think, continue to do so. Inevitably, however, many

705
millions of people will continue to want to travel through London's various airports. Nevertheless, I shall bear all the hon. Lady's points in mind.
Mr. David Knox: Both my wife and I were born and brought up in Lockerbie and went to school there, and my mother still lives there. My hon. Friend referred to the assistance that the Government have already given to the town, and I welcome that very warmly. Can he give an assurance, however, that the rebuilding work will be undertaken with the maximum possible speed? The sooner that it is completed, the sooner people in the town will have a chance to recover from the trauma of 21 December.
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend, with his local knowledge, is right to raise that question. I understand that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has already had talks with the local authorities about that and other relevant matters, and I shall ensure that he reads what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman's explanation about the bomb scare sounds most unconvincing. It is as if something were being hidden from the House of Commons. Can he explain why, within half an hour of making a statement in Parliament in which he said that he was not willing to speculate on what had happened, he went on BBC radio and told 52 million people that there had been a bomb scare? Why was he willing to say that to 52 million people outside a BBC studio, but not willing to say it to Parliament? Could it be that he knew then that he was on the defensive, and that mistakes had been made? Was he beginning this whole stupid cover-up?
Mr. Channon: I have had debates with the hon. Gentleman in the past and he has not taken this line. He has entirely misunderstood the position. I have already explained, I think to the satisfaction of most of the House, why I did not refer in the House to the warning. If hon. Members are now criticising what I said subsequently on the radio, I must ask them to read the transcripts.
Mr. Bill Walker:: This and the previous statement clearly show the importance of the accident investigation branch to the safety, and the future safety, of air travellers. Air travel has public confidence, which is why so many people use it. It is important for us in the House not to give the impression that some aspects are less favourable today than they were. In fact, air travel is much safer now, because of the activities of the accident investigation branch.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the sadnesses on all these occasions is that we hear complaints, observations and views that bear no relation to the investigation branch's reports when they come out? All those connected with aviation—particularly, at present, those who work for British Midland Airways—who believe in the industry acknowledge that only when the accident investigation report has been prepared, presented and gone into fully, and it is understood why the accident occurred, can action be taken to prevent its recurrence. They accept, as everyone who travels should, that there is no way of removing the risk of terrorism or air accidents by 100 per cent. The only way to do that is stop flying, which is not an option that is available today.
Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with both my hon. Friend's points, particularly his tribute to the air accident investigation branch, which has been carrying out difficult work with extreme skill and thoroughness. I also agree with his point about the unhelpful nature of speculation in cases of this kind before all the facts are known, and I shall not indulge in that.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Does the Minister agree that a potential major loophole in airport security, which has been exploited by drug barons in the past, is the quality of ground staff—baggage handlers and catering and cleaning staff? Therefore, will he consider improving vetting for those in such jobs who can pass airside, often with little scrutiny, and ensure that they are searched regularly to ascertain that they are not sleepers for terrorist groups, who could be activated as and when those terrorist groups wish?
Mr. Channon: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not go into details on that point, but I shall take very much to heart what he says.
Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend is aware that I lost a young family of four from my constituency and the people who know them grieve for them because they were great contributors to the local community. Local police, not only those at the site of the accident, often have duties to perform in these circumstances such as notifying next of kin and looking after property, and I pay tribute to them. I also have a constituent who tragically lost his adult son in the crash.
Without at all wishing to he associated with the unworthy comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), may I say that the rumour that there was a warning before the crash circulated unchecked for several days after it at a time of maximum grief. That has caused increased distress because it appears that some people had had notice of the warnings while others had not. Is there anything that my right hon. Friend can do in such circumstances, for example in the way that sometimes happens in serious kidnapping cases, to reach an agreement that such information should not be prematurely released to the public?
My right hon. Friend was right not to put forward that information at the beginning because it could have increased the speculation, but, nevertheless, it reached the public domain and I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could review the activities of his Department in such circumstances and discuss with the police and international authorities whether information that may cause unnecessary grief could be withheld from the public.
Mr. Channon: I take note of what my hon. Friend says. He was in touch with me before Christmas about the tragic events affecting his constituents. The United States Government, who operate in a slightly different way from us, told some of its diplomats about the warning. As I said in my original statement, the American and Finnish authorities said that the warning that they saw had little credibility. I am sure that the Americans are now reviewing their handling of such matters and I take note of what my hon. Friend says.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I too want to express my gratitude to the emergency services who undertook work at Lockerbie with great professionalism and courage. They included the rescue squadron service

707
based at RAF Valley in my constituency. Most of its helicopters took part in the rescue work at Lockerbie. I am sure that the Secretary of State will acknowledge the tremendous work done by rescue service squadrons, not only from RAF Valley but from elswhere in the United Kingdom.
Will the Secretary of State note the anxiety of some hon. Members about the increased use of private security firms, not only at airports but at seaports? Will he acknowledge that some police authorities are worried about the inadequate professional training in those firms and believe that we should ensure that the highest level of competence in security obtains at airports and seaports?
Mr. Channon: I am not sure that I necessarily agree with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but that is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention. However, I can certainly agree with his tribute to the rescue services. That was entirely right and I am glad that he has drawn that to the attention of the House.
Mr. Peter Fry: I think that I speak for many outside the House as well as those on the Conservative Benches when I deplore attempts to make political capital out of this appalling incident. If I may correct the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), it was not the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) but I who made the suggestion, following the Air India disaster, with which the Committee agreed.
Will my right hon. Friend accept that the majority of the Select Committee were satisfied that the Government's acceptance of the vast majority of our recommendations was reasonable, given the circumstances and the security record of the major British airports at that time? Will he also reflect on the fact that the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) was not a recommendation of the Select Committee? It was merely one of the points that we considered and felt was not right. But, in view of what my hon. Friend has said, will my right hon. Friend accept that the Select Committee may want to reconsider some of the proposals that we made then that were not taken up? May I have his assurance that if the Select Committee does that he will give the matters his most urgent consideration?
Mr. Channon: Yes, I naturally would do that. If the Select Committee wants to return to the subject I shall have no conceivable objection and I shall consider carefully any recommendations that it makes. The point that I was trying to make, which I think has been confirmed by my hon. Friend and by the Chairman of the Select Committee, was that the large majority of the recommendations were accepted by the Government. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the Government's reasonableness in doing that. I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks, that it is most unpleasant when people try to make political capital out of a national tragedy.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Putting on one side for a moment what the Secretary of State referred to as a misunderstanding about security finance, let me ask
708
specifically whether the bulletin that he received from the American authorities precluded his Department from disseminating the information to the authorities at Heathrow without the Americans' permission,,. If so, did he seek the Americans' permission or was the decision taken in his Department not to pass on the specific details in the bulletin—not the enhanced security situation—to Heathrow?
Further, is it common knowledge in his Department, or does it require his Department's approval, that aircraft using British airspace have their nooks and crannies stuffed full of spent uranium?
Mr. Channon: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the plane crash at Lockerbie?
Mr. Rooker: Yes.
Mr. Channon: There have been reports of small amounts of spent uranium in the tail of that plane. I understand that that is normal and I am told that there is no danger whatever. That point has already been drawn to my attention.
The hon. Gentleman has tabled a number of parliamentary questions on the issue raised in the first part of his question, which I shall be answering. I am not sure whether I shall be giving him all the information that he wants, but if I do not he will understand that I am not prepared to go further than my earlier remarks about warnings being subject to the assessment process. I hope that the House will be pleased about the clear message received from the American and Finnish authorities that they thought the warnings had little credibility.
Mr. Robert Adley: Does my right hon. Friend recall that after the Clapham incident I had to make the rather unpleasant accusation that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was trying to make party politics out of a personal tragedy?
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is being vindictive again.
Mr. Adley: I am not being vindictive.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that after Zeebrugge, King's Cross, Clapham and Lockerbie the hon. Gentleman sought to hold my right hon. Friend personally responsible for what happened? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that attitude will be utterly deplored by most normal people in Britain? Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has the full confidence of Conservative Members as a result of the way in which he has handled that appalling series of tragedies, when he has done everything that he can to get to the bottom of them and to help people in their hour of need?
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks.
Dr. John Marek: The country will be disappointed with the unsatisfactory and evasive answer that the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall). It confirms the Opposition's view that the Government's policies put the value of money much higher than the value of human life. I shall give the Secretary of State one more chance to come to the Dispatch Box and commit his Department to writing to the Select Committee to say

709
exactly how many of its suggestions have been implemented as a result of its report on airport security about three years ago.
Mr. Channon: I have already told the House that the overwhelming majority of the Select Committee's recommendations have been accepted. If the Select Committee wants to pursue the matter further, that is its privilege, and we shall be pleased to answer any questions it puts to us. I shall be meeting the Select Committee tomorrow and I am at its disposal on any day, at any time on any subject. I shall not duck my responsibilities.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend say whether it was necessary for the bomb to be placed in a particular part of the baggage hold for it to do its dreadful work? If that is the case, is he satisfied that those who loaded the aircraft at London and Frankfurt were properly security vetted? Has any organisation come forward to claim this ghastly crime, since terrorists usually like to let the world know of their successes?
Mr. Channon: A number of organisations have claimed this appalling crime. That was some time ago, as I understand it, but I will have to check that. However, it is extremely difficult to know how much credence can be placed on their claims. I will not answer the first part of my hon. Friend's question at this stage of the investigation. I may be able to give him a proper answer when the investigation has progressed further.
Mr. William Ross: Is it correct to conclude from all that has been said today that the loophole that allowed somebody to place a bomb on the flight has not yet been discovered and closed, but still exists to be used again?
Mr. Channon: No. The hon. Gentleman has not understood the situation. The investigation is not complete, so we do not as yet know where the bomb was placed on board. Therefore, it is impossible to say whether the loophole—if there was one—has been closed, since we have not yet identified it. My investigators and the police, who are in charge of the criminal investigation, are urgently and energetically investigating that. I gave the House new information today that narrows down the location of the bomb to one cargo and a baggage hold just forward of the wing.
Mr. Tony Favell: The evil of the people who perpetrated the act is almost beyond understanding. Unfortunately they are also resourceful and if we close the door now they may well find another one. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that all Governments are searching for the perpetrators of this crime, and if any are not, is he considering sanctions against them?
Mr. Channon: It would be going too far to say that I am satisfied that all Governments are taking the necessary steps. I am consulting my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Foreign Office to find out what further steps we should take internationally, and we shall pursue them vigorously. It is exceedingly important that all Governments should take steps to root out international terrorism of this sort.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I impress upon the Secretary of State the importance of his previous response. Earlier today he called upon countries
710
"to condemn not only the despicable murderers themselves but any country which has supplied them, trained them, housed them or encouraged them."
We have heard that sort of statement time and time again but when statements are made saying that perpetrators should be punished, we hear that we should not have an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth. I remind the Secretary of State and the House that that is a limitation on personal revenge but it is the responsibility of Governments to protect their citizens.
Is the Secretary of State satisfied that, despite the high level of security—for example, at Heathrow—we have not developed a mechanical approach to security? For example, I saw a former distinguished Governor of Northern Ireland being searched because he happened to be the one in five who was due to be stopped. In another incident since the Lockerbie disaster, it took one hour before the passengers on a plane with a suspected bomb or other problem could disembark and identify their baggage. One can only guess that if a bomb had been on the plane it would have exploded before the passengers had disembarked.
I urge the Secretary of State not to manifest the complacency I detected, especially in his response to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) when he was pressed about the provision of compensation. Over two years ago in the House I had a similar assurance regarding innocent people in Belfast and they are still awaiting their compensation as the Department keeps fighting them In the courts.
Mr. Channon: I am sorry to hear that. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not complacent about the disaster. Anyone who had had to make the statements I have had to make in the past few weeks would long since have stopped being complacent about anything. I cannot say that one is ever perfectly satisfied about security. We shall attempt to have security commensurate with the appropriate level of threat that may exist at any time.
I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the reaction to other Governments who may have been less than co-operative, or perhaps malevolent. It is too soon to come to any conclusion about that, because the investigation is not complete and the identity of the perpetrators of the foul act is not yet clear. We are doing our utmost to try to find out.
Mr. David Wilshire: Because part of Heathrow airport is in my constituency I have made a detailed study of all the changes announced recently. Is my right hon. Friend aware that at least one of the six changes announced by the Federal Aviation Administration recently—the X-raying of all hold baggage—is incapable of being implemented at Heathrow or virtually any other major international airport in Europe or America?
Mr. Channon: I note what my hon. Friend says. I do not want to go into detail, but we are discussing that, together with other matters, with the FAA.

BILLS PRESENTED
Mr. Speaker: Before I call hon. Members to present their Bills I should draw attention to an error in the title of the second Bill, which is to be presented by the hon Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie). The age referred to in the title should be 18, not 16 and the Bill will be presented in its correct form.
BILLS PRESENTED
  RIDERS OF EQUINE ANIMALS (WEARING OF PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR)
  Mr. Harry Greenway, supported by Mr. Iain Mills, Mr. Stuart Randall, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Ronnie Fearn, Mr. A. E. P. Duffy, Mr. Derek Conway, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. John Carlisle and Mr. Terence L. Higgins presented a Bill to make provision for the wearing of protective headgear by riders of equine animals; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 January and to be printed. [Bill 34.]
  GAMING MACHINES (PROHIBITION ON USE BY PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN)
  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, supported by Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. John Hughes, Dr. John Reid, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Allen Adams, Mr. Thomas McAvoy, Mr. Michael J. Martin, Mr. Bob McTaggart, Mr. Robert Litherland and Mr. Stanley Orme presented a Bill to prohibit the use of gaming machines in cafés, small shops, amusement arcades, snack bars, fairgrounds and other places by persons under the age of eighteen: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 January and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

  COALMINING SUBSIDENCE (DAMAGE, ARBITRATION, PREVENTION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS)
  Mr. Alan Meale supported by Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr Eric Illsley, Mr. Martin Redmond, Mr. John Prescott, Mr. Alex Eadie and Mr. George J. Buckley presented a Bill to establish the rights of owners of houses, land, buildings and other constructions which have suffered damage due to subsidence resulting from the working and getting of coal or of coal and other minerals worked therewith, to full repair or equitable compensation of their properties; to establish an independent arbitration procedure to resolve any disputes that may arise out of such damage or any matters relating thereto; to require any public body or organisation
  712
  involved in the working or getting of coal and other minerals to take steps to prevent subsidence damage and to promote public awareness of workings which might give rise to such damage: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10 February and to be printed. [Bill 36.]

  HUMAN RIGHTS
  Mr. Graham Allen supported by Mr. Denis Healey, Mr. David Steel, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Ms. Joan Ruddock, Sir Antony Buck, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Ernie Ross, Ms. Joan Walley, Mr. Richard Caborn, Mr. Jonathan Aitken and Mr. Andrew F. Bennett presented a Bill to provide protection in the courts of the United Kingdom for the rights and freedoms specified in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to which the United Kingdom is a party: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 January and to be printed. [Bill 37.]
  MISUSE OF DRUGS
  Mr. Menzies Campbell presented a Bill to extend the coverage of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to include certain drugs which have been misused for the purpose of improving performance in sport: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 March and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House I shall put together the two motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Electricity and Pipe-line Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Harbours Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) (No. 2) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Point of Order
5 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you might exercise discretion in favour of Members who wish to table questions. You will have noticed today that the Secretary of State for Transport, when replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), introduced a blocking statement which would have the effect of preventing further questions being asked in relation to a part of his statement. If I recall correctly, my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr questioned the right hon. Gentleman about what happened during the course of the argument about the security scare.
May we, in view of what appears in Hansard at column 605 for 22 December last, ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider whether you might be willing to accept questions and not treat that blocking statement as valid, remembering that the Secretary of State gave an assurance to the House on that earlier occasion, when he said:
"there can he no constraint. We must get at the truth. I hope, however, that it may be possible at an earlier stage to give the House and the public more information if there are immediate lessons to be learnt".—[Official Report, Thursday 22 December, 1988; Vol. 144, c. 605.]
Throughout his statement on 22 December the right hon. Gentleman gave repeated assurances that all the information would be made available to the House, and he did that again today. I am concerned lest the words he used —I think the record will show that he said, in effect, "I have nothing further to add to the statement that I made earlier in my opening remarks"
—may prevent hon. Members from tabling questions.
Mr. Speaker: I will look carefully at the record in Hansard and consider what the hon. Member has said.

Orders of the Day

  Social Security Bill
  Order for Second reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: In view of the late start to this debate and the number of hon. Gentlemen who wish to take part in it, I propose to limit speeches for Back Benchers between the hours of 7 and 9 o'clock to 10 minutes.
  5.2 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Moore): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is not a long Bill, but it is no less important for that. I believe that it is our duty as a Government to keep the social security system under review, to adapt it to meet the changing needs and circumstances of the 1980s and to look ahead to the challenges of the 1990s. The world clearly does not stand still, and social security cannot do so either.
  It is simply not good enough unthinkingly to retain arrangements which were adequate for the problems of the 1960s, or even less—as some Labour Members seem to wish to do—to cling to the shibboleths of the 1930s. This Government have the will to challenge those outdated attitudes and to advance social policy in this country. The Bill seeks to achieve just that.
  In no area has the change in Britain over the last few years been more marked than in the labour market. New jobs in the new industries and services—the jobs of the
  future—are being created in growing numbers; employment prospects have been transformed; and unemployment, as a consequence, is falling dramatically in all parts of the country—the longest and most sustained fall since
  records began.
  By introducing family credit earlier this year, the Government took a huge step towards removing perverse incentives for the parents of children either to remain in the shrinking pool of the unemployed or, once in work, to limit their efforts to do better. Yet month after month. firms report vacancies that they are finding difficult to fill. There are about 700,000 jobs on offer in a typical month, and these are not just jobs for those with specialist skills. Many of them need no special training.
  Each and every one of those vacancies is an opportunity for an unemployed person to gain the self-respect and independence that comes from supporting themselves and their family by their own efforts. It is clearly, therefore, the duty of the Government to help them to realise that potential, not only for their own sake but for the good of the country as a whole. That is the imperative behind the major changes to unemployment benefit that the Bill will introduce.
  There have always been conditions attached to receiving unemployment benefit. Most Members will agree that that is only proper. Unemployment benefit is for those who want to work, but who are temporarily unable to find a job. But how can one hope to find work without making any effort to look for it?
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Mr. Moore: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will permit me to continue for a while longer. I am conscious of the comments made by Mr. Speaker about the time available for this debate, but I shall give way shortly if the matter is pressing.
  It is not right for those who are claiming benefits because of unemployment to receive them without doing everything reasonable to find work. I believe that most people would support that view. Indeed, many will be surprised, if not horrified, to learn that there is no such requirement in the legislation already. Let me make it quite clear that these powers do not exist at the moment. Claimants can currently argue that by attendance at a job centre and claiming benefit every two weeks, they have done all they need to satisfy the present requirements.
  The vast majority of claimants—I stress this—do take the initiative in looking for work, but there is ample evidence that this is no longer true for everyone. As hon. Members will be aware, the 1987 labour force survey showed that 730,000 benefit claimants were not taking active steps to seek work and that no fewer than 360,000 claimants did not even pretend to want a proper job of work at all.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: The Minister is bragging about the number of people he is helping with income support. Will he now admit to the number of people he has robbed of money from the point of view of income support? [Interruption.] I wonder why the Minister for Social Security, the new junior Minister, seems to be bawling his head off over this.
  Is the Secretary of State aware of the number of constituents who come to my surgery to complain about this matter? One of them told me last Saturday that he and his wife had lost £14 a week. Let us hear about cases such as that and about the people the Government have robbed of money.
  Mr. Moore: I shall endeavour to continue to illustrate what the Government are introducing in the Bill. I shall continue to address my remarks to the key elements of the Bill concerning the 700,000 unfilled jobs about which I was speaking, some 140,000 of which are in London.
  A report about the London labour market compiled in the summer of last year—I am sure that, with their diligence, Opposition Members will have studied it with great care—showed that employers reported receiving job applications from long-term unemployed people for only about one fifth of recent vacancies. Over 25 per cent. of the claimants interviewed had not looked for work in the previous week, and of those, nearly half had not looked for work in the previous four weeks, and 5 per cent. had never looked for work at all. This is a sad and wholly unacceptable picture. The Government are determined to ensure that unemployment benefits are paid only to those who are genuinely unemployed.
  In the course of 1988, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment took a number of steps to ensure that people claiming unemployment benefit were satisfying the current requirement to be available for work. In particular, unemployed people are now called to a restart interview every six months for as long as they remain out of work. As part of that interview, they now have to complete a questionnaire which is designed to
  716
  establish that they are still available for work. Despite the existing powers, it was clear from these initiatives that a number of claimants are simply not looking for work.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I appreciate that the Minister is trying to prove to the House that unemployed people are largely workshy and shiftless—[Interruption.] Whatever Conservative Members may think, that is precisely what it sounds like to the Opposition. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of things militate against people taking jobs in London? First, many of them are low-paid jobs. Secondly, accommodation is not available because of the cuts in council house building and the decreases in housing benefit. Thirdly, fares in London have just gone up by 12 per cent. He must understand that all those factors militate against people going to find those jobs that are available.
  Mr. Moore: If the hon. Gentleman had studied the report to which I was referring, he would not have made such an absurd attempt to reinvent the GLC. It is quite wrong, as I was saying, that these people should continue to be supported at the expense of working people paying contributions and taxes.
  Nor is it doing any service to claimants or their families to allow them to drop out of the world of work when so many vacancies are available. Therefore, clauses 7 and 10 of the Bill will ensure that benefit claimants must show that they are seeking work actively. What exactly they have to do will depend obviously on circumstances such as the local job market and the claimant's capabilities.
  Ms. Clare Short: rose—
  Mr. Moore: Perhaps the hon. Lady will permit me to continue for a little longer.
  Employment service staff will give advice and question claimants periodically. They may suggest alternative or additional courses of action. If there is doubt about whether a claimant is doing all he can, the independent adjudication officer will decide whether benefit is to continue. But the local staff in employment service offices will have the powers that they need, following the passage of the Bill, to help those people into work.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear, as we have had an intervention from the Opposition, that the main thrust of Labour party policy on this subject seems to be that those who could work and are not prepared to work should receive hard-earned taxpayers' money to support them in their idleness?
  Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend knows that he and the Government are far more closely in touch with the general public on this matter. The general public are conscious of the opportunities that are available. However, I must continue
  The second major element of my proposals for unemployment benefit ensures that claimants cannot continue indefinitely pricing themselves out of any job they might realistically be expected to get. It is of course quite right that newly unemployed people should be able to concentrate their efforts on finding employment in their usual occupations and at wages similar to the ones they have been used to receiving, but it would be quite wrong for unemployed people to be able to continue to restrict their search to jobs that are beyond the rates of pay that

  717
  they can realistically now command. Clause 9 will therefore make provision for a permitted period during which unemployed persons can seek jobs of a kind and in a wage range familiar to them.
  The length of the permitted period will be decided on an individual basis but would depend on the skills of the individual and the sort of employment available locally. But we do not think it right that it should extend beyond a maximum of 13 weeks.
  But even after the permitted period we have no intention of forcing people, on pain of losing benefit, to accept jobs which are genuinely unsuitable. "Good cause" for declining a job is well set out in case law, as hon. Members know. It covers factors such as health, family circumstances, religious beliefs, travelling difficulties, and so on.
  Let me stress again that the only significant change that the Bill will make to reasons for refusing jobs which fall under the general heading of "good cause" will be to limit the period for which the wages on offer can be a factor. It will remove the temptation for unemployed people to continue indefinitely to delude themselves about the wages that they can command.
  Mr. Jim Lester: One of the principal employment problems for some people is the fact that temporary jobs are on offer. Those jobs are perfectly good, and well paid, but they are temporary from the beginning, lasting perhaps for three months or six months. Under the existing law, if someone takes such a job, at the end of the temporary period that person would again be newly unemployed and therefore would lose many of the benefits that had been accumulated previously. Is care being taken to ensure that people will not be forced to take temporary jobs when at the end of the temporary job they will be in a worse position?
  Mr. Moore: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point, given his experience of such matters. I was going on to say that clause 9 also introduces a further measure to encourage unemployed people to broaden their job search and their efforts to find work. That is a very similar point to that raised by my hon. Friend and I am sure that it will be welcomed in all parts of the House.
  As my hon. Friend said, after a lengthy period of unemployment, a person may often be unsure of his capability. Taking up any employment may well constitute something of a risk. He may fear to try an unfamiliar job because, as my hon. Friend said, if he takes a job which simply does not work out and leaves voluntarily he may be disqualified from unemployment benefit. We therefore intend that anyone who has been out of work for at least 12 months can be sure that he can leave a job voluntarily without fear of disqualification, provided he has given the job a fair trial.
  That concession will apply not only to those who have been signing on for 12 months but to those who, for instance, have been out of work for the same period due to sickness.
  Mr. Tim Janman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Moore: I shall complete my point. Despite attempts to get me to give way, I shall try to proceed a little.
  718
  To counter abuse, the concession will apply only once in any 12-month period, and only to people leaving a job, after a decent trial of six weeks or more, but not to anyone leaving after 12 weeks once they have had more than ample opportunity to realise that the job was not right for them.
  Overall, these measures are expected to reduced the roll of the unemployed by as many as 50,000. That is entirely to be welcomed. Claimants stand to gain absolutely nothing from unemployment when there are jobs as an alternative.
  The Bill will also be breaking important new ground in other areas.
  Ms. Short rose—
  Mr. Moore: It is our aim to bring about equal treatment between men and women—
  Ms. Short: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear to the occupant of the Chair and to the House that he is not prepared to give way for the present.
  Mr. Moore: I have given way more times than most Opposition Front Bench spokesmen—[Interruption.] I wish that the rabble on the Opposition Benches would occasionally listen. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker rightly drew our attention to the limited time. I shall continue, if I may.
  It is our aim to bring about equal treatment between men and women in social security and occupational pensions. Clause 19 takes a further important step in this direction by tackling discrimination in occupational schemes. They will no longer be able to deny access to occupational pensions or pay lower benefits on the basis of sex.
  Our Community colleagues are dealing with such discrimination across Europe as a whole. The measures in the Bill therefore also implement the EC directive on the issue. The legislation will apply to schemes from 1 January 1993. Broadly it will override any difference of treatment. in occupational pension schemes, whether that difference relates to entitlement to membership, to the contributions that members and employers pay, or to the benefits members receive. There are, however, special safeguards for those absent from work for maternity or for family reasons.
  Schemes will also be able to make changes to come into line with the requirements before the overriding provision takes effect. We are introducing powers to enable the Occupational Pensions Board to authorise such modifications specifically to achieve that.
  Many schemes still have different pension ages for men and women. The equal treatment directive contains a derogation which excepts such differences from its scope. We intend to take advantage of that in our own legislation, but the scope of the derogation has only recently been clarified following responses to a consultation paper we issued in the summer. We will therefore bring forward a suitable amendment during the passage of the Bill to take. advantage of the derogation in the light of that advice.
  Mr. John Watts: Will the amendment deal with the problem faced by schemes which already have a common retirement age of 60 for both men and women

  719
  and which currently pay a higher rate of benefit to men for the five years before they become entitled to state retirement pension, and reduce it to the same level as women thereafter? As I understand it, under the Bill as drafted that would be precluded. That seems to be a kick in the teeth for companies with schemes that have not discriminated on grounds of sex or age for many years.
  Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is referring to the Mars case, as I recall from past discussion with him. The Bill should ensure that the exception covers all schemes, but we are discussing the matter. As I said earlier, that is why I have drawn the attention of the official Opposition to the particular point that definition as to the breadth of the derogation is a slightly complex legal matter. That is why I apologise again for having to table an amendment in Committee that brings the derogation forward. I know that it will be more helpful if we get it right.
  A short but important clause in the Bill, clause 2, abolishes from April next year the Treasury supplement to the national insurance fund. When the national insurance fund was established in 1948, it was funded on Beveridge's "tripartite principle", roughly equally by employees' contributions, employers' contributions and general taxation—the Treasury supplement. At the time, that subsidy from taxation was essential. Contributions were flat rate and could have covered the contributory benefits and pensions met from the only national insurance fund if they were set at rates too high for a substantial number of people to afford. Since 1975, contributions have no longer been flat rate, but are levied as a proportion of earnings.
  The tripartite principle is already effectively a dead letter. The rationale behind it has gone, and the supplement has been shrinking steadily as a proportion of the fund's income from about one third in 1948. It now stands at only 5 per cent. We consider that there is now no need for it at all. The £26 billion of expenditure from the fund is fully covered by contributory income, and the abolition of the supplement will have absolutely no effect on that expenditure.
  The Bill also addresses another feature of the benefit system which dates back to 1948. When someone is injured, for example in an accident, he may become entitled to social security benefits. But if he can establish that some other party was liable, he may also receive compensation through the legal system for those identical injuries. But how should each form of payment take account of the other?
  The courts have ruled repeatedly in recent years—the latest occasion being in November last year—that an injured person should not get this windfall from double payments, once in compensation and again in benefits. What that means at present is that payments of a range of benefits simply and directly reduce the amount of compensation to be paid to injured people by defendants. The injured person gains nothing from this arrangement, but ordinary people paying taxes and contributions are effectively subsidising defendants and their insurers.
  There are a number of other benefits—those listed in the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948—for which different arrangements were made. The 1948 Act made a compromise based on the assumption that, because of the industrial injuries scheme not many people would claim damages. In those cases, compensation is reduced by 50
  720
  per cent. of the value of the benefits to be paid by the state over five years. So in those cases too, the taxpayer or contributor is effectively subsidising defendants and their insurers. The law is manifestly ripe for review.
  The National Audit Office, endorsed by the Public Accounts Committee, highlighted the inconsistency of this mixture of 50 and 100 per cent. offsets. It also drew attention to the overwhelming objection to these offsets. In the words of the report, under the present system
  "the wrongdoer can have the cost of his negligence partly or fully met by public funds".
  In seeking to reform the law, we have adopted two principles, both endorsed by the Public Accounts Committee. The first is that accident victims should not be compensated twice. The second is that the party responsible for the accident should not be able to escape part of that liability at the expense of the taxpayer. That cannot be right. It could also undermine incentives to improved safety standards.
  Clause 18 provides the framework for a straightforward scheme. The value of benefits paid as a result of an injury up to the point of the legal settlement will be deducted from the compensation which is due for the same injuries. That sum will then be paid to the Department. If, for example, £5,000 compensation is agreed or awarded and the injured person has already received £1,000 in benefits for his injury, he will be paid £4,000, and the other £1,000 compensation will be paid to my Department. Further, hon. Members will wish to note that the amount recovered from defendants will not include any sums in respect of benefit payments made after the date of the settlement of the claim and that recoveries will be made only in the case of compensation payments above a certain level—possibly £1,500.
  I emphasise that benefit entitlement is not affected in any case. Nevertheless, recoveries to the taxpayer from compensation paid by those liable for personal injuries is estimated to be about £55 million a year.
  The Bill contains other modest but useful amendments clarifying and consolidating existing legislation and making it more relevant to today's circumstances. Clause 4 brings social security legislation more into line with family law by extending the liability of non-custodial parents to maintain children in full-time education up to the age of 19.
  Clause 21 reorganises the numbers and functions of war pensions committees, which have remained broadly unchanged since 1921.
  The Bill strengthens the link to recent work in the test for requalifying for unemployment benefit in clause 8 and takes account of the mushrooming of personal pensions in the abatement of unemployment benefit which operates for other occupational pensioners aged 55 and over in clause 6. It also introduces in clauses 1, 3, 11 to 17, 20 and 22 to 29 other, largely technical, amendments relating in particular to national insurance contributions and to housing benefit.
  Mr. Janman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Moore: Yes.
  Mr. Janman: My right hon. Friend has listed what the Bill does, but one thing that the Bill does not do is get rid of the loophole whereby a person can continue to receive benefit because he has turned down a vacancy that has

  721
  arisen as a result of an industrial dispute. Why has my right hon. Friend decided not to close that loophole? Will he consider closing it in Committee?
  Mr. Moore: As my hon. Friend noticed, the Government have specifically not included that point, because we do not agree with the view that my hon. Friend is expressing. Obviously, my hon. Friend can table a new clause, which we can debate.
  Ms. Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Moore: Of course.
  Ms. Short: I am grateful. I shall take the right hon. Gentleman back a bit, because I tried to intervene earlier. The Secretary of State relies on a study of the London labour market of which perhaps he is giving a distorted impression, but it relates only to the London labour market. The Secretary of State must be aware that, if one analyses vacancies across the country, one sees that there are far fewer vacancies for unemployed people in the rest of the country than in the London area.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that whether people will count as actively seeking work will depend on the state of the local labour market. I want to ask him most seriously what distinction he will make in an area of high unemployment with few vacancies. Will he spell that out, because it is causing enormous worries across the country and the right hon. Gentleman owes us an explanation?
  Mr. Moore: I wish that I had given way to the hon. Lady before.
  Mr. Tony Banks: So do we.
  Mr. Moore: One reason that I did not do so was the character of the preceding intervention.
  I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the fact that, if she had listened carefully to me, she would know that I did not start by drawing attention to the survey "The London Labour Market", although it was a factor. I drew attention to the 1987 labour force survey, which was a national survey. However, the hon. Lady is right to say that different areas of the country have different employment opportunities.
  Clearly, as a consequence, the system and the ways in which the system operates must be handled differently. The adjudicating officer—and the clerks in the unemployment benefit offices—will be given the opportunity to have powers consequential upon all the other "good causes". These are already well established in case law. One factor will be the character of the job opportunities in the local area. Therefore, I can reassure the hon. Lady on that point. Simply because I was quoting some of the most recent data in London should not lead the hon. Lady to concern herself that all judgments will be on the same basis. They cannot be, because they must vary depending on the character and the needs of the area.
  To return to what I was saying, clause 5 also carries out the intention I announced in my uprating statement to introduce legislation to extend the upper age limit for payment of mobility allowance from 75 to 80. This is an interim measure until we have the opportunity to give full consideration to the large volume of information which has been collected during the surveys carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.
  We are well aware of the important part mobility allowance plays in improving the quality of life for severely
  722
  disabled people. That extension will be a valuable help to the oldest recipients of the allowance to make plans for meeting their future mobility needs in the knowledge that payments will be made for five years longer than under the present arrangements.
  To sum up, this is a Bill which promotes, I believe, a more coherent social security system and one which takes account of a changing world. It reflects the environment of a modern labour market and creates conditions of still greater flexibility to vitalise the economy of the 1990s. It challenges difficult issues where the easy course might have been to let matters run—like the differing treatment of men and women in pension schemes; like the outdated funding of the national insurance scheme; or the anomalous and unacceptable relationship between benefits and awards of damages.
  Above all, the Bill embodies our vision of the social security system: one which gives full support to those who cannot support themselves; which stands on a firm link between benefits and contributions paid in work; and which encourages people to take on their full responsibilities to support themselves and their families by their own efforts. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.28 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: This is, if I dare use the phrase, a curate's egg of a Bill. There are elements in it which at first sight appear to merit at least a cautious welcome, bitter experience having taught us to beware social security Ministers apparently bearing gifts. There are also elements that concern us, and at the centre of the Bill there is a set of proposals that are potentially the most catastrophic that we have seen yet from this Government.
  Two elements that we can welcome are the lifting of the age barrier for mobility allowance and the moves, following an EEC directive, towards equal treatment for men and women in occupational pension schemes. However, we shall want to probe the Government's full intentions in Committee. Nor do we object to the Government rectifying a few of their many mistakes—such as in the uprating of the reduced earnings allowance paid, as it is, only to those disabled by industrial injury or disease. We well remember that in 1986 thousands of those so disabled saw their benefit frozen as they reached retirement age, with a saving to the Government, at their expense, of millions of pounds per year. Not content, in 1988 the Government cut their payment by 75 per cent. at retirement, with a further saving of £10 million per year, and individual losses for the majority of recipients on reaching retirement of almost £20 per week. Against that background, we entirely agree that these disabled people should not be inadvertently cheated by mistake of a few pence extra on the amount that the Government still permit them to retain.
  We shall want to examine other aspects of the Bill in more depth, although perhaps it is right to place on record our strong reservations about the proposals on the treatment of damages awarded by the courts—whatever the defects may be of the present law—to which the Secretary of State drew attention, and which were apparently rejected by all those consulted, including the CBI, the Law Society, the TUC and the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. Such unanimity has not been seen since

  723
  the Government's initial proposals for family credit to be paid through the wage packet—and look what happened to that.
  Other proposals we whole-heartedly oppose. First is the decision to scrap the three-day contract on which national insurance was established by raising the entire cost of national insurance benefits—such as pensions for the old, the sick and the widows—from national insurance contributions. The Government are shifting the burden again towards those on low or average pay, while the wealthy not only do not pay their fair share: they do not even pay the same share as the less well-off. From any Government this blatant exploitation of the less well-off to benefit the much better off would be damaging, but from this Government, who use the excuse of what they call the burden of national insurance contributions to cut the State earnings-related pension scheme—indeed, to try to abolish it—it is rank hypocrisy. Everyone who pays national insurance contributions and everyone who draws retirement, invalidity or widow's pension has been cheated by the Government, because money raised in earnings-related contributions has not been paid out in benefits.
  The Government have made a steady and increasing profit out of the national insurance scheme—some £3,000 million last year alone. They are able to abolish the taxpayers' contribution to the scheme not because of prudent management or because of any growth in employment or because the economy is booming, but because they have been prepared to defraud pensioners.
  That brings me to the proposals that form the centrepiece of the Bill. It would be misleading to call it the heart of the Bill, because it could not be put forward by a Government who retained a heart. The Minister's description of the Bill made it sound quite innocuous, technical and inoffensive, designed to help people back into employment—what a pity that it is not so.
  Careful examination of what is proposed shows that the Government have moved on from merely wishing to blame unemployment on its victims. They are now prepared to harass and to hound them to an extent which is without precedent in our employment or social security law. The Secretary of State was, perhaps, not clear on this point, but existing law allows for people's availability for work to be tested if it is called into question. However, the Government have decided to resurrect a test for willingness to work that was abolished in 1930, which makes it somewhat extraordinary for the Secretary of State to call us the people who were relying on the shibboleths of the thirties.
  Mr. John Redwood: Does the hon. Lady believe that people claiming unemployment benefit should look for work and should take a job if one is offered, or that they should not?
  Mrs. Beckett: That is an extraordinarily silly question and is quite unworthy of the hon. Gentleman, who is supposed to be one of the intellectuals on the Conservative Benches. Of course we do not believe that people should not try to find work. We are conscious of the feelings that many unemployed people have when they cannot find work. That is not the point, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
  724
  Quite harsh tests already exist—even more harshly employed by this Government—to test people's willingness to work. The Government are reintroducing a test from the 1920s, which, indeed, was abolished in 1930. As I believe was generally accepted at the time, the test was introduced not to help people to find work, to which it was quite irrelevant, but to limit the costs of supporting the unemployed. Those who introduced it then had three excuses not available to their successors today. First, as it was a new test, they had by definition no experience, as we have now, of how it might work in practice. Secondly, they were facing one of the most grave economic crises in our history, whereas the Government tell us that our problems today are of overweening success. Thirdly, and perhaps most serious of all, they introduced the test alongside safeguards intended to prevent its unreasonable use. The test in this Bill has not only had those safeguards removed, but the entire onus of the test is reversed. Let no one say that the Conservative party has learnt nothing in the 60 years since the test of genuinely seeking work was abolished—it has learnt how to make it harsher.
  I have not the smallest doubt that, during these debates, we shall be told that we exaggerate or that we misunderstand how the test will work. I shall remind the House, therefore, of how in 1930 William Beveridge described it, even in its original and, by today's standards, safeguarded form. He said when referring to the test:
  "The condition will not, it may be hoped, ever rise from its dishonoured grave."
  Clearly, we should regard the Secretaries of State for Social Security and Employment as first and second gravedigger, prepared to resurrect the 1920s test not just with full but with increased rigour.
  Prior to the test's abolition in 1930, someone was required to show that he was seeking work in "suitable" employment—not any old employment, but "suitable" employment, which is a word removed completely from the test in the Bill. In the 1920s, they did not leave it at that. They defined the context of suitability, and did so in terms that, clearly, the Conservative party of the 1920s found less unacceptable than the Conservative party of today. Without losing benefit, people could refuse to seek or to take a job with lower wages or worse conditions in their own area. Even a job elsewhere had to be on offer at fair terms and conditions for that area. Account was taken of the likelihood and the danger of skill impairment and the prevention of a return to his normal employment if someone was forced to take any job.
  Most important of all—this brings me to the question raised by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester)—they could be pressed, even against these safeguards, to take only full-time work. The sting in the tail of clause 9 is that any or all of the pressures that it imposes can be used to push someone against his will or his best interests into part-time or temporary work. Yet despite those qualifications, in practice the test became hated and discredited, because it was a test of a willingness to work which was divorced from whether there was any work.
  This Government of prosperity, in any case, want no truck with any safeguards. They refer to such things as fair wages and conditions. One can be drummed out of the Brownies for using words like that in today's Tory party. Indeed, the Government have reversed the entire import of that part of the law. Far from it being the norm, the standard, to take account of the nature of the job on offer, under clause 9 the norm, the standard, is that the wages

  725
  and conditions on offer are entirely irrelevant. They are to be ignored in deciding whether someone has good cause for not seeking or for refusing a job, although some flexibility may be allowed against that general rule.
  The Government have shown signs—one must be fair to them—of what they no doubt regard as generosity. The Secretary of State said it was right to give people time to find a similar job, if they can. The Government will give them time, but within a maximum, of course—they would not want to run the risk of this gracious gesture being misused in any way by the ungrateful. The Government are prepared to wait as long as 13 weeks—about three months—before this legislation will be brought into play.
  Of course, to be fair to him, the Secretary of State identified that as the maximum. No doubt it will be only really deserving cases—those who have full consideration given to the length of time that they have been employed previously, to their experience, to the range of opportunities open to them, which are the Government's criteria—who will receive the full 13 weeks. If they have been unwise enough to write to the DSS or, perhaps, the Home Office for work, they probably would not even receive an acknowledgement within 13 weeks.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Lady quoted Beveridge, but she was rather selective. If she had looked further on in the report, she would have seen that Beveridge suggested that 13 weeks was the longest period in which people should draw benefit before compulsorily attending a training centre. Did not Beveridge say that the danger of providing benefits, which are both adequate in amount and indefinite in duration, was that men, being creatures who adapt themselves to circumstances, may settle down to them?
  Mrs. Beckett: I did not hear the end of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, because my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was speaking to me, but I am told that I did not miss anything.
  I concede the hon. Gentleman's point that Beveridge referred to that period. However, even allowing for the words of Beveridge, it still appears to us that it is wrong for the Government to resurrect this basic, harsh condition, which he so condemned, and to continue to use that as the test against which those 13 weeks would be set. Nothing that the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has said invalidates that basic point.
  I remind the House that, after the maximum period of 13 weeks grace, the person involved can be forced not just to take lower paid work or work in less favourable conditions, but temporary or part-time work. I am especially alarmed about that because, as Ministers know all too well, although I doubt that they have drawn it to the attention of their Back Benchers, the present benefit system offers possible substantial penalties in the withdrawal of benefit rights from those who choose to work on a part-time or temporary basis only. The short title of the Bill should be, "Heads I win, tails you lose." It will have devastating impact.
  The period of grace against the test in the Bill, which will not exceed 13 weeks, is not a period of grace. It is a sop, a token gesture, a period of consideration before compulsion begins to apply. It is all too short a time for many to adjust to the loss of their jobs, especially if that job loss is now to be combined with job searching against a harsh deadline. If the deadline pressures people into a
  726
  mistaken decision and into a job which they soon want to leave, they will face the loss of all rights to unemployment benefit and, at most, a reduced rate of income support, probably for six months, because they have voluntarily left work.
  Those who leave work voluntarily cannot benefit from the trial period allowed in the Bill, because it is for the long-term unemployed only. The Secretary of State referred to that trial period in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, although it was irrelevant to the question. I notice, however, that the maximum trial period allowed forces the long-term unemployed to make a decision to leave—if they make that decision at all—before they are allowed, under clause 8, to requalify for unemployment benefit.
  Under clause 7 there will be a list—not an exhaustive one—of examples of the steps that each claimant will be expected to take every week. In some circumstances someone may be deemed to be seeking work—for example, when they have a job, but have not started it. I appreciate that, otherwise, the Government may have looked slightly silly. The fact that such a common-sense matter must be specifically allowed for shows how rigidly the Government mean the Bill to operate.
  Week in and week out, the claimant must show that action has been taken to look for work. I noted what the. Secretary of State said to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) about not forcing people dependent upon local labour market conditions to take unsuitable work. If that is the Secretary of State's view, however, it is hard to see why the Government have gone to all the trouble in clause 9 to remove all references to suitable work. I do not believe that the Secretary of State's remarks make any difference. It may not mean that someone will be disallowed benefit depending on the local labour market conditions, but I do not believe that those conditions will make any difference to the way in which the test will operate or to the way in which claimants will be forced to make statements about what they have done every week.
  I want to emphasise the word "claimant". Whatever terms the Government may use to justify the provisions in the Bill and whatever they sound like, it may well be that the person affected is not receiving a single penny piece from the state. There are many unemployed people who must be available for work—that is the term now—but who have used up their entitlement to unemployment benefit or who cannot receive income support perhaps because their partner is in work. They must sign on to receive their pension credits. That person may have worked for 30 years and it may be their first experience of being unable to find work. They tend to describe their situation as being "thrown on the scrap heap". Because people need between 30 and 40 years of contributions or credits—a large share of a lifetime's work—to receive a full state pension, the person unemployed after 30 years of work will be caught by the legislation.
  Let us consider the core resentment that the Bill will rightly earn. The overwhelming majority of those people without work are decent men and women who have no choice about being without work. They include many whose health is impaired by sickness or injury who have been ruled "fit for light work" to save money on disability benefits. No consideration has been given or will be given to whether light work is available or whether any employer would hire such people to do it. We are also talking about

  727
  many who have been made redundant at what they thought was a fairly young age until they discovered that employers think otherwise. If one is as young as one feels, those people feel old before their time.
  The Bill puts all the pressure on the unemployed and does nothing to address the attitudes they face from employers. It ignores the fact that, on the Government's figures, there is no work for at least two out of three or, more probably, five out of six of those whom the Bill will force on to the treadmill of a tiring, depressing and utterly fruitless job search.
  The Government and the Secretary of State have drawn heavily on the Department of Employment survey of the London labour market, although I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman also referred to the national survey and what it said about how often people look for jobs. The Government have ignored, however, other elements of the former survey. It suggested that people without work were realistic in their expectations of the wages that they may command. That means that the major switch in law represented by clause 9, which pushes people towards low-paid work, is unjustified. It is not the unrealistic demands of the unemployed that are keeping them out of work, but lack of work.
  The surveys also drew attention to the attitudes of employers and their reluctance to recruit those who have been out of work for more than six months, whatever their qualifications or experience. It showed that many employers, even in boroughs with high levels of unemployment, did not know that such a pool of labour was available. We have heard nothing about what the Government are doing about the attitudes, ignorance and prejudice of employers.
  The survey also reported:
  "Most benefit claimants … are keen to work".
  That judgment reinforces similar reports previously published over the years by the Manpower Services Commission. The report suggested that, at most, a minority might not be actively looking for work. Even then, the Government have not considered that, among that minority, there may be many who have good cause to believe that active search for work would merely add to the mountain of rejections and humiliations that they have already suffered because of their age, colour or disability.
  Unless the Government take action, on a scale commensurate with that in this Bill, to change the attitudes of such employers, they know that the search on which people will be sent will serve no purpose except to pander to the prejudices of those who have never suffered unemployment and never expect to do so.
  I am reminded of the observations made in 1929 by William Jones KC, spiritual ancestor of the Secretary of State. He described how the then law was applied to the Rhymney valley to pressurise men into tramping substantial distances to look for work in neighbouring valleys. He said:
  "We know it is useless for the men to go over the hill, because the first thing they are told is 'We have our own unemployed here: go back to your own valley.' We know that, but we do not tell the men."
  As in the days of William Jones 60 years ago, so now. The Bill is not designed to help people back into work, it is intended to prod and goad them and to bring the
  728
  unlucky ones—when there is not enough work, there will be many of them—up against their failings and failures over and over again, week after week after week.
  Ms. Short: What my hon. Friend has said so powerfully is true. Does she agree that the real strategy underlying the Bill is to force people to take lower-paid work? We have all heard the Government proclaim the prosperous boom, but 40 per cent. of our work force earn low pay. The Bill will mean more of that, as well as more of the humiliation that my hon. Friend has described.
  Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right, because, unless that was so, it hardly accounts for the way in which the Government have ignored that part of the Department's survey or explains why they have also retained the provisions that take no account of pay.
  Mr. Tony Favell: Is it the policy of the Opposition that the unemployed should be obliged to look for work? If so, how does the hon. Lady propose that that should be done?
  Mrs. Beckett: First of all, I am not entirely sure whether the hon. Gentleman has been here while I have been speaking but, if he has, he will have heard me say, first of all, that yes, of course we agree that people should be seeking work, and indeed, most of them are. Is the hon. Gentleman contending that most of them are not, and is that the policy of the Conservative party? That certainly appears to be the policy behind this Bill.
  Secondly, I have already said—again, if the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard—that we believe that the existing tests of willingness to work are quite sufficient, and indeed, can be quite stringent and can debar people whom we think should not be debarred. There is no need for those tests to be further strengthened.
  My hon. Friend, as I say, mentioned that she believes that the Government's intention is to drive people into more low-paid jobs, and I have no doubt that that is the case. I have no doubt also that it is the Government's wish and intention to drive still more people off the unemployment register. I have no doubt that it will drive some of them off the register, even if they have to sacrifice their pension credits, and, ultimately, their full pension. I have no doubt either that it will drive some of them nearly crazy.
  The financial memorandum suggests that money will be saved. The only estimate of the cost in people is that of the staff who might be required. There is no estimate of the distress, the illness, the divorces or the suicides. Let me remind the House again of the justification the Government offers. They claim that there are 700,000 unfilled vacancies and over 2 million unemployed people registered. The Government know, of course, only of 250,000 actual vacancies, which they multiply by guesswork to get an estimate of the overall picture. Independent estimates suggest that it is more like 3 million people who are pursuing those 250,000 or 700,000 vacancies. Certainly there is no question that there are remotely enough vacancies for the number of unemployed people, however they are fiddled or calculated, although to listen to Ministers and some Government Back Benchers one might think there were more vacancies than there are people unemployed.
  The purpose and the effect of this Bill is to foster the idea that all that is needed for the unemployed to find work

  729
  is for them to look harder for work, although the Government's own figures show that many of them cannot possibly find it. For the long-term unemployed especially, who cannot get work, some adjustment to the reality of their position is not just desirable; it is vital. That is how they hold together the remnants of their self-respect, their dignity, their pride, perhaps even their sanity. Heaven knows this Bill is doing enough to encourage a climate of opinion that denies them the respect of others, and the reality for most of them remains that there is no work, and nothing in this Bill changes that one iota.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is no such thing as a stack of vacancies? There is a flow of vacancies; vacancies flow in and filled vacancies flow out. Most of the vacancies are filled in a couple of weeks or so and most of the vacancies go to employed people who are switching jobs. The unemployed do not get these vacancies, because of the recruitment policies of employers, and even in the London survey, if the Minister will read the foreword written by the Secretary of State, he says that only "a small minority" of the unemployed are not seeking work.
  Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and I am most grateful to him for making those points. I would only say that what I am addressing is the Government's arguments rather than the reality. Of course it is bad for people to despair and for people to give up hope, and certainly one must wish that the long-term unemployed receive encouragement, but it is also bad for them to be forced continually to jump hurdles at which they are bound to fall. This Bill does not offer a helping hand to the unemployed; it shows them a mailed fist. Unemployment itself has a shattering effect on the lives of many who face it. It is an unexploded grenade, and in this Bill the Government are pulling the pin.
  5.53 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: The Government's social security programmes have an impact on the lives of millions of people: on the unemployed, on the elderly, on the families and also on the young, and social security spending, we all know, has risen inexorably since the foundation of the welfare state. Today, it represents the largest single item of Government expenditure, accounting for one pound in three of public spending. The average taxpayer currently contributes about £11 a week to social security spending.
  It is crucial that spending on this scale is effective. Equally, it is essential that our social security programmes not only provide immediate help for those who are in need, but that they do not have perverse and unwelcome long-term effects. It is right that our social security system should evolve to ensure that it does not institutionalise dependence on the state, that it does not create barriers to enterprise and wealth creation, and that it does not undermine the family.
  The Bill represents another very important stage in the evolution of the social security system. It builds on the 1986 reforms and underlines the Government's commitment to a system of benefits which provide help where it is most needed, at the same time as reinforcing the principles of individual responsibility and self-help. Understandably, much attention has focused on the changes to the rules governing unemployment benefit, and these changes will,
  730
  I believe, be almost universally perceived outside this Chamber as being long overdue and common-sense adjustments.
  The man on the proverbial Clapham omnibus would be the first to subscribe to the notion that the very minimum the state can expect from those out of work in return for the payment of benefit is that they actively go about finding work. The idea that the state should perpetually subsidise those who seem happy to remain unemployed indefinitely not only offends the average person's view of what is fair; we all know that a system which allows such a state of affairs to persist is fundamentally flawed since it actually creates dependence and robs individuals of responsibility for themselves.
  Equally important principles are at stake elsewhere in this Bill. Clause 4 on liable relatives is a case in point. The savings that will accrue from this change are relatively small, although by no means insignificant, but of far greater importance is the fact that, by obliging single parents to take responsibility for their children while they are in the sixth form, we are bringing the treatment of single-parent families into line with family law. Why should a single parent receive more favourable treatment from the state in this matter than a couple with children?
  There is no reason why the taxpayer should be forced to underwrite the maintenance of 16 to l9-year-olds in full-time education simply because they come from a single-parent family. Responsibility for the welfare and maintenance of children will in a free society always rest principally with parents; that basic rule applies equally to couples and to single-parent families.
  The family is the cornerstone of our society, the basic and most essential unit, and it would be wrong to allow a system to persist which discriminates in favour of single-parent families and thereby against couples with children. Equally, we should not tolerate a system which enables parents to evade their basic responsibility as parents, and we should be aware that the very knowledge that the state will provide for children may remove an obstacle to fathers deserting their families.
  Some, of course, will claim that these changes are designed to punish one-parent families in pursuit of minor cost savings, but I for one do not regard £2·5 million as small change. It is more than enough to pay for an extra 100 policemen on the streets of our inner cities or to fund important medical research.
  The real purpose of clause 4 is to create a benefit system that encourages responsibility and self-reliance, a system that does not unintentionally provide incentives for fathers to abandon their children, and it is of course essential that the state provides help to the needy single-parent families, but it is even more important that the very availability of those benefits does not encourage illegitimacy and the break-up of families. The happiness and well-being of children depends to a far greater extent on their family background and on the love and care of their parents than on the availability of cash benefits from the state.
  The primary aim of our social security system should be to use benefits to help to build a stable and loving environment in which children can be raised. The provision of benefits cannot be seen as a substitute for parental love and responsibility. It is precisely for that reason that the clause is to be welcomed.
  Perhaps the main themes of the Bill are fairness and economic efficiency. Nowhere are those concepts better illustrated than in clause 19, which implements the EC

  731
  Council directive on equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes. I was very pleased to hear the welcome given to this clause by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on behalf of the Opposition. I know that that change will be welcomed by millions of working women throughout the country. In the last 10 years we have managed to shed so many of the outdated stereotypes of what women can and cannot do. Women are achieving more than ever: in the professions, in business and—dare I say it?—also in politics.
  Clause 19 of the Social Security Bill will bring to an end discrimination in employment-related schemes. Sensibly, it will also stop indirect discrimination against women in pension and other benefit schemes. Such discrimination is often unintentional and usually the result of custom and tradition, but it is no less damaging or unfair than more overt forms of discrimination. Benefit schemes which discriminate against women as a result of their family or marital status are unfair to women, and also represent an obstacle to the smooth operation of the labour market.
  At a time when the number of young people in the labour market is contracting—when employers will increasingly have to consider employing older people, especially married women—our economy simply cannot afford to place obstacles in the way of the employment of women. All such barriers are a disincentive to women to seek work and an impediment to the creation of prosperity and jobs.
  Clause 19 will also ensure that women who take maternity leave do not lose benefit entitlement as a result. In future, women who take leave to have a baby will, for the purposes of calculating benefit levels, be treated exactly as though they had been at work. That is a very sensible reform which will help women to reconcile the competing pressures of children and work.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Roe: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish the point; then I shall give way.
  I know that many women who take maternity leave are immensely irked when they discover that the period of their absence is treated, for the purposes of calculating pensions, as though they had been on a prolonged holiday. Any woman who has had children would tell us otherwise.
  Mr. Corbyn: I agree with the hon. Lady that much of this legislation acts as a disincentive to women to return to work and that it discriminates against them. Does she also agree that one of the major problems over women returning to work is the lack of pre-school child care facilities in this country, which has the worst record of any country in western Europe? Does she not believe that the Government ought to address that problem?
  Mrs. Roe: I believe that parents have a responsibility to consider the welfare of their children. I started a new career in middle age, having first reared my family. Parents must consider the welfare of their children. Women who stay at home to look after their children do a very important job.
  There is one further item of unfinished business that relates to pensions and the equality of treatment between men and women—the equalisation of the pension age.
  732
  Those of us who believe in giving women a fairer deal in matters of employment and social security legislation recognise that the argument works both ways.
  On the pension age, women should understand that the principle of equality may require them to retire later than at present. I know that the Government have accepted the principle of equalisation, but the implementation of that principle is less than straightforward. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reassure the House that the Government's proposals will be very carefully worked through. The Government should not be rushed into a crucial decision that will affect the lives of generations of workers and pensioners.
  The 1986 social security reforms dragged our lumbering benefits system into the late 20th century. That great reform showed that it was possible to provide help for those who are in genuine need without eroding the responsibility, initiative and enterprise upon which the happiness of individuals and families so greatly depends. This Bill represents a further important adjustment to the operation of the social security system. By making social policy operate in a much fairer fashion and by reinforcing the paramount importance of individual responsibility, these changes will promote what Opposition Members are fond of calling economic efficiency and social justice. I prefer to call it prosperity and happiness. Therefore, I fully support the Bill.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: We are discussing a renegotiation of responsibilities between the individual and the state. I disagree fundamentally with one of the points that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) made at the beginning of her speech—that if all of us were travelling on the back of an omnibus to Clapham common this Bill would strike us as fair. It would strike us as unfair —not for the reasons that have been put forward so far in the debate but because the renegotiation between the state and the individual is, under this Government, only one way. The Bill changes the duties and responsibilities of the individual to seek work. It does nothing about the duties and responsibilities of the state to ensure that work is available for the individual.
  Because I want to develop that theme briefly, and because some of it may be controversial, let me begin by referring to a point that unites both sides of the House of Commons—that the vast majority of the unemployed are seeking work to the very best of their ability. I believe that I speak on behalf of the vast majority of the unemployed in Birkenhead when I say that they see nothing wrong with the idea that their superhuman efforts to find work should be matched by every other unemployed person. However, the question that we have to ask ourselves is how we are to treat those people who genuinely cannot find work.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) referred to the abolition of a hated rule in the 1930s. I go back to the negotiations that Margaret Bondfield had with the TUC and the employers. The TUC was not soft on this issue. It did not wish the message to go out that it was feather-bedding a tiny minority who did not wish to seek work. The TUC thought that it was perfectly proper that the test should be applied, but in the final resort the real test, and the only test, was to present someone with a job. That is the test that we should be implementing today. I should happily vote for it.
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: Would my hon. Friend care to add to that test the condition that the job should be properly remunerated, and that decent human conditions should be provided?
  Mr. Field: If we were to insist on decent human conditions, large numbers of my constituents would not be in work, given the circumstances in which they have to work. However, I was taking it for granted that both sides of the House agree that the statement should stand that Lord Joseph made to this House—that nobody should be forced to take a job that makes him financially worse off.
  Before my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) intervened, I was about to make the point that, given the emphasis that this Government have placed on tightening up on the tiny minority of people who are not using all their energies to find work, they ought to be appearing before us today in sackcloth and ashes.
  Since 1979, we have seen a number of Government reforms that have made it more difficult for people to find jobs. That is why I spoke against the Government's measures to break the link with signing on in a place where the job vacancies were advertised. The Government pushed through that reform for the simple reason that it enabled them to cut the size of the Civil Service. When they brought forward proposals to abolish the re-establishment centres, I spoke and voted against them. I thought it wrong that there was not that final sanction.
  When the Government come forward with these measures, I suppose we should be pleased that there will be much rejoicing in heaven over those sinners who repent today. However, it is interesting to note the means by which they bring forward their reforms, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South pointed out, given the Government's track record, gives us cause for concern about how people will be treated if they cannot find work.
  This renegotiation between the state and the individual, which is all on one side, is an incomplete renegotiation and a half measure. I want to spend my couple of minutes emphasising the other side of that contract that must be drawn up between the state and the individual. I wish to go on record as saying—I fight elections on this platform—that unemployed people have a duty to use everything in their power to find work. The vast majority of my constituents do that with considerable skill. However, if we are not to make a mockery of people when they put in that affort, the other side of the contract is to say, "Yes, the state's responsibility must match that of the individual,"
  but the Bill is totally silent on that matter.
  We should ask the Government for three measures if we are satisfactorily to renegotiate the deal between the state and the individual and the responsibilities of each as we approach the 1990s. First, support services should exist for people who actively seek work, as the vast majority of our unemployed constituents do. Year by year, the Government have cut the size of those services. Let me give the House one example which shows that—the effort that the Swedish Government put into helping people find work compared with this Government. Obviously, there is a different ratio between the number of unemployed here and in Sweden, but the Swedish Government employ 20 times more staff than the British Government in trying to make sure that people are trained and suitably placed in work. We should welcome the beginnings of this
  734
  renegotiation, but let us also be clear about the full, comprehensive terms on which we want that contract renegotiated.
  Secondly, what will happen to those of our constituents who put everything into their employment training course to make it a success, if there is no job at the end of that course Will the Government say that they can go back on benefit? Will they think of some other way of roughing up those people? Will they say, "You have now done your duty. Our responsibility is to provide you with some form of work and we will provide that form of temporary work"? I should like the Minister to answer that point when he winds up this evening.
  Thirdly, we must consider full employment. The Minister made much of Pamela Meadows's report. Perhaps I should say that he did not make much of it, as he waved it about and then quoted from another survey about the tightness of the labour market in parts of London. When Opposition Members try to put full employment back on the political agenda, we start from the basis that there is full employment in some areas of the country and in some trades, so we are not talking about a crude Keynesian policy of inflating demand in an attempt to move back to full employment. We are asking for much more selective—or, as the Government would like us to argue, more targeted—measures.
  My constituents and those of many of my hon. Friends believe that the Government can make some moves to ensure that we move back to full employment in those areas that are now hard hit by unemployment. The Government can control where they place their jobs and contracts. We want to see much more effort than we get even from this Secretary of State. He is better than most Secretaries of State when it comes to moving Government jobs out of areas of high employment to areas of low employment.
  We need to see those Government jobs moved into areas of high unemployment and so begin to underpin the local economy, so that the private sector can build on that. The private sector does not come to Birkenhead in the numbers that we would like, for the simple reason that so many other areas in Merseyside are much more attractive. The private sector will not come until we raise the level of money and demand in that local economy that attracts them.
  This begins to lay the basis of a move back to full employment. I speak as someone in favour of renegotiating the contract betweeen the state and the individual with which this Bill deals. I criticise the Bill, as do other Opposition Members—and, I hope, Conservative Members—because it is a partial measure which does all the renegotiation on the individual side and does nothing to deliver on the state side.
  The state needs to come up with three moves if it is to match the changes that we want in respect of the individual. First, we want to see placement services and help for people trying to find work, to match those, for example, in Sweden. Secondly, we want a reply from the Government about what will happen to those of our constituents who have gone through the mill, including ET. Will they be kicked back to the dole queues afterwards or will the Government come up with schemes of work for them? Thirdly, areas such as the one that I represent desperately need their economies underpinning, and that

  735
  will come only from the Government. If the contract were renegotiated on those terms, many of us would feel much happier than we so far feel about the measure.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Bob Dunn: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I have listened with great interest to his comments, both in this House and in the media, for many years. Many Conservative Members respect him for the things he says and the activities he pursues with great vigour and determination in the House and elsewhere. I might go so far as to place it on record that he has as many friends on this side of the House as he has enemies on that side. We listen with great interest to what he says.
  Neither the hon. Gentleman nor the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who is appropriately dressed in pink for this occasion, referred to the taxpayer, the economy and the changes that need to be made, bearing in mind the demographic changes that lie ahead, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) referred.
  I am delighted to take part in this debate, for a number of reasons. This is the first occasion that I have had since my translation from Government to the Back Benches to take part in a major policy debate. On this occasion, I have the strange feeling of being able to say what I believe and to believe what I say.
  Ms. Clare Short: Is the Minister for Social Security saying what he thinks?
  Mr. Dunn: The hon. Lady must contain herself.
  I remember many occasions at the Dispatch Box when I thought that if I had the choice of being here or in France, I would rather be in France. The second reason why I am delighted to be here is that I wish to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and his ministerial team for introducing this important and much-needed measure which addresses our social security system and seeks to bring about much-needed reform through a radical policy which I hope will be the first of several initiatives in this area over the years.
  The encouragement of individual freedom and the maximisation of opportunities for individual success, while taking account and care of those who through no fault of their own are going through temporary or permanent difficult times, have always been a cornerstone of the philosophy of this party and this Government. It is refreshing to have a fresh re-emphasis and reaffirmation of it in this Bill.
  That we can discuss these reforms against the background of a successful economy is undoubtedly an enormous advantage. Because of the success in and of our economy, it has been possible to provide social security expenditure at levels 40 per cent. above inflation. From listening to the speeches of Labour Members, this Bill and the trend that I hope it will start on the subject which it addresses is clearly a point of philosophical division between us.
  This is the parting of the ways and must be so. We see the legislation as targeting and focusing help on those in need. Clearly it will provide a better service to British
  736
  people by making the benefits system easier to understand and, for those who work within the system, easier to administer. Moreover, it will encourage greater independence in personal pension provision, which I fully welcome. Of those advantages, the most significant is the first—the proper targeting of help for and support of those in need.
  I welcome several clauses. I welcome clause 3, which requires employers to keep a record of the earnings on which their employees have paid national insurance contributions. I know from constituency experience that, when employers fail to keep proper records, it can cause enormous anxiety to those approaching retirement who feel that there may be a gap between what they know they have paid and the information that the record offices have. The clause brings that into the open and destroys a gap in the system.
  I welcome clause 4 because it deals with liable relatives and provides an extension of liability. I hope that, on Report, we shall see that the Standing Committee has given long and determined thought to the question of one-parent families and the attitude of those who, having created children, decide to leave the family and throw the children on the state. The House must welcome the clause. I hope that the Committee will make it clear to those who may wish to take that opportunity at some time in the life of their family that they must take account of their personal responsibilities, having created the children in the first place.
  I welcome clause 5, which extends the upper age limit for the payment of mobility allowance from 75 to 80. All hon. Members will welcome that provision, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on it.
  I welcome clause 9, because it requires a person claiming unemployment benefit to show that he or she is actively seeking work. I welcome it because it will enshrine in law that which most people believe is the case but which is not the case—that benefit should not be paid if there are opportunities to gain work which are not being actively pursued by those seeking benefit. I think I am right in saying that this is not an original provision, as some of our colleagues in the Commonwealth—for example, Labour Australia—follow such a provision—
  Mrs. Beckett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dunn: Of course I shall give way in one moment, although the hon. Lady did not give way to me. Our neighbours across the Irish sea also follow this provision. Clearly, there is evidence of support for this provision elsewhere in the world.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise for not having given way to him, but I shall do so another time. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman raises the issue of what is done elsewhere, because it is included in the Central Office brief. However, that brief does not tell him that, although some such provision, which could loosely be described by the same words as are in the Bill, exists in the countries to which he referred, in none of those countries does it operate in any way, shape or form as it is intended to do under this Bill.
  Mr. Dunn: I am interested to hear that the hon. Lady is in receipt of Central Office briefs. Her educational stocks must be piling up rapidly. From what she says, at least it

  737
  seems that she agrees that the principle behind the provision is being followed in part or in full by other countries. She said so.
  Mrs. Beckett: No. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Government are reluctant to make glib comparisons between one social security system and another—for example, on pension levels. I said that some of those different countries use the word "actively" in their legislation and some have various tests, but that in not one does the provision operate in the same way or to the same extent as it is intended to under this Bill. The comparison is invalid, although I recognise that it is not the hon. Gentleman's fault, because he has been misled.
  Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to be so informed, as befits two former Education Ministers arguing across the Floor of the House—but for them to do so can hardly be salutary, educational or beneficial. At least the hon. Lady pointed out that there is a principle abroad that is being followed, and I welcome her support. She may make her interpretation of what happens abroad, as indeed I do.
  In her speech, to which I listened with great interest, the hon. Lady did not answer the point ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redmond), and perhaps I may make it again. If a person is offered a suitable job for which that person is suitably qualified and turns it down, is that person, under Labour policy, still to be entitled to benefit?
  [HON. MEMBERS: No.]
  Mr. Frank Field: The answer to the question is that that person would not be entitled to benefit. In what the hon. Gentleman might have thought to be a rhetorical question but which we were only too pleased to answer, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the test will be that people will be offered actual jobs.
  Mr. Dunn: I did not ask an answer. I asked a question. I am not in the business of asking answers, but I want answers to my questions. The whole point of tonight's debate is not only to give the Bill support, but to find out what Opposition Members think—not that there are many of them present. We are not much further forward. They have told us that such a person will not be entitled to benefit, but my hon. Friend asked whether they should be entitled to benefit, and we can check that in Hansard. Some Opposition Members may think that such a person should be entitled to benefit.
  Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dunn: When I am in full flow, I like to finish my comments. If I may finish them, I shall give way because the hon. Lady has been patient and has been listening to the debate carefully.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham made the point that claimants should not be entitled to benefit if they refuse a job for which they are suitably qualified. I make the point that Opposition Members are of the opinion that such claimants should be entitled to benefit in that situation.
  Ms. Short: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is being sincere and does not understand the legislation's existing framework or the Labour party's position. Under existing law a claimant must be available for and positively seeking work; otherwise, benefit will be disallowed. The Bill goes beyond that. It will force the unemployed into schemes
  738
  that do not suit them or which are not good for their futures. It will compel them to accept jobs at levels of pay far below those that properly reflect their qualifications and skills. Current law says that claimants must be available for and take suitable jobs. Does the hon. Gentleman understand that? He is defending the Bill by describing the legislation that it replaces.
  Mr. Dunn: We shall all check in Hansard what we have said, but the hon. Lady will find that she is wrong in the statement that she made. Later, perhaps, she will make points that will clarify exactly where she does stand. She cannot speak for the whole Labour party, in the sense that—
  Ms. Short: I was only describing the law.
  Mr. Dunn: The hon. Lady suggests that I do not understand Labour party policy. Nor does she, and nor does any right hon. or hon. Member understand what Labour party policy is. It is clear that tonight we have the re-emphasis of Tammany hall philosophy. The Labour party loves to have, across the community, tied interest groups at the behest of, and subject to influence from, the centre. We saw that in our debate on council house sales and on the educational reforms to which I was a party, and of which I was a supporter. We saw it also in the matter of share ownership and the involvement of workers in industry.
  Mr. Corbyn: Did you agree with them?
  Mr. Dunn: In time, the Labour party will come to accept those reforms as essential. As they accept the sale of council houses, at least some educational reforms, and the concept of worker involvement in industry, so will they accept the purposes and provisions contained in the Bill and in other legislation.
  I make one final point to the hon. Member for Birkenhead. The people who resent social security abuses are not Surrey stockbrokers or the retired people of Fylde, but the ordinary people living on housing estates and in communities. They are decent people living according to an economic regime, who see others taking advantage of that regime. That is the fundamental distinction between our understanding of the whole social security system and that of the Opposition.
  I am delighted to be resurrected, and again to be back on the Back Benches, and I am delighted to be here in support of the Bill.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am puzzled by the turn that the debate has taken, and two points made by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), confused me even more. Speaking for myself and for a number of my own right hon. and hon. Friends, I give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that if claimants turn down suitable jobs, they are disqualified from receiving benefit. I also reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are just as interested as he is in rooting out genuine abuses, because anyone who abuses the system does so at the cost of other claimants. The hon. Gentleman seems to criticise the Opposition for taking the opposite point of view. However, our criticism of the Bill does not relate to either of those two aspects. The House should accept that that is so, and let the debate move on to more pertinent issues.

  739
  What also puzzles me about the debate is that Ministers on the Treasury Bench vigorously shake their heads when Opposition Members take the point that the existing law gives the Government the power to tackle those who are workshy, or whatever one likes to call it. I adduce in evidence the very good Library brief on. the Bill, from which I shall quote—and people on the Treasury Bench will, I hope, spend some time clearing up this point:
  "At present, Section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975 disqualifies claimaints who, 'without good cause', either 'refuse' or 'neglect to avail' themselves of 'suitable employment'. It also disqualifies people who 'without good cause' fail to follow reasonable official advice about finding suitable employment or people who turn down approved training places."
  Mrs. Beckett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also bring to the attention of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who seems somewhat bewildered, the fact that the Social Security Act 1975, with its stringent provisions, which we support, was passed by a Labour Government.
  Mr. Kirkwood: It was passed, albeit before my time, in 1975, and is the parent of the principal Act that the present Bill seeks to amend.
  The Library brief, dealing further with the matter of a claimant actively seeking work, comments:
  "An influential Commissioner's Decision [Ref.R(U) 5/80] [Item 11] stated that availability is not a passive state in which a person may be said to be available provided he is sought out. Rather it implies that the claimant takes some active steps to draw attention to his search for work. The DSS treat this as a generally applicable rule."
  Either it does or it does not. In all my constituency work, I have operated on the basis that power is available to the Department.
  I am astonished that the Government, and the Secretary of State in his opening remarks, appear now to refute that. There has been a great deal of shaking of heads, with the Government saying, "No, it is nothing to do with us. We cannot control people who are workshy and who abrogate their responsibilities." But the power for the Department to act already exists, and if it is not being used, I want to know why. If that power is not being exploited as it should be, that is the Government's fault. The principal reason why the Bill is unnecessary is that it gives the Government "additional" powers when, even if they do not know it, the Government already have them.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was right to say that the Bill fundamentally redraws the state's powers and responsibilities in respect of individual unemployed claimants. Another fundamental point, which the Secretary of State glossed over in his introduction, is the abolition of the Treasury supplement, which has been until now a fundamental and integral part of the Beveridge reforms. However, when opening the debate, the Secretary of State simply waved it aside, saying that the rationale for it had gone.
  A figure of £1·75 billion has been taken out of the national insurance contribution fund, which finances maternity payments, unemployment, pensions and other benefits. A sum of £1·75 billion has disappeared just like that, because the rationale for it has gone. Just imagine what could be done with that substantial amount of money. The Secretary of State could have reduced employers' or employees' contributions, which might
  740
  incidentally have created more than a little employment. If he did not want to do that, he could alternatively have increased benefits.
  Right hon. and hon. Members know from their constituency casework of the difficulties that many claimants are having. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to say that because the rationale for the Treasury supplement has gone, under clause 2, £1·75 billion will go out of the window just like that. The House should carefully consider the implications of that fundamental change and the consequences it will have for right hon. and hon. Members' constituents. When the Government took office, the Treasury contribution was about 18 per cent., but since 1980 it has been whittled away. The change was announced in the Autumn Statement—this came as no surprise—that it was now down to zero. The House should not accept such a fundamental change lightly.
  The House should also be reminded that according to the financial memorandum in the Bill, the savings from clauses 7 to 10 will be £100 million. Fortuitously for the Government, 50,000 benefit and unemployed claimants will come off the register, too.
  Changing the tests for work has some deeply worrying consequences. The hon. Member for Birkenhead made an important point about this. He said that it was a given fact, derived from Lord Joseph's statement at the time the legislation was introduced in 1975, that claimants would never be forced to accept work that would remunerate them less than the benefit they were receiving. I hope that that is true, but I turn it now into a question.
  Is it true that there are circumstances in which an unemployed benefit claimant could be required to take a job under the terms of this Bill that would bring him less money in his hand than he got in benefits before being required to take it? Perhaps the hon. Member for Birkenhead will put me right about this. I do not think that the House should consider the Bill further without this being established one way or the other.
  Mr. Frank Field: I hope that we shall get a clear answer when the Minister winds up, as he did not respond immediately. Perhaps it was foolish of me not to push the point; when I said that claimants would not be forced to take jobs that made them worse off, the Secretary of State agreed with me, and I assumed that it would be good to have that clearly put on the record before the Bill went into operation.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure the Minister will respond to his point one way or the other—
  Mr. Corbyn: You must be joking.
  Mr. Kirkwood: One lives in hope. We have real worries about the legislation and its consequences.
  People should accept suitable jobs that they are offered, but what will happen to the families of these claimants if benefit is withdrawn entirely? Will they be entitled to social fund loans, for example? Have the Government thought about that? Given the Government's record in this area, the Opposition parties are worried that the Government are drifting towards insisting on work, training or some other required service or activity in return for benefit—a move towards workfare. I believe that the Minister has

  741
  confirmed in written answers that that is not the Government's intention, but some of us are beginning to worry that it may indeed be their long-term intention.
  Finally, clause 13 authorises the Government to pay out of the Consolidated Fund the money that was properly allocated to transitional payments. I am still worried about this. The Secretary of State earlier gave me some reassurance about the proportion of people who will gain no increase in benefit at all this April as a result of the changes brought in by the 1986 Act. I was grateful for that, but claimants in my constituency do not really know what the uprating will mean until they receive their Giro cheques.
  I fear what will happen in April: there will be frustration and anger. If the Government were sensible, they would make some provision. The Secretary of State was forced to do so with the housing benefit transitional payments, which I welcomed. Machinery should be put in place to ensure that all claimants will get at least 50 per cent.—I pluck the figure out of the air—of the benefit they would expect to receive from the normal operation of the uprating formula this coming April as an additional transitional measure over some years.
  The Secretary of State raises his eyebrows at that. The Consolidated Fund provision is £37 million, falling to £14 million in 1991–92. It must be possible to obtain some additional transitional protection in April. I am certain that, when the time comes, I shall be proved right about this.
  We cannot support the Bill as it stands. It is muddle-headed, mean and confused. It has missed an opportunity to provide the benefits that unemployed people in particular deserve. I agree with the Secretary of State that the intention should be to give everyone the opportunity to increase his or her potential; this Bill misses the chance to do just that.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: First, I want to praise the Bill in general. It is extremely progressive, and worthy of a Conservative Government. Tonight, however, I shall confine my remarks to unemployment benefits and entitlements.
  It is difficult to discuss these matters calmly and objectively when faced with a Labour Opposition who seem to live 50, 60 or more years in the past. As the Secretary of State rightly said, the flexibility to meet new circumstances is essential, and we now live in the late 1980s, not the 1920s or 1930s. We must adapt everything to meet the challenges that lie ahead.
  Over the years, we have held many debates on unemployment, and I suppose that we would all agree that it is unfortunate that we need to discuss the issue so often. But is is a sad fact of life throughout the developed world that there has always been unemployment to a greater or lesser extent, so we should always use opportunities such as this to restate our deep concern for all who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed.
  The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) spoke about divorce and other domestic problems arising from the Government's proposals to ask unemployed people to seek work. I say that those who are unemployed through no fault of their own deserve our especial concern because they are the ones who often suffer the problems of divorce, depression and the like. We must find ways of
  742
  alleviating those problems. Temporarily, we do so through state assistance, but in the longer term what is most important to those people is the prospect of work.
  Over the years, Conservative Governments have done much by providing an economy with growth, which improves the prosperity and hence the prospects of work for more people in this country. Our attitudes to the unemployed have been very progressive—we now have the restart arrangements, a great number of training places and much encouragement for training. More has been done by this Government in these areas than by any other.
  We are discussing here the voluntarily unemployed more than the involuntarily unemployed—people who make themselves unemployed and do not try to seek work. Beveridge and 1930 have been mentioned. Opposition Members should remember the Unemployment Bill of 1933. No one in the House at that time thought that many people would not be keen to have work if work was available. So it is disappointing to hear Opposition Members suggesting that things are so much different now.
  Of course we must bear in mind demography and the declining birth rate. It is also important to remember the need that employers will have for employees in the 1990s. We shall be desperately short of people to perform all the important jobs in this country then.
  Almost an army of people sitting at home are voluntarily unemployed, contribute nothing to their country, and consume resources that others provide for them. We know that unemployment is an unacceptable phenomenon, but there must be a clear differentiation between those who are willing to work and those who are unwilling. Some people have been unemployed for a long time, whereas many others have become unemployed recently and are the short-term unemployed. Some people, regrettably, have been actively unemployed and remain actively unemployed. If such people put the same activity into finding new work as they put into being unemployed, the country would be far better served.
  We have done much to help those who genuinely want to work. I have already referred to restart and training schemes, and it is right that we have a more enlightened and flexible view of those who are genuinely keen to find a job. There are, however, a large number of people who need greater prompting—not "prodding", but prompting —hence the need for a change in the regulations. To the layman, the idea of benefit being paid by the state to someone who is capable of working but who chooses to avoid it is an anathema.
  There are those who through misfortune and inadequacy are not motivated sufficiently to look for a job. Is it not right that there should he help and encouragement for such people to fulfill themselves by working? We praise those who assist the physically and mentally disabled to find some useful work by trying to protect them from becoming—
  Mr. Ian McCartney: What reply would the hon. Gentleman give to one of my constituents who was blinded in one eye and partially sighted in the other eye after an industrial accident at Gullick Dobson's in Wigan? The company could not provide long-term alternative employment and, sad to say, he was put on the dole. He was interviewed for the restart programme and refused benefit. He has worked all his life and fought in the second world war. Having been blinded in one eye, and being partially sighted in the other, he was interviewed for

  743
  the restart programme, but now he has no benefit because of the actions of the Social Security Minister. What answer can the hon. Gentleman give?
  Mr. Kirkhope: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about that case, as we all would be. I am trying to point out that a great number of organisations and individuals do their very best to find work for the disabled and seek to ensure that they do not become locked in the isolation of their disability.
  Of course, there are some people who, despite all attempts, unfortunately are still unable to work and who would give their hind teeth for the possibility of obtaining work. I remind the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that, unfortunately, there are some who are not prepared to look for work, and that is an affront to people like the hon. Gentleman's constituent, who is, no doubt, very sorry that he cannot work; I, too, am very sorry that he cannot work. It is right to have an enlightened approach to such people. However, those who are actively avoiding work should be obliged to look for it just as actively if they want to receive benefit. Surely that is a fair suggestion and one which most people in this country would support. Everyone should do their bit to help.
  Mrs. Beckett: Whether or not the people of this country would agree with that proposition is irrelevant. The Bill states that the workshy and those desperately seeking work alike will be punished every week of their lives. That includes the constituent of my of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). They will be punished because they will have to prove every week what they are doing to look for work, even when there is no work. If the hon. Gentleman does not call that punishment, he knows nothing about the unemployed.
  Mr. Kirkhope: The hon. Lady does not understand the Bill, which does not seek to punish anybody. It will merely ask people to indicate that they are actively looking for work. What is wrong with that? Clearly, the hon. Lady misinterprets the proposal. The result of more people working will be greater prosperity for everybody and the old dependency culture mentality, which the hon. Lady and her party seem to be perpetuating, will change. That mentality has been brought about by decades of Socialist paternalism and that is precisely why the Labour party opposes the proposals. Dependency on the state is inherent in all its policies. We seek greater initiative and a willingness to work as a result of that initiative.
  At present, the regulations are sloppy and open to abuse. Disqualification from benefit for those who turn down offers of employment is based on the premise of such refusal being without good cause and in relation to suitable employment. The word "suitable" has been referred to by other hon. Members. Anyone can claim that an offer is unsuitable—perhaps the work is hard or involves other inconveniences. It is a veritable lawyers' paradise. The removal of the word "suitable" is sensible and will ensure that fractious or unreasonable refusals are eliminated.
  Clauses 7 and 10 relate to the applicant for unemployment benefit receiving it only when he or she is available for and actively seeking work—as opposed to simply being available—and are particularly important. There are many examples—no doubt other hon. Members
  744
  can point them out—of employers desperately looking for workers to fill jobs. In practice, questions are raised about the efforts made by an applicant to find employment, but active steps are not conclusive evidence of effort.
  Some Opposition Members appear to have misunderstood that point. We need to include the word "active" because it shows a different approach to the problem and more commitment to finding work. Availability alone, however, is open to much misinterpretation in a legal sense. Self-imposed restrictions have been limited by regulation, but can result in someone not being available. Of course, it is important that there should be differences in adjudication in different parts of the country and different circumstances, and the Bill allows for that.
  The changes confirm the Government's intention to ensure that the needs of employers for workers are met by the available supply as far as possible. That will allow many more people to use their skills and talents, which are being wasted at present, and which are almost encouraged by the Labour party to be wasted. I commend the Bill to the House.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I have been a Member of the House for almost six years. We seem to have a Social Security Bill about this time of year every year. Every year, Ministers arrive at the Dispatch Box and inform us that the previous year's Bill is inadequate in some way. I should have thought that, after almost 10 years in office, the Government would have got it right by now. Perhaps they are not really satisfied that they have yet created the nasty atmosphere and degree of central control and punishment of the poor people in this country, particularly the long-term unemployed, that they seek.
  The way in which Conservative Members have been talking about unemployment implies that it is something to do with weather cycles or that it is completely beyond the control of humankind. In reality, unemployment is nothing of the kind. It is due to an economic system that seeks to rely on people being unemployed or working for very low wages.
  The Government promote an economy that creates an enormous amount of wealth for a small number of people, who are well rewarded. There are more millionaires in this country than ever before. But there are also more people sleeping on the streets of London than there have been at any other time this century, and more people scraping ends together every week with decreasing facilities from the state to help them and increasing problems of health, malnutrition and emotional difficulties. That is true for large numbers of very poor people in this country and the Bill should address those serious social problems.
  In common with all other hon. Members who represent either industrial or inner-city constituencies, every day of the week I come across social problems that are the creation of the Government—a few Ministers in that Government are present this evening. Last Friday, for example, at my surgery—which was busy and long as it always is—I met a youngish couple with children. The husband works as a security officer in a west end office and his wife works as a school meals assistant in my constituency. Their total income for 80 hours of work between them is £110 a week. They have suffered cuts in

  745
  housing benefit and the loss of free school meals for their children, and they are now faced with the poll tax which will come in in 18 months.
  That couple put their wage slips on the desk in front of me and said, "Mr. Corbyn, how can anyone be expected to live on this and bring up a family on it in this day and age?" Nothing in the Bill does anything for that family or offers them any hope. It is quite possible that one of them will lose his or her job: neither is in a very certain occupation. The stock market crash might mean that there was no longer any need for a security officer, and cuts in the school meals service could equally lose the wife her job. But all that the couple will be told by Conservative Members in such an event is that they are feckless, useless and workshy because they are not seeking work to an adequate degree, when the work is simply not available.
  Although it may be too late, I ask the Minister to develop a sense of the purpose of his job and of his Department, and to say what the Bill is doing other than to promote low wages and a cut of roughly £100 million in public expenditure. I believe that that is what is really behind it.
  During the recess, and for a long time before that when I unfortunately had to stay at home owing to illness, I was able to read a fascinating and wonderfully written book called "Ten Lean Years" by Wal Hannington. He described how, in the great crash of 1931—when people were already working for low wages and living in conditions of poverty, and when crisis after crisis hit the free enterprise economy—the Government blamed the unemployed for being out of work and for not looking for it adequately, and sought to cut their benefit time after time.
  We have seen exactly the same process in all the present Government's social security legislation. It is dressed up in different words, but the Government are always trying to blame those who are making a desperate effort to lead a decent life, to bring up their children in the way they want, and to live in decent housing. Their benefits are cut, and their opportunities reduced and then taken away. But they are constantly told that they live in a successful country with an enterprise economy.
  If this is a successful country with an enterprise economy, why are so many people sleeping on the streets of London? Why are so many people hitch-hiking around the country looking for jobs that are not there? Why are there so many long-term unemployed with no hope of getting work, because most of the employers taking on new people for most of the new jobs that are created do not take them from the long-term unemployed register? If they are lucky, people are taken from the short-term register, but usually those taken on are already in work elsewhere. Such issues should be dealt with, both in the Social Security Bill today and in the Employment Bill tomorrow.
  We disagree profoundly with a number of clauses in this Bill. However, I want to talk particularly about people looking for work and whether work is available for them. We are always told that thousands of jobs are available. When pressed, London Tories reach for a copy of the Evening Standard and find that there are 100 vacancies for computer operators. But someone who has been a skilled worker in industry will probably not be able to take on a job as a computer operator: not many people have experience of such work. And so it goes on.
  I looked at the figures for my borough. According to the Department of Employment, in September 1988—the
  746
  latest month for which the figures that I sought were available—there were 718 registered vacancies. That was in the London borough of Islington, just outside the ring of wealthy inner London, which contains considerable poverty.
  I recognise that not all employers register vacancies, although I think that they should be compelled to; I think that every vacancy should be registered with the Department of Employment. But if the number of registered vacancies is multiplied by four, that means roughly 3,000 vacancies in the borough—and that is a very optimistic interpretation of the possible number of unregistered vacancies. I looked up the unemployment figures for the nearest equivalent period, November 1988. The number of registered unemployed in the borough was 11,297. That means that 11,297 people were chasing 718 vacancies.
  A more accurate definition of unemployment is not those who are registered unemployed, because, owing to all the changes in regulations, many thousands have been forced off the register—not into work, but into poverty. According to figures produced by the unemployment unit, which calculates unemployment on the basis on which it was calculated when the present Government came into office, 16,022 people were unemployed at that time, searching for—according to the Department's figures—718 vacancies, but possibly as many as 3,000. That is still less than one vacancy per five unemployed people, even if we assume a skill match.
  The way in which the Department's officials conduct restart interviews and the way in which people are forced to look for jobs that may or may not exist, or that may or may not be suitable for them, suggests an over-simplification of the problem and a fundamental misunderstanding of it. I do not know many people, if any, who like being unemployed and living on benefit; who like the indignity of not having a job to go to. But I know many people who deeply resent being humiliated at restart interviews every few months and being forced to answer endless detailed and frankly unpleasant questions, only to be told that they are not suitable for work. Many of those people simply cannot find work, because it is not there to be found.
  We should examine the way in which the figures have increased. In 1985, payment was withheld from 53,000 people because they were deemed not available for work. In 1987, the figure doubled to 107,000. I do not know what the figures for 1988 or 1989 will be, but I bet that they will be a substantial increase on last year's figure. The basic thrust of all that the Government are doing is to force people off the register by any possible means so that they can claim, quite falsely, that prosperity is evenly spread throughout the country and that unemployment is genuinely falling.
  What the Government also do—this is linked to other legislation that they have enacted—is remove all the mimimum wage legislation that they are able to remove, and refuse to support the idea of minimum wage legislation to guarantee minimum earning levels for all families. Instead, they remove all the safety nets at the bottom to force people into lower and lower levels of employment at lower and lower levels of remuneration, and indeed to subsidise employers to pay low wages. That is all that the Government seem to understand.
  The other side of this is the increase in the time necessary for someone to re-qualify for benefit, from 13

  747
  weeks to 26. That adds up to roughly 50,000 more people being denied benefit, at a saving of £100 million for the Government. Why does the Minister not come clean at the outset and say that the purpose of the Bill is to save the Treasury £100 million—that the Government are stacking up the savings so that they can give bigger tax handouts in the next Budget to people who simply do not need them, showing disgraceful personal profligacy in a society riddled with debt, poverty and misery as a result of the Government's economic strategy?
  I have looked through the Bill carefully. Some of it is ominous and nasty, particularly clauses 7, 8 and 9. Will the Minister tell us exactly what is meant by the reference in clause 12 to housing benefit money being withheld from local authorities that do not provide suitable information to central Government in the form in which it is requested? The clause may be perfectly innocent, but I doubt it. I suspect that this has something to do with further demands on local authorities related to rent levels or tenancies. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain.
  I should also be grateful if the Minister could tell us why the Bill does not deal with the problems that have arisen from previous legislation. Many of us take seriously the operation of the social security system, and a number of reports have been produced which show in devastating detail the way in which DSS offices are run—the shortage of staff, the high turnover and the poor standard of service that the majority of claimants receive. The Minister has expressed his anxiety about that, and there have been some improvements; but there is a long way to go. Matters are not helped by continuous rumours and reports of the threatened closure of social security offices. If the DSS office in my constituency closes, it will result not only in the loss of a major employer of predominantly young workers but in increased inefficiency in the provision of services to the people in my community.
  The attendance allowance scheme needs careful examination. I had a meeting this morning with the local branch of Mencap in my constituency. There are disturbing reports from a number of people with severely handicapped children or adults for whom they care who have been refused attendance allowances by the DSS. Those allowances have unfortunately been refused in a way which causes great hardship to those concerned.
  Finally, I should point out that the social fund is becoming so restricted and tight that every office seems to be underspending, be it grant or loan, because the Government want it that way, so that in future years the social fund can be cut. There is not just an underspending on a lower figure but a gross underspending on a figure that was already too low because social fund officers are refusing benefits that are needed. The social fund needs to be expanded and opened up to help with removal expenses for workers buying tools or work clothes for new jobs for work related travel expenses or for crisis loans to cover workers starting new jobs who are without money for up to a month.
  So many things could have been included in the Bill, but all it seeks to do is to punish the unemployed for being unemployed, to punish the poor for being poor and to seek this great retribution by getting them off the register and out of the Government's hair. We shall oppose the Bill.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on speeches is now in operation, and I appeal for the co-operation of those hon. Members who are called during the next two hours.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I cannot help feeling that the opposition to the work test for unemployment benefit is rather synthetic. The shrill tones of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) seemed to be over the top. I cannot really believe that she has so mellowed in her attitude to the community charge that she now regards this measure as worse than the reform of local government finance.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) seems to believe that all people in Islington should obtain jobs in Islington and not look at the wider London market, which provides a rather better picture than the labour market in Islington.
  About one third of the unemployed in Britain are in London, the south-east and East Anglia, and in all those parts of the country it is possible to find a job. One has only to walk down the high street to see the jobs on offer. They almost fall out of the shops. It is difficult to see why anyone should object to that test being applied strongly in those parts of the country. I accept the Opposition's arguments that in other parts of the country where jobs are not readily available, which is still, unfortunately, the case in some towns, although it is not universally true in the north any more, it will be necessary to administer the scheme with more local sensitivity. I fully accept the assurances of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that that will be the case.
  I also welcome the clause that deals with the reform of the war widows pensions committee arrangements. I like the idea of fewer committees and of strengthened representation for the war widows. I put in another plea. I hope, that when war widows' pensions are next uprated, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will argue for a better than average uprating. War widows have not had a particularly good deal over the years since the two world wars. The Government have been trying to rectify that, but more could be done and it would be a nice touch if in next year's uprating war widows were given a better than average increase in recognition of their particular circumstances.
  I wish mainly to occupy myself by looking at the proposals on occupational pensions. We have before us a proposal born of a Brussels directive and initiative which talks about the applications of the surpluses within occupational pension schemes by way of levelling up all schemes to the best practice whether it be for men or women so that the other sex can enjoy best practice. That is unexceptionable. In many ways it is welcome, but we must understand that we are talking either about an increased cost for employers or about the allocation of surpluses that still remain in funds thanks to years of good investment performance since 1981, despite understandable moves by the Treasury to limit the extent of the surpluses.
  I hope that in Committee the Government will consider one or two other matters that could be dealt with when considering how to apply those surpluses. A far worse problem for members of occupational pension schemes than the imbalance in provisions between men and women lies in the indexation provisions. I am pleased to say that the Government introduced the first indexation measures

  749
  governing occupational schemes. They were right to see that occupational pension schemes could not hope to match all inflation at whatever rate and in whatever circumstances. They could be driven into bankruptcy.
  But the first step—I hope that it was the first step—was a modest one and I should like to think that the Government are now contemplating a second step to increase the level of protection from inflation for those in occupational pension schemes. It is a cruel deceit if someone reaches retirement age, obtains an occupational pension at two thirds or one half of their retirement salary, and 10 years later discovers that it has been eroded by inflation because the indexation does not match the level of inflation that has been experienced.
  Another problem that does grave damage to people's rights in occupational pension schemes arises when a person transfers from one scheme to another. It is wrong for some people in the occupational pensions industry to imply that a person who frequently changes his job is in some way unreliable and so should not be given protection by his occupational scheme. Again, I welcome the fact that the Government have taken steps to deal with that problem.
  All hon. Members should support the Government. After all, we are inveterate job changers. Since the days of the younger Pitt is has been a rare occurrence to come here straight from school, so, by definition, hon. Members have to have a job first. If they are unfortunate, their rights will be removed when they enter the House because of the transfer arrangements from their outgoing occupational pension scheme.
  Mr. Leighton: Does Conservative Central Office count as a proper job?
  Mr. Redwood: I am sure that it does. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have never worked for Central Office. I had a proper job in the commercial sector before I came here. I am not talking about my situation but about the situation of other people who have found when changing jobs that their occupational pension rights have been removed or limited by the way in which the actuarial calculations are made.
  That relates only to final salary pension schemes. I welcome the moves towards money purchase that the Government have rightly instituted and which will remove all those problems, but many people will wish to remain members of a large number of final salary schemes. I hope that when looking at the application of the surpluses the Government will once again consider whether existing transfer arrangements are working properly or whether people moving from one job to another may in some ways be let down by the calculations of actuarial value and whether they are also finding it difficult to take the value out when they wish to move to a personal portable pension which may provide a better guarantee for them in terms of the amount of cash that is theirs.
  Finally, I want to talk a little about the problems that arise in implementing the EEC's views on equality between men and women in the state pension scheme. I believe that the Government were looking favourably at a scheme which would involve a decade of retirement, and I recommend that to them. If we offered people choice whereby men or women could decide when, between the ages of 60 and 70, they wanted to retire, we would begin to make progress.
  750
  Employees would be offered choice subject to the rules of their employers, and agreement and negotiation with them. If they decided to retire at 60, they would receive lower pensions based on lower contributions. If they retired at 70, they would receive higher pensions, but, under the law of averages, it would be paid for fewer years.
  It would be possible to calculate a system with no net cost to the Treasury. The problem would be that, in order to balance the fund, we would have to make worse the terms under which some women enjoy pension rights. It is not right for the Government to take away women's pension rights when they are in their 40s or 50s, and anticipating their retirement at 60. That would be a harsh blow. I would recommend an extended period of transition. Steps could be taken to balance the scheme for younger men and women. The group of women who had already made substantial contributions over the years and who would be offended by the sharp removal or reduction of their rights could pass through the system on an unequal basis.
  I hope that, in the long term, the Government will move towards equality in the state scheme for men and women and will introduce the element of choice—on a no-cost basis if they wish—by allowing people to retire when they choose. That choice would be with the agreement of their employers, and their pensions would be adjusted in relation to their contribution record.
  I shall support the Bill, but I hope that it will go further on occupational pensions.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. John Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, but that gratitude does not extend to hon. Members who have debased the office of Government, abused the stewardship with which they were entrusted, and used the protection of the House to steal from the poor.
  The attitude and actions of those hon. Members have realised the fable of Pandora's box, as millions of impoverished people suffer poor health, inadequate diets, lack of housing and the rigours of the cold. Every age group is affected, and no one is sacrosant.
  The Bill ignores the massive problems facing young people under the age of 18. They will suffer in order that the Government can continue to give handouts to their wealthy friends. The Government are driven by the need to make cheeseparing economies that hurt the poorest and most vulnerable.
  In "Oliver Twist", the workhouse governors carped at the cost of keeping the orphan inmates, while those governors lived in the lap of luxury. How eager they were to see the children in their care farmed out to an employer who was more concerned to exploit their labour than provide a proper apprenticeship. The parallel is uncomfortably close to those 16 and 17-year-olds of today who no longer live at home and are now required to accept YTS placements if they wish to obtain the wherewithal to live. For many—the most disadvantaged—a scheme that was designed to be voluntary now has the compulsion of a prison sentence.
  The Prime Minister is known to be a great admirer of the Victorians. Presumably, therefore, she believes that children—she includes 16 and 17-year-olds—must inevitably submit to the will of their parents. The Victorians

  751
  were brutally indifferent to young people. They were brutal in their treatment of their own children. The homes of the wealthiest were often places of misery and torment.
  That tradition of domestic violence has survived today. Young people are often forced to leave home because of intolerance or the threat of violence—either physical violence or sexual harassment.
  For the Prime Minister, as for the Victorians, those problems do not exist, or, if they do, it is only because the benefit system encourages them. The Prime Minister and the Government are blind to the fact—it has been reiterated by every agency concerned with the young homeless—that the pressure on some young people is so great that they leave home whatever the consequences.
  The Government's policies force that most vulnerable group of young people who, at that traumatic time, need help and support, into grinding poverty. There is often a risk that they will have to commit offences to obtain even the most basic means of survival. An illustration of that occurred in Coventry, my own town. A young man, on his way to an appointment with a benefit advice agency, was arrested by the police for the theft of a loaf of bread. That young person may have been forced to steal that loaf of bread through sheer desperation.
  One young person on a youth training scheme had to pay £10·50 for rent and rates and £3 towards the cost of travelling to the YTS placement, which was some distance away. His total travelling cost per week was £10. That person was left with only £16 from the £29·50 allowance. From that he had to pay £2·20 for a prescription for a chest infection, which under income support rules would have been free. From the remaining £13·80 per week that young person had to pay for fuel bills, food, toiletries and clothing. He had no proper shoes for winter and no proper coat. He was forced to leave home. He said:
  "My father and I had such violent rows before I left that it nearly caused the break-up of my parents' marriage."
  In a similar case, a young person was left with only £12·50 a week because a card meter had been installed to pay for a previous electricity bill. The first £3 per week went towards that bill and the standing charge before any electricity was provided.
  Circumstances can be even more difficult for young people who are not on youth training schemes. All that is available for those youngsters is a bridging allowance of £15 per week for up to eight weeks in a year. It ignores the fact that YTS placements are subject to selection by the employer. Employers select according to their prejudice or preference and not according to social need. That reinforces the discrimination against black people and women, particularly pregnant women.
  For example, a 17-year-old woman who was five and a half months pregnant had her income support stopped on 12 September. Since then she has been receiving £15 a week bridging allowance. She had been living with her aunt, but there were other people in the house and she had to leave to take a council bedsit. She had no furniture, no bedding, no cooker and no utensils, but she was not eligible for a community care grant because she was not on income support. The flat was all-electric and she had to pay by card meter at a rate of £6 per week. She was not receiving free milk because since April free milk tokens can be awarded only to claimants on income support. From her allowance she was supposed to find £3 towards her rates
  752
  and water rates. She could not obtain a YTS placement because she was within 11 weeks of her confinement. The Secretary of State was asked to use his discretion to top up her £15 a week allowance to the income support level, but he refused on the grounds that she was not experiencing "severe hardship".
  That woman was well over halfway through her pregnancy, which is a time when most women would be experiencing extreme tiredness. She had a difficult pregnancy. For the sake of both her and the unborn child, she should have been eating a healthy diet rich in tissue-building proteins and containing a proper balance of vitamins and minerals. Such food is costly. The Secretary of State made his decision not to top up her allowance and it was a judgment against which there was no appeal.
  Those are not isolated incidents. They are part of a pattern of exclusions which begins by excluding people from the unemployment figures. It excludes people from the opportunity of earning a livelihood, from decent housing and from having hope.
  There is the case of a young woman who was unable to live with her parents. Her situation was so desperate that she was admitted to a hostel run by the Coventry young homeless project. Because she was in receipt of a bridging allowance awaiting a YTS placement, she was not entitled to assistance in paying the cost of her accommodation. She is awaiting a decision by the Secretary of State to see whether hers is a case of severe hardship.
  There is the case of a woman, estranged from her parents and living alone for over a year, who has not managed, despite considerable efforts, to obtain a YTS placement, and her bridging allowance has now expired. Consider the case of a young woman whose parents are in receipt of income support. They have thrown her out of the house saying that they cannot afford to keep her. She too is awaiting the Secretary of State's decision.
  The problem is obvious. It is obvious to television journalists from watchdog organisations who have interviewed a young woman who left home and was forced to beg on the streets and whose own father had advised her to "go on the game". Does the Secretary of State believe that that young woman left home prematurely?
  The problem is obvious to foreign observers and to the royal family. Prince Edward was forced to comment on precisely this aspect of the Government's legislation. He pointed out that young people such as I have described were a prey to pimps and pushers and he said that legislation was depriving charities which had been set up to aid the homeless of the ability to provide temporary homes. In other words, they were being deprived of funds because of the small print.
  If one is on income support or YTS allowance, one is entitled to an allowance of up to £70 a week to cover a hostel charge. But if one is not on such benefit—if one is in receipt of a bridging allowance—one is a sort of non-person; the Secretary of State does no recognise such a person. The problems are apparent to everyone, but are ignored by the Government, who hide their penny-pinching behind a smokescreen of sanctimonious rhetoric. There is now a Government tradition that every Minister responsible for social security camouflages the sweeping savagery of benefit changes. Frozen payments and cuts are concealed behind a multitude of conditions, qualifications

  753
  and subsections in the intricate, convoluted, crooked path that each Minister pursues in bringing about changes which completely disregard the suffering that they involve.
  I recently attended a dance organised by the transport union in my locality. A young disabled woman was dancing, enjoying herself as much as any other dancer. She was able to join in and have fun only because she had been provided with a chair which cost £3,000. That chair had not been provided by the Government. They prefer to give the equivalent of 52 chairs a week to Sir Ralph Halpern of Burton as a tax handout. That reflects the priorities of this Government.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: We must not forget as we discuss this new Bill that the Government are spending a record amount, over £50 billion, on providing financial support and aid to the less well-off, the sick and the disabled. The constant carping and humbug from Opposition Members should be seen in that context. Social security has become a contentious issue in the last two years, but I must remind Members in all parts of the House that no one political party has a monopoly on compassion or caring. We are all concerned and wish to alleviate hardship among the poor, the sick and the disabled.
  Where we differ from Opposition Members is that we believe that policies can he implemented to bring maximum help to those in the greatest need. I would point out as delicately as I can—so as not to cause synthetic howls of rage from Labour Members—that any discussion about how to apportion the record amounts of money now available for social security would be academic but for the fact that the Chancellor's economic policies have ensured the creation of wealth and the generation of tax revenue in such a way that public spending on social security has increased year by year in real terms.
  On a less contentious note, I congratulate the Secretary of State on honouring the pledge he gave last November to raise the upper age limit for mobility allowance from 75 to 80. I am sure that that will be warmly welcomed by all, particularly as it is a benefit paid on top of other income and is non-taxable.
  I shall concentrate my remarks on probably the most important part of the Bill—clauses 7, 9 and 10—which deals with the "actively seeking work" requirement for receiving unemployment benefit and disqualification for refusing employment. These clauses are long overdue, for it is ludicrous that taxpayers' money should be spent to support those who wilfully refuse employment. Why should an able-bodied person who makes no effort to find work draw unemployment benefit simply by signing on once a fortnight? That is clearly nonsense and I welcome the fact that, when the Bill becomes law, an unemployment benefit claimant will be required to show that he or she is actively seeking work.
  I am also glad that the Bill will provide regulations setting out examples of what steps a claimant may take to show that he or she is seeking work. I predict that, as a result of this legislation, the unemployment figures will decrease further and will to a degree melt away like snow in summer because a cynical minority—and I accept that it is only a small minority—will no longer be able to exploit the existing rules.
  I strongly recommend those who disbelieve that last statement to read the London labour market report which
  754
  was published last year and to which other hon. Members have referred. It graphically proves my point. While the situation in London is not exactly the same as that in other parts of the country, we must remember that the majority of the population of England lives in the south-east.
  The report graphically shows that
  "there is a wide range of vacancies which could be filled by many of those who are unemployed. Many of the unemployed have educational and training qualifications and a surprisingly large minority have high level qualifications. At the same time, many of the vacancies do not require special qualifications or experience and could be filled by unemployed people witout established skills."
  The final summary of the main findings of the report states unequivocally that unemployed people need to look more intensively and effectively for work. The findings show that, in the summer of 1988, there were 288,000 claimants in London and 150,000 vacant jobs. The co-existence of high levels of vacancies and unemployment could not be explained primarily in terms of a mismatch between the skills and experience of unemployed people and the type of vacancies available.
  One quarter of the vacancies were for managerial and professional jobs; one quarter were for clerical jobs; 17 per cent. were for skilled or semi-skilled manual work; 18 per cent. were for retail and catering jobs and 14 per cent. were for unskilled manual work. At least one third required no previous knowledge or experience.
  The report shows that many longer-term unemployed people in London are, in any case, well equipped to fill jobs which require experience or qualifications. Nearly 10 per cent. of those interviewed had previously held a managerial or professional job and 25 per cent. had held a skilled or semi-skilled manual job. Nearly 10 per cent. had a degree and over 50 per cent. had some sort of academic or vocational qualification.
  It is significant, as the Secretary of State said, that 27 per cent. of the unemployed people interviewed had not looked for work in the previous week and that 45 per cent. of the group had not looked for work in the preceding three weeks. Nearly 5 per cent. of those interviewed had never looked for work since becoming unemployed. While four out of five people looking for work claimed to look at advertisements in newspapers at least once a week, only 55 per cent. of them visited their local jobcentres at least once a week.
  Those figures show that many claimants, cushioned by an over-generous state, show a lack of intensity and effort in actively seeking work. First, it should be pointed out that some longer-term unemployed people are liable to lose touch with the labour market. That results in a lower level of motivation and therefore a limited job search.
  Secondly, some unemployed people have become reconciled to being out of work and pursue or develop interests which enable them to use their time productively through leisure activities, voluntary work or study and thus dull their desire or willingness to seek work actively.
  Mr. John Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burns: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am very short of time.
  Thirdly, there is the category of those who are claiming benefit but are also working. I am convinced that the black economy is a factor in determining the lack of job search by some claimants. There is no point in burying one's head in the sand and pretending that that problem does not

  755
  exist. Hon. Members do not have to simply take my word for it. The Departments of Employment and Social Security are equally convinced that there is a problem. That is why the Government have cracked down on dole fiddlers by markedly increasing the number of investigators. As a result of their work last year a record £65 million was saved for the taxpayers, 90,000 people withdrew their claim to benefit and 4,000 were prosecuted.
  Part of the Bill attacks the very heart of state-subsidised indolence for a small minority. It will provide a powerful incentive for people to seek work and release valuable financial resources that can then be properly targeted on the genuinely needy, the sick and the disabled. For those reasons, I strongly support the Bill and look forward to the day when it receives Royal Assent.
  7.41 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: During the speech of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) there was a little discussion about literacy. However, he also displayed a problematic control of numeracy. He said that not many Opposition Members were present and that showed a lack of interest. At that time, there were 21 hon. Members on the Government Benches and 16 hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. I consider that that reflects the composition of the House.
  I do not believe that the non-attendance of hon. Members in any way reflects a lack of interest in the Bill. As has been said, it affects us all in one way or another and we are concerned about it. Therefore, I am pleased to have been called to speak, despite the fact that the legislation generally does not apply to Northern Ireland. That means that there will be an Order in Council when we may be allowed to talk for an hour or so but will be unable to affect or change the legislation that will come before us on that occasion.
  The Bill affects Northern Ireland. I do not doubt that in every community there are those who are workshy. But a young constituent of mine came to London and had employment in London. Then, because the landlord of the house in which he was living wanted to claim grants to upgrade the premises, he was put out and could not find alternative accommodation. Ultimately, he had to leave his job here and return to the unemployment register in Northern Ireland. Another constituent has been unemployed for three years. He has taken Government training courses, and on each occasion he has discovered that that affects his income support grant and he loses out by going on Government training courses to equip him for the job market.
  Does the motivation behind Government thinking stem from the reply I received some months ago saying that the largest number of long-term unemployed is found in the south-east? Has the judgment of issues there, for whatever reason, been translated into an overall countrywide and national approach that will have an adverse affect on many people in regions where it is not possible to find work?
  I wish to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). He mentioned those who had developed side issues or other interests. I understand what he meant when he said that they may not be looking for jobs with more remuneration, but we are living in an age when there will not be full employment, and there is a
  756
  tremendous need for people to use their spare time in a voluntary capacity to serve the community. We should not in any way discourage such work.
  I welcome the Bill's proposals and I have tried to figure out how they might apply to Northern Ireland. The argument is that people are not looking for work. However, under impending legislation for Northern Ireland, a person is not allowed to go knocking at firms' doors and employers are not allowed to employ people who look for work in that way. They must advertise and carry out selection procedures. People are discouraged from looking for work in that way.
  This morning, before leaving home I heard a short excerpt from a programme on BBC Northern Ireland. A local expert on social security was asked about the problem of take-up of income support and other grants. She said that she understood that the form in Northern Ireland is simpler than the form in Great Britain, but that nonetheless it was the first hurdle that applicants had to get over before receiving benefit. The Disability Income Group put that forward as one reason why there is not greater take-up of mobility allowance. One of the Government's obligations in the Bill is to simplify forms and procedures so that the people on whom they wish to target benefit genuinely receive it.
  I have no objection to encouraging anyone who is workshy to seek work. In the depression in the 1930s, my father worked as a labourer on the railways for more than a year before he could get back to his own trade. I am not minimising the need to encourage some folk to seek work. Nonetheless, some people have been unemployed for many years for reasons beyond their control and we have to acknowledge that, even with massive retraining, some of them will never be equipped to do the work that they are mentally and physically capable of doing. They may have gone soft, they may not be capable of intellectual pursuits, they may be better suited to physical pursuits, or appropriate work may not be available to them.
  In the time that remains, I should like to put on record, the fact that I welcome the extension of the mobility allowance. However, I draw the Government's attention to the lack of take-up and urge them positively to encourage it. I wonder whether the Government accept the criticisms of the campaign for equal state pension ages that they have ducked the issue again. I press upon them the encouragement of their own Back Benchers, who urged them to consider it. There are professions in which a man retiring at 60 will have a life expectancy of anything up to 15 years, but if he continues until 65 he will have a life expectancy in retirement of two years. In dealing with equal rights, we have to balance those issues.
  Finally, I raise the issue of the lack of information. I understand from the recently published audit report on the DHSS in Northern Ireland that regional management information offices were created which seemed to create a fair amount of employment for that part of the Civil Service. However, since 1985 they have not come up with any dramatic figures, other than the escalating cost of keeping their people in jobs.
  I am puzzled about whether we are tackling the problem from the right angle, but I am also puzzled about whether the Government have the statistics to guide them. I regret to say that, in September 1988, I received a letter from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which stated:

  757
  "As your second question about publication of low income statistics has implications for Great Britain, we have had to consult with the Department of Social Security before responding on the Northern Ireland dimension. I shall write to you again about this as soon as possible."
  It is now 10 January 1989, and even allowing for the Christmas break, it seems that there is a problem of communication as well as one relating to the statistics that would guide us to deal with the real problems that affect our people.
  Accordingly, while welcoming some of the Bill, since we are excluded in principle, my colleagues will vote against it tonight.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). We are all pleased that unemployment in Northern Ireland is decreasing, although it is still high. I believe that it is now below that in Eire, but it is twice as high as the percentage in Great Britain and must cost United Kingdom taxpayers many hundreds of millions of pounds because of the high level of benefits and the lower level of the operation of the economy there. I hope, and am quite sure, that the Government's measures will continue to work in the right direction in improving the economy of Northern Ireland.
  I very much welcome the Bill. There have been some excellent speeches from Conservative Members but, I regret, some confused speeches and interventions from the Opposition. We have heard some extraordinary statements. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) tried to make out that the Government were promoting low wages, at a time when real take-home earnings are rising at a record rate. How can one make such a totally inconsistent statement—that the Government are promoting low wages when wages are far higher than they were when the Labour party was in government?
  Mr. Battle rose—
  Ms. Short: Will the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) give way on that point, because he has insulted me?
  Mr. Thurnham: In a moment.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said that the Bill punishes people. When the Labour party was in power, there were far more prosecutions for malingering. If we go back several years—one has to go back a long time to find a time when the Labour party was in power—prosecutions for malingering were running at over 20,000 per year. That was in the early 1970s and the figure had been 28,000 per year previously. The small handful of prosecutions now shows that this Government are not punishing people in the way that the Labour Government did.
  Ms. Short rose—
  Mr. Thurnham: Yes, I shall give way in a moment.
  We have also heard that no work is available. I must draw the attention of Opposition Members to the great successes that job clubs are achieving. They are having a positive outcome for two thirds of the people who go to them. There are now over 200 job clubs in the north-west, and I am glad to say that six are in Bolton. Over half the
  758
  people who go to job clubs come out with a job. Therefore, I do not see how Opposition Members can say that no jobs are available.
  Ms. Short: I should like to respond briefly to the hon. Gentleman's insult. He has obviously not desegregated the figures on the growth in wage levels. If he did so, he would see that, for the bottom 20 per cent., the growth is below average and, relatively, those people have been getting significantly worse off for a number of years. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at the figures in detail.
  Mr. Thurnham: There is no doubt that the greatest cause of poverty is unemployment. Only the Opposition could want unemployment rather than people getting into jobs and on to the earnings ladder so that they have a chance to increase their earnings. It is this Government who have created 1 million extra jobs.
  Although the Bill is concerned mainly with unemployment benefits, it relates also to benefits for other groups. In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) touched on the question of widows' benefits. I should like to remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I went to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security about two widows in my constituency who I feel have been harshly affected. I believe that about 1,000 widows in the country as a whole have been harshly affected by the changes made last April to the conditions of widows who were just under the age of 45 and who had children who were just coming up to 18.
  If my right hon. Friend the Chancellor finds that he has a small amount of money to give away in the forthcoming Budget, perhaps he could do something for that small number of widows who have been harshly affected and who, if they were to remain unmarried for the rest of their lives, would lose over £10,000. Although their chances of remarrying are significant, at a modest cost my right hon. Friend could do something to ameliorate the harshness of the circumstances in which that small number of widows have found themselves.
  We also have the opportunity to review the working of the mobility allowance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that these changes are an interim measure. I shall be interested to know what he has in mind for beyond them. I have had to campaign strongly for a small number of mobility allowance cases in my constituency. The great point about the mobility allowance is that, once it has been granted, it should not be taken away except with the greatest possible thought. I am pleased that we have been able to extend it for those aged 75 to 80, although I wonder why we cannot extend it for life. This measure only puts off the problem for another five years because such people will have the allowance removed when they reach the age of 80.
  The allowance affects only a small number of people at the moment, but it is reckoned that, by the end of the century, the 500 who receive the benefit now will rise to about 60,000. Obviously, the Government must do some thinking about the mobility allowance. We should consider whether we can replace it with a different sort of benefit altogether so as to help people to get out and about who otherwise would not be able to do so. The latest figures from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show—at least as I read them—the number of people who receive various benefits combined. I do not

  759
  know, for example, how many people who receive mobility allowance also receive attendance allowance. We should look at the workings of the whole scheme.
  The Government have an excellent record on the payment of benefits to disabled people. Mobility allowance alone has risen in cash terms from £79 million in 1979 to £650 million this year. In real terms, that is an increase of 400 per cent. The figures for other benefits that are paid to disabled people show similarly large increases. The total figures are well worth looking at. The figures given to me by the Library show that, for this year, benefits for disabled people total £7·5 billion—a rise in cash terms from not much more than £2 billion in 1979. That shows the most enormous increase in payments to disabled people by this Government and shows which side of the House is helping disabled people, by creating an economy that can afford to make such payments.
  The Bill relates primarily to the unemployed and to those who are seeking work. It is worth reminding ourselves that, in Japan, the definition of an unemployed person is somebody who has looked for work in the past week. Unemployment in Japan is currently only 2·5 per cent. and has decreased from a level of 3 per cent. two years ago when I was a member of the Select Committee on Employment and we visited Japan. Therefore, despite a strong currency, the unemployment rate there has dropped.
  An interesting study was carried out by Professor Layard some years ago, although I do not agree with all his views. He looked at the effects of separating benefit offices and jobcentres and showed how, in the old days of labour exchanges, somebody who had been visiting regularly was selected and given priority when a job was going and was told to take the job and not to go back. Those were the days when there were prosecutions for malingering if people did not take a job. We should bear in mind exactly how the system used to work when looking at the changes that we are now bringing in.
  I welcome the Bill and look forward to its implementation. I am sure that it will be considered carefully in Committee, including the question of how the "actively seeking work" test will be applied to disabled people. I am sure that the Bill will be of great benefit to all when it reaches the statute book.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) appeared to suggest that low pay did not exist or, if it did exist, it was not a problem, because it was merely at the bottom rung of the ladder of earnings. I believe that his remarks were both ill-informed and insensitive and they show the extent to which any understanding of the problems of the poor does not exist in the minds of Conservative Members. That is the real reason for debating such a niggardly, disgraceful proposal as the one which is the centrepiece of the Bill. I refer, of course, to clauses 7, 9 and 10, which are recognised, even by Conservative Members, as the most important part of the Bill. We are told that those clauses are meant to tighten up the criteria for assessing whether a claimant's unemployment is genuinely involuntary.
  I admit that I find it difficult to take seriously the phrase
  "unemployment which is genuinely involuntary",
  760
  because it suggests to me that there is such a thing as mass unemployment that is genuinely voluntary, which is what the Minister appeared to suggest when he opened the debate. He referred to as many as 360,000 people who choose to be unemployed. In fact, he was quite pleased when he told the House that there were as many as 360,000 people who choose to be unemployed. No doubt he will be equally pleased to say that the 2·9 million who are unemployed merely represent three times as many people as chose to be unemployed under Labour. That is a vindication of the Government's commitment to extend choice throughout the United Kingdom.
  The idea that hundreds of thousands of people volunteer to subsist on £32·75 a week unemployment benefit, or £33·40 a week income support, is, of course, completely mad. There would not be many hon. Members who would volunteer to live on £32·75 a week. Indeed, after the salary increases awarded to hon. Members, we now earn the princely sum of £66 a day—£462 a week. Even those princely sums are not enough 0for some Conservative Members. They become part-time Members of Parliament, who sell themselves in the City of London as consultants or directors, and some earn as much as £100,000 a year outwith their parliamentary duties. One hundred thousand pounds is not enough for them, but £32·75 a week is too much for 360,000 unemployed people.
  I find it deeply dishonest, even morally objectionable, that we should have a spectacle here tonight of wealthy men—they are mostly wealthy men—sitting in moral judgment on whether the poor people deserve the paltry sums which are given to them by the State on which to subsist from week to week. If nothing else, I hope that personal embarrassment will prevent many Conservative Members going through the Lobby tonight in support of this disgraceful Bill. However, I fear that personal embarrassment will not come into it and that hundreds of them will troop through the Lobby in support of a proposal that denies £32·75 a week to thousands of poor people—the very sum that such hon. Members would spend on a meal out with their wives or husbands.
  The regulations are meant to test whether claimants are actively seeking work. The offence to refuse suitable employment without due cause no longer exists, but from now on just to refuse any employment without just cause is reason enough to stop someone's benefit. It appears to be an extension of the treatment which has been meted out to 16 and 17-year-olds by making the youth training scheme compulsory.
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment wrote to me recently saying that YTS was not compulsory and that in fact youngsters have a choice—they can either take it or leave it. Of course, if they leave it, they will be denied any benefit or income whatsoever. What the Minister failed to understand is that, unlike him and his family, thousands of youngsters belong to families who do not know what it is to be comfortably well off and who need every single penny in their household budgets if they are to survive. If any Minister threatens to remove a youngster's £19·40 a week benefit, or his £25 a week YTS allowance, effectively he is removing choice from that family altogether.
  In the same way as the YTS has become compulsory, by this Bill low-paid employment will too. If we take away £30-odd from people who are living in poverty, we remove

  761
  all choice from them, because they must accept whatever job is on offer for fear of losing their benefits. I believe that that is the real reason for the proposal.
  Far from tackling the dependency culture or encouraging the enterprise culture, which we hear so much about from Conservative Members, the proposal will worsen the desperate situation of low-paid employment in the United Kingdom. The Government cannot expect any other commentary upon them other than that they are colluding with unscrupulous employers to worsen the critical problem of low pay throughout the economy, which of course, especially affects Scotland.
  We have heard already a reference to an analysis of the London labour market. I shall draw the House's attention to another report which was issued recently by the Low Pay Unit and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, entitled "Sweatshop Scotland". The report presents disturbing evidence of a decline in the pay and conditions of many of Scotland's poorest workers. It also exposes the practices of certain unscrupulous employers, who are paying illegal wages. It shows that the Wages Act 1986 in Scotland has caused the wages and conditions of many Scottish workers to fall, without any corresponding increase in employment in the sectors affected. That is in spite of the fact that the Government pushed that Act through on the argument that, if wages came down and conditions worsen, employment would increase in those sectors. It shows, too, that, while these employers continue to pay illegal wage rates, the Government continue to turn a blind eye to their activities. There have been virtually no prosecutions of such employers.
  I shall refer quickly to three examples of conditions of employment in Scotland. The first is a video shop in Clydeside, where the manageress, aged 20, is working 66 hours a week for £2 an hour—and not a penny of overtime. Secondly, there is a shop assistant in Argyllshire, aged 19, who works 78 hours a week. She does not receive a pay slip, but her net pay is £47 a week. Thirdly, there is a shoe shop in central Glasgow, where a 16-year-old female is working a 30-hour week for £1·44 an hour, with no paid holidays in her first year. Those are the kind of conditions already existing in Scotland and, once the Bill is passed, those conditions will spread even further.
  Such defence as once existed against those conditions are being steadily eroded by the Government through the weakening of the wages councils, and probably their eventual abolition, as well as their failure to prosecute employers who fall foul of wages councils' regulations. The report rightly warns that a new servant class is emerging in Scotland, and the Government must accept their share of the responsibility for creating the conditions in which that has occurred.
  The Chancellor recently described as poor those who had to live on half average earnings of £107 a week. How would he describe the woman who is working 78 hours a week for £47? She is taking home less than half the wages of what the Chancellor calls the poor. I suppose that one of the Government's successes has been to add new dimensions to the meaning of poverty in Britain today.
  We are told that the three new clauses are expected to reduce expenditure by £100 million in a full year. Of course, that will be achieved by forcing tens of thousands into low-paid employment. What about the black economy—the tax avoiders and evaders, whom experts believe to be worth some 5 per cent. of the United Kingdom's gross domestic product or, in other words,
  762
  £24,000 million a year? Why do the Government not turn their attention to those instead of the unemployed? Why do they not have special task forces, White Papers and Bills to take on the tax avoiders and evaders instead of taking on the unemployed? Why are the rich not pressurised into paying what is due rather than the poor fiddled out of what is their right? Of course it is par for the course that the Government should choose to pick on the poor and unemployed. The poor have long despaired of any justice at the hands of the Government.
  In 1979, unemployment was a terrible experience for anyone, but 10 years on, in 1989, it is much more so because of the direct actions of the Government. Their actions have led to the abolition of earnings-related benefit, the decline in the relative value of unemployment benefit and what it can buy for the claimant, the narrowing of eligibility for benefit whether through the Fowler reviews or the availability for work tests, and the Bill we are discussing.
  The unemployed have become the Cinderellas of the welfare state. Their position has deteriorated dramatically without any of the outbursts of public indignation that have accompanied attacks on the Health Service or child benefits. One of the speakers at the annual conference of the Child Poverty Action Group, Professor Julian Le Grand, commented on why that should be so. He believes that the primary factor is the role of the middle class. He argued that the middle class had a substantial interest in various key areas of the welfare state—both as users arid as employers. The middle class could and would be mobilised in defence of those key areas, but unemployment is not one of them. In the main, unemployment affects the working class and the poorer members of our society. That is precisely why the Government have been at their most oppressive, unjust and vindictive in their attacks on the unemployed.
  No doubt the Government have made the calculation that the unemployed can be safely discounted because the electoral arithmetic is such that they can be elected without the support of most unemployed people and even without seeking to concern themselves with giving them justice. It must be said that, so far, they have been proved right. But they are right only in so far as they enjoy minority support among the electors. Between 57 and 58 per cent. of United Kingdom voters and 76 per cent. of Scottish voters have rejected the Government's class-ridden policies and their ongoing war against the unemployed.
  The Prime Minister and the Government have been able to sustain themselves in office simply because of the divided nature of the majority Opposition. The Government cannot count on that state of division continuing indefinitely, nor can they count on their supporters continuing to turn a blind eye to the attacks that the Government are making on the poor and the unemployed of our country.
  The poor cannot look to the Government for justice, but they can look towards the majority of the people uniting together at the next general election to deliver justice to them by removing the Government from office.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I know that Mr. Speaker imposed the 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock, but looking at the number of hon. Members seeking to catch my eye, it might

  763
  be sensible to take a more relaxed view, although, of course, that must not be interpreted as an invitation to make lengthy speeches.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak under the more relaxed conditions. It gives me an opportunity to reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). I do not believe that there are Conservative Members who knowingly wish to disadvantage those who genuinely need help for any good reason. Let us consider the Government's record since they took power in 1979. They appreciated the structural problems that existed within the economy and the problems connected with employment training. They have steadily worked to put those matters right so that the problem of unemployment can be properly addressed.
  When one considers social security one is inevitably struck by the fact that it is complex and requires practical treatment. The Bill addresses the complexities as well as the practicalities. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security should note, however, that I have spoken to people who work in social security offices and in job-centres, and they have made a strong plea that they should be heard. In many cases they have to make policies, such as those outlined in the Bill, operationally sound. Before we finally commit the Bill to the statute book, I hope that Ministers will find time to talk to the front-line troops about the operational aspects of the Bill. They must make certain that it can be operated with the compassion that all sides of the House would welcome.
  Clause 2 deals with the ending of the Treasury supplement to the national insurance fund. I am delighted that the success of the economy, the buoyancy of incomes, and the growth of earnings have allowed the national insurance fund to yield an income above that which requires further support from the Treasury. If nothing else, it provides the opportunity for the Treasury to listen to the appeals of Social Security Ministers for additional funding to help work in other areas.
  I am aware that, as we approach the end of the century, the demographic table suggests that the number of national insurance payers will decline. At present, there are 2·3 national insurance payers per claimant, but by the turn of the century, that figure will have declined to about 1·8 payers per claimant. I hope that the Bill will not be a hostage to fortune and that the national insurance fund will not run out of money.
  I believe that the clauses that deal with the test for work introduce a dynamic into the efforts that people must make to find employment. It is not an occasional test, but a continuing test of the efforts that people make to seek work. Now I find it easier to support further developments of the test for work because of the other efforts that have been made to assist people back into work. Only last week I visited a number of people who had taken advantage of the Government's employment training scheme. I was struck not only by the quality of the training, but by the fact that some of the people on those schemes had been out of work for a considerable time. They had voluntarily agreed to go on the training course because they appreciated that it could lead them back into work.
  764
  Sad to say, those people who work in the various social security offices are aware of certain claimants who persistently find ways of avoiding the various tests and their implication—the eventual removal of their unemployment benefit. Many people in those offices feel a deep sense of frustration when they see genuinely able-bodied people who, for whatever reason, have chosen to ignore work and remain in receipt of benefit. The clauses answer a genuine plea from the public that the system be tightened up.
  All too often it is forgotten that the taxpayer funds the system. Of the money spent by the Government, £1 out of every £3 goes towards social security. There is plenty of folklore, some with a factual basis, that suggests that there are people who have found a way around the system. The provisions of the Bill will tackle those people.
  Much has been said about the black economy. That demonstrates that there are people willing to work, but not legitimately. Taxpayers who have accepted lower-paid work feel sore about people, for example those in the building trade, who do jobs on the side and pay no tax or national insurance contributions. The improvement in some of the tests of benefit will tackle that problem and will take a thorn out of the side of many working people who presently pay for the luxuries that a group, albeit a small one, enjoy.
  Much effort has been put into employment training. there are posters around London at the moment advertising companies such as IBM, Sainsbury and Wimpey who make it clear that where there are no people for the jobs they will provide the right training.
  The Bill introduces an element of activity into the tests to be given to those seeking unemployment benefit. I am glad that that dynamism has been introduced. Recently I spoke to a lady who was a restart counsellor. She was frustrated that she had little sanction other than bringing people back continually for further interviews when determining whether they were genuinely seeking work. I believe that clauses 7, 9 and 10 will properly address that frustration.
  Clause 13 deals with transitional payments and obviously I am delighted that we are giving legal sanction to those payments, but I have to say that one of the sadnesses about the Bill is the fact that Ministers have not perhaps taken every opportunity to learn some of the lessons of the review of the 1986 Act. I felt that the Minister for Social Security gave the House a genuine reassurance that the effects of the 1986 Act would be closely monitored, but I do not want at this stage to detain the House with a series of examples about individual problems, save to say that I have come across some very difficult cases where I am certain that the transitional payment scheme was never designed to deprive people of help. Certain technicalities have come to light in the operation of these recently introduced measures and I pray that Ministers may just think it fit to use the opportunity of this Bill to address those matters.
  Clause 15 is very interesting because it deals with the computerisation of the social security system, and I very much welcome that, because it begins to address some of the criticisms we have heard from the Opposition about the take-up of benefits. The one thing that the existing computerised systems of income support will do is to ensure that people get the benefit to which they are entitled, and the fact that clause 15 enables payments and

  765
  upratings to be made on computerised systems, without the need of intervention by senior civil servants in benefit offices, is to be welcomed.
  But there's the rub, because inevitably computers require fewer people, and clearly some particularly well-qualified people in benefit offices are already thinking about their future in the service. It is also clear that to recruit good quality people into the social security system is becoming increasingly difficult, and while I support the technical nature of clause 15, I urge Ministers to examine the implications for personnel in the service.
  Local authorities, anxious to find qualified people to implement the terms of the community charge, are already looking closely at the availability of people in social security offices who are doubting their future in the system. Many of these higher qualified staff understand the complexity of the system that we are seeking to amend, and I hope that in implementing clause 15 we will not allow good people to leave the service.
  Clause 19 deals with pensions and equalising the opportunities for men and women. I warmly welcome the clause. I think that it follows up a theme that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed in his Budget. He recognised the growing importance of the work that women do and gave them the promise of a separate tax status. Now the social security legislation is again recognising that there should be an equal opportunity for women in respect of their pensions. I worked for a company that, unfortunately, did not have that equal opportunity for pensions.
  There is one element about which I am not entirely clear. It is right to equalise opportunities, but some young girls starting work quite relish the fact that their wage, which may be low initially, does not have a subtraction from it for a company pension scheme, because it may be their intention to work for a short time and then, after marriage, to leave work altogether. For them cash flow is one of the most important things, and I hope that, in framing the regulations that will enable the equalisation to take place, the Minister for Social Security will bear that point in mind.
  Certainly, for women who are looking forward to a long period of work, pensions equalisation is a vital provision which I am sure we would fully support. But I am quite certain that its passage through the House will also occasion debate about the bigger and more difficult problem about the equalisation of retirement age for the sexes.
  Finally, the Bill addresses some minor provisions affecting war pensions, and in particular war pension committees. I cannot let the opportunity pass without saying that it is perhaps sad that the Bill does not address the wider subject of the pensions paid to those who have formerly served in the armed forces. I know that Ministers are aware from much lobbying and many speeches at political conferences how strongly many people feel about this subject, and I take this opportunity to press them again to keep under review, as I know they are doing with their colleagues both in their Department and in the Ministry of Defence, the whole question of officers who retired before 1973 and the pension that their widows get, compared with the more generous treatment given to those who were widowed after 1973.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have drawn attention to the fact that there is much in the Bill to
  766
  commend. It is a measure which should command widespread support, and certainly I know that clauses 7, 9 and 10 will be warmly welcomed by the general public.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. John Battle: I think it is noted by many commentators now that this is a Government run on the basis of image and presentation. The Department of Social Security recently put out a new logo in the shape of what seemed to be a smiling mouth, which for many people in receipt of social security benefits is proving to be the empty grin of a Cheshire cat. If image and presentation are the key—they depend upon a keen sense of the instant present that the media insists we acknowledge—if one is addicted to image and presentation, memory becomes repressed and history is suppressed.
  I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) make a plea for to be the first of a number of radical reforms. He has been in this House much longer than I have—I think throughout the whole of this Government's term of office. I am surprised that he has not noticed what has actually been going on in social security and, because of his remark, I would like to focus my comments on the background and intentions behind the Bill impression given by the Tory Members tonight is that there has been no major legislation in this area for years. I would like to ask them this: what about the great Fowler review, the "back to Beveridge" approach that this Government set in train in the last Parliament? What about the reform of social security documents published and set in motion in June 1985?
  The Secretary of State stated plainly that the Bill embodies the Government's vision of the social security system. I absolutely agree. It is all of a piece I argue that it is not a question of tidying up, not just a piecemeal Bill that is catching one part of the legislation that seems to have fallen behind; it is all of a piece with the Government's approach to the economy and to social security which—add, includes the establishment of a low-wage sector within the British economy.
  The Bill tries to drive those who are currently unemployed into that low-wage sector to keep it going. In the Green Paper "The Reform of Social Security" published in June 1985, there was an interesting emphasis:
  "Most people not only can but wish to make sensible provision for themselves · State provision · should not discourage self-reliance or stand in the way of individual provision and responsibility · While it is one of the functions of the social security system to help those who are unemployed, it is self-defeating if it creates barriers to the creation of jobs, to job mobility or to people rejoining the labour force. Clearly such obstacles exist if people believe themselves better off out of work than in work; or if employers regard the burden of national insurance as a substantial discouragement to providing jobs · If we wish to encourage individuals to provide for themselves, then the social security system—public and private—must not stand in the way."
  The Bill continues this Government's effective repeal of the social security system. The principle is to ensure that the social security system is out of the way so that the conditions outlined in the Green Paper of June 1985 can be established. There have been three Social Security Bill while I have been a Member of Parliament. This is yet another Bill to get the social security system out of the way.
  The Green Paper on the reform of social security

  767
  concluded blandly
  "The proposals will make it more worthwhile for individuals to work and to save."
  This may not be the right debate in which to comment on people's savings, which are remarkably low. Such a comment may be more appropriate to a debate that is to take place later this week. However, the Government are now insisting on driving people into temporary, part-time and low-paid work. The Bill provides an instrument for
  The Green Paper of June 1985 contained only a brief reference to the unemployed in the proposals to review the social security system. They were passed over almost in silence, despite the pleading of many groups on their behalf. I recall that my hon. Friends pleaded for assistance to be given to the long-term unemployed and their families. They got a scant response from the Government. We are entitled to ask the Minister to explain why the change in the work test was not presented as part of the Fowler reviews. Why was it kept in the background, to be slipped in piecemeal as the full proposals in the Fowler reviews are exposed year after year? I find it hard to believe the statement in the Green Paper:
  "The Government's proposals are not based on a grand design for a new state system".
  I believe that they are based on such a grand design.
  Just before the publication of the Green Paper, in June 1985, two other Government documents were published in March by the Department of Employment. The first was a Government report entitled "Burdens on Business". It set out the terms for reducing the burden of Government regulations; PAYE, national insurance contributions, VAT, employment law, the health and safety regulations and the planning and trading standards were all to be repealed. The terms of reference of the report were:
  "What are the areas in which reductions in compliance costs would make the biggest difference? What are the main obstacles to securing a substantial reduction in their costs? What areas of regulation should be amended?"
  Its proposals included
  "abolishing or drastically relaxing Wages Councils control over young peoples' wages which price some of them out of their jobs."
  In the same month, March 1985, the Department of Employment also published a booklet entitled "The Challenge for the Nation." It was even more explicit than "Burdens on Business" and contained proposals headed "Helping the Jobs Market." It proclaimed:
  "The Government has acted to ease wage rigidities · More realistic levels of youth pay have been encouraged by the young workers scheme and the training allowance of the YTS."
  I remind the House that the young workers scheme gave employers £15 a week for every young person they were prepared to take on at a gross wage that averaged £50 a week or less. "The Challenge to the Nation" emphasised throughout that the biggest single cause of high unemployment is the failure of the job market. By that it meant that the labour market was the weak link. What this Government mean is made absolutely explicit in the introduction to that document:
  "Improving the work of the labour market is particularly important. Jobs will be created to the extent that people are prepared to work at wages that employers can afford."
  No reference was made to what workers and their families can afford to live on, if they are given those wages. The question was simply whether they could be channelled into the low-wage economy.
  Mr. Jack: Does the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that the Government have made strenuous efforts to help in particular those on low pay with families through the family credit system?
  Mr. Battle: I shall respond later in detail to the hon. Gentleman's question. Under this Government, the people on low pay now number 9·4 million—40 per cent. of the work force, a figure that is unprecedented in recent British history. They are on wages well below what is referred to in Europe as "the decency threshhold."
  Since the Fowler review there have already been two Acts dealing with social security. It was claimed during the last Session that the whole system ought to be revamped. We shall soon have further legislation to abolish the wages councils. There have already been numerous attempts, by changes in the method of calculation, to reduce the number of unemployed people in Britain to a statistical fiction.
  This Bill proposes to open up the labour market. It encourages people to take up
  "the growing number of jobs on offer",
  as the Government's own press release put it in December of last year. They propose to do that by reducing the protection for the unemployed, by proposing that the level of remuneration will not be "a good cause" for claimants refusing a job and by insisting that they demonstrate, somehow, "in conversation" that they are actively seeking work. The Government will penalise those who do not accept part-time, temporary and low-paid jobs.
  The key shift in our economy is not simply between the employed and the unemployed. It is between those in relatively secure, reasonably—if not well—paidwork with prospects and those who are condemned to the part-time, temporary, low-wage economy.
  I am reminded by the intervention of the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) that many people in Britain live on a wage that is well below £132 a week, or £3·50 an hour. I invite Conservative Members to say whether they would be prepared to negotiate their benefits away for wages of less than £2 an hour, which is the rate at which many jobs in my constituency are now advertised. That hidden economic division is the basis of the assumptions that are made in the Bill. It is the basis of the assumption that the long-term unemployed have unrealistic wage expectations and that they are facing what the Government describe as "disincentive problems". I submit that to sustain current economic development the Government need actively to promote a two-tier economic structure—those in full-time, relatively well-paid jobs, with good tax reductions, and those in part-time, temporary and low-paid work.
  Different standards apply. Those in the top sector get the benefit of tax cuts and more income as an incentive, but those at the bottom will find that even those benefits that they now have will be taken away. That is a classic example of the carrot for the top and the stick for the bottom. That is the reality that faces many of the 9·4 million people in our society who are currently on low pay.
  The Government's economic development depends on the development of a part-time, temporary and low-paid sector. The Bill is about forcing the unemployed into that sector. That is what flexibility means when Conservative Members refer to it. There is no talk of a sense of contribution of work by people in our society. There is no talk of their having something to offer and some prospects. It is simply a matter of their being available for a few hours

  769
  a week, or they will get nothing. They may be accused of pricing themselves out of work, but the Government are intent on pricing the unemployed out of sight altogether.
  8.39 pm
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am grateful to be called to contribute to this important debate, and I should like to comment on three of the proposals in the Bill.
  In the first place, I welcome clause 19, which introduces the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes. Something good can sometimes come out of Europe, as Labour Members might like to note. It is a useful move towards equal professional opportunities for men and women which will be much welcomed; we hope that it will be developed in other areas and in other legislation.
  I should like to give a warm welcome, as Members on both sides have already done, to the extension of mobility allowance from age 75 to 80, which is again in principle of help that reflects the increasing numbers of very elderly people. It is an excellent move, and I am glad that Labour Members have welcomed that and other parts of the Bill.
  Clearly, one of the most controversial parts of the Bill is contained in clause 7 and those other clauses that are to be taken with it. They amend existing legislation so that a requirement for entitlement to unemployment benefit is that a person must be "actively seeking" work and must also demonstrate that he is so doing. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have already pointed out that the current position is that claimants are required to be available for work. They should apply for jobs; they should respond to suggestions given by jobcentres; and they are required from time to time to confirm that they are available.
  However, the very reason that those clauses are in the Bill is that the law needs enforcing. People working in jobcentres need to be given powers to ensure that it is being carried out. The law also needs this to take account—this is most important and has not been mentioned by Labour Members—of the vastly changed and changing employment situation in much of the country. It should be made clear at the outset that the majority of claimants—again, there is broad agreement here—are genuinely seeking work, but it must also he recognised, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said, that those working in jobcentres know the people who are not genuinely seeking work, who turn down job opportunities for a variety of reasons, sometimes not genuine reasons, and who continue to claim benefit. Some of those people are undoubtedly working in the black economy. It is as absurd to pretend that all abuse the system as to maintain that none do.
  Some people have pointed out that the public understanding of the position is that it is not possible to claim benefit if the claimant is not actively seeking to find and take available work. I am not so sure that that is in fact the case, because, certainly in areas such as the one that I represent, where employment opportunities are many, the public are mystified when they see, side by side, unemployment statistics and job vacancies. I accept that there are regional variations and it would be foolish to pretend that they do not exist. They have already been recognised in the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who said that regional differences would be taken into account when the regulations were
  770
  being applied. However, meanwhile, in areas where there are good employment prospects, people feel that the numbers of unfilled vacancies sit oddly next to the statistics of the unemployed.
  I should like to quote a specific example drawn from my constituency. A major employer, a food processor, based in one of my market towns, currently employs 600 people. The company wishes to expand its operations and to recruit at least 100 more people. I should point out, mainly because of the point made by Labour Members, particularly by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), that the company pays above the average manual wage to the factory. Transport is provided, not from a central point, but from the doors of the people working in the factory. The work is done in shifts, which suits many people, including women. It is pleasant and there are good staff benefits.
  In November, according to the statistics, the number of local people unemployed was 1,400; that is about 6·9 per cent. The company therefore undertook a major advertising campaign on local radio, in the local press and through the local jobcentre. As a result of this major campaign, the company received 44 inquiries, rather less than 2 per cent. of the 1,400 people unemployed. Twenty-six people attended for interviews, 20 were offered jobs, 17 started work, four left and two who accepted failed to turn up. The company therefore succeeded in taking 13 out of an alleged 1,400 people in the area, rather less than 1 per cent. One of the leavers commented that it was "harder work than staying at home"; that is undoubtedly true, but we must ask ourselves whether that is a good reason for turning down work.
  I must also point out to Labour Members that the comments of the people working in the factory, when they learned of the numbers who attended and the numbers who stuck to the job, bear very little relation to the attitudes that we are assured by Labour Members are held. by many people. Many of the comments were not such that I could repeat them in this House.
  Mrs. Beckett: That is the second time that the hon. Lady has referred to our remarks about the attitudes that we believe are generally held. Certainly I do not suggest that the attitudes that are generally held are anything other than those that she has described. That is a matter for sadness. It is my understanding and experience that those who have work, particularly people in low-paid work, frequently show little understanding of or interest in the position of those who are less fortunate. I do not for that reason think that those comments are invalid.
  I would not in any circumstances suggest that the attitudes expressed by the hon. Lady or the attitudes quoted by the Secretary of State are not generally held. It is a different matter whether they are valid and represent the reality of the situation in most parts of the country in respect of the number of jobs available and the number of people seeking to take them. I feel sure that the hon. Lady is unwittingly misrepresenting what has been said by Labour Members.
  Mrs. Shephard: I do not wish to misrepresent anything said by Labour Members, but, as mention has been made of the Clapham omnibus and the feelings of those people riding on it, I should point out that considerable resentment is felt by people in work if they perceive that

  771
  others, who have the opportunity of the same work, prefer to remain at home supported by the taxes of those people who are in work.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As they feel so strongly about this, can my hon. Friend inquire from the Opposition Front Bench why only three Labour Back-Bench Members are present to consider this?
  Mrs. Shephard: I am sure that the House will draw its own conclusions.
  My area is fortunate, as we have several companies wishing to expand and a buoyant job market but, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will point out, there are many such areas in Britain and their number is increasing all the time. Given the job opportunities available, employers and the public are mystified that there should be at the same time unemployment—apparently 6 per cent. or so in my area—and unfilled vacancies.
  Naturally, allowances must be made for inaccurate statistics—in a rapidly moving job market, it is difficult to keep track of statistics—but when suitable work is available, surely it makes good sense both for individuals and the economy as a whole, first that people should be encouraged to take that work and to demonstrate their wish to do so, and secondly, that unemployment benefit should be used for those in genuine difficulty. Again, there must be agreement on all sides on that.
  The principle behind clause 7—that people should be encouraged to take available work and to demonstrate that they are actively seeking it—is broadly welcomed by the public. But care will be needed, and will undoubtedly be taken in Committee, in drafting regulations to ensure both that it will be more difficult for people in the black economy to claim benefits and that the regulations will not make life harder for unemployed people with genuine difficulties.
  I wish to single out a particular group where special care will need to be taken—those people who are 50 or over. Despite a buoyant job market, those people often find it difficult to get work. I note that age is to be one of the good causes to be taken into account by the adjudicating officer, together with physical capabilities. It will be important for people over 50 who have had long work experience to recognise the particular difficulties that their age and even their physical capabilities may present for them in taking an unfamiliar job. If older people have been out of work for some time, they may suffer a lack of confidence about taking on unfamiliar work. A trial period of six weeks should help to ensure that no one will incur sanctions if the job genuinely does not work out.
  Clearly, when the Bill comes into force, officers who organise job clubs and who are involved in restart schemes will have increased responsibilities in ensuring that people are helped to keep the necessary records and can keep up the search for work. That must be recognised in appropriate training for those officers.
  In the interests of the economy as a whole and of the use of public money to help those genuinely in employment difficulties, and in the interests of unemployed people who may need encouragement to take advantage of a rapidly improving employment market in many areas, the whole Bill, and this clause in particular, deserve to be welcomed, as I believe they will be throughout the country.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: I wish to address my remarks to clauses 7 to 10, which tighten up the "availability for work" clauses and add to them.
  The so-called justification for that is based on a survey of the London labour market carried out by the Department of Employment. The Government have either misunderstood or misrepresented it. It refers to 150,000 unfilled vacancies in London. I have studied the survey, and that is an estimate, not an accepted figure. I always distrust such nice, round figures, and I do not know how Ministers conjure them out of the ether.
  That figure is incompatible with another figure. Table 18 of the report says that employers in London notify 45 per cent. of their vacancies to jobcentres. The Department of Employment figure for unfilled jobcentre vacancies in London is 35,000. If employers notify 45 per cent. of their vacancies, the total number of vacancies should be about 78,000, or 2·25 times the number notified to jobcentres, not 150,000. If the main conclusion of the report can be so wrong, we should be a little cautious about the remainder.
  The Government are seeking to give the impression that there is a big stock of either 78,000 or 150,000 vacancies in London, and they claim 700,000 vacancies nationwide that are ready, waiting and available for the unemployed. But they suggest that the unemployed will neither look for nor take them. That is a complete illusion and a grotesque misunderstanding. There is no stock and any idea that a stock of unfilled vacancies exists is nonsense.
  These figures are a measure of turnover, not of stock. Vacancies flow in and filled vacancies flow out. If the Minister will read the report—I doubt whether he has, but if he wishes to correct me he may do so—he will see that it acknowledges what I am saying. It states that 700,000 new employees are taken on each year in London. The annual vacancy outflow from London jobcentres is about 400,000 a year which is nearly 34,000 a month, so the truth is that it is not a stock, but a flow.
  In the quarter to 2 September 1988, clerical jobs were filled after a median period of four weeks, retail jobs after 2·7 weeks, catering jobs after three weeks, building labourer vacancies after 3·2 weeks and general labourer vacancies after 4·2 weeks, so there is not a static figure, but a flow. There is no evidence of a large pool of vacancies remaining unfilled because the unemployed are unwilling to take them.
  Mr. Jack: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?
  Mr. Leighton: No. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is paying attention, but I should prefer it if he would lend me his ears rather than his prejudices, because there is the question of time to consider. If there is time later, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Jack: Will the hon. Gentleman assist me by answering one question? When did he last visit his local jobcentre or social security office to validate his last statement?
  Mr. Leighton: I make such visits regularly. I extend to the hon. Gentleman an open invitation to accompany me on a visit to my local jobcentre, where I regularly review the results of restart interviews. I do so all the time. As

  773
  Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, I suspect that I know as much about the subject as does the hon. Member for Fylde.
  One crucial question to which no one has yet paid any attention is that of who fills the vacancies that occur. The truth leaps from the report that has been prayed in aid. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Fylde, who just intervened, would pay attention. I thought that he was interested in this matter, but apparently he is not. If he is interested, I am anxious to enlighten him.
  The truth of the matter, which leaps from the pages of the survey that has not been read by the Minister, is that most vacancies are filled by those who are already employed and who are merely switching jobs. Of those recruited to non-managerial or professionl jobs, for example, during the last 12 months, only 2 per cent. had been unemployed for six months or more. That demonstrates a huge employer prejudice against recruiting unemployed people. The report reveals that employers either did not know that long-term unemployed existed or were hostile to them. The unemployed fail to get jobs not because they are unwilling to take them but because of employers' recruitment practices and their reluctance to hire those who are currently unemployed.
  The phenomenon of the discouraged worker is well known. I speak of the person who has been rejected so often that he or she wonders whether it is worth continuing to seek employment. Yet the report shows that 87 per cent. of unemployed had looked for work in the month preceding their interview. It reveals also that the unemployed do not expect high wages, and that they are willing to travel.
  The Secretary of State for Employment is not present in the Chamber, although the Secretary of State for Social Security is on the Government Front Bench. If the right hon. Gentleman will examine the document that he has prayed in aid, he will see that in his foreword to it, the Secretary of State for Employment states that only a "small minority" of unemployed have never looked for work. It is wrong to formulate public policy and enact legislation for a minority rather than for the majority.
  A core of vacancies is hard to fill, but that is because of skills or geographical mismatches. The unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed—most of whom are victims of Government policy—need and deserve help and understanding. They do not need, nor do they deserve, persecution and harassment. Many black people have higher qualifications than whites. They visit jobcentres more often than white people, yet they suffer twice the level of unemployment. I hope that the Minister will comment on that point.
  There is a fundamental division of approach between Government and Opposition Members, but I hope that it does not include every Conservative Member. That division is between those, apparently including the Government, who believe that the poor and unemployed cannot find jobs because of their personal deficiencies—such as a lack of motivation and a willingness to live off the state—and those, like myself, who believe that there are several reasons why people remain so long on benefit. They include the absence of fair opportunities to compete for suitable jobs, a lack of skills, a lack of supporting services such as child care, discrimination and, most importantly, a shortage of jobs in the first place.
  The first group want schemes and programmes to be compulsory for the reasons I have explained. Because we
  774
  know the unemployed better than they do, the second group, knowing that the unemployed want to work. want voluntary programmes that will win willing support and participation. Voluntary programmes enhance their participants' feelings of control over their own lives—the feeling that they have choices, which are usually denied to the poor.
  Instead, the Government are going for conscription. Already YTS is compulsory. Now, other programmes are moving towards compulsion—that is what the Government are doing by changing and tightening the "availability for work" formula. No one in the House defends those who defraud the system, but that is already unlawful. This Bill threatens to police and prosecute people who are already disadvantaged enough. They need understanding and aid, and more effective, better staffed and more user-friendly employment services.
  Employers need to be induced to send all their vacancies, not merely a small percentage of them, to jobcentres. Unemployed people need more trained counsellors to offer them quality training, advice and assistance. When people are unemployed through no fault of their own, they need to be made to feel valued members of society and to be helped and supported through a difficult period back into good and well-paid employment. Like others, the unemployed and their families have paid their rates and taxes and have their rights as citizens to these services.
  This is an unworthy, mean, nasty, spiteful measure, which cannot conceivably be justified by an analysis of the survey of the London labour market.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: As two thirds of the Bill consists either of minor adjustments or of tidying-up measures, I am amazed by the stance of the Opposition on it. If only they would apply common sense, they would. support it. Instead, the usual prejudice and accusations have been trotted out, that the Government have a hidden agenda. As usual, the Opposition have claimed that the Government do not care about people in this country—
  Mr. Battle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman should make it clear that whereas some of us have been here throughout the entire debate, he has not—yet he has the audacity to cast a slur on what we have said.
  Mr. Speaker: I have only just come into the Chamber. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) gave notice earlier that he wanted to participate. I do not know whether he has been out of the Chamber.
  Mr. Wilshire: I have been in and out during the debate for the simple reason that part of Heathrow is in my constituency, and matters to do with air crashes have kept me having to go in and out in the course of the day. So I make no apology for not having heard all the speeches. What I have heard has convinced me that once again the Opposition are talking nonsense. They ignore the abuses in this country, they ignore the waste, and above all they ignore public opinion. If they do not believe that, or will not take it from me, let them check the opinion polls, which prove how out of touch with public opinion the Opposition are on this matter.

  775
  It is important to set the Bill in its context. Twenty of its 29 clauses are routine—refunding contributions, helping individuals with housing benefits and streamlining war pension administration. These and other matters dealt with in 20 of the 29 clauses should receive the support of us all. The remaining nine clauses raise six issues that may divide us in Committee. I have no hesitation in saying that I support wholeheartedly all six major issues. As I am conscious of the time, I shall deal with only three of the six issues.
  First, I shall speak about clause 4 and the matter of more parental support for children. Secondly, I want to deal briefly with clauses 6 to 10, which concern unemployment benefit and income support changes. Thirdly, I want to speak briefly about clause 18, which concerns the recovery of payments when damages have been awarded. I have chosen those three issues because they demonstrate to me—and, I believe, to everybody else—three basic truths about the Government's approach. The first truth is that the Government have values that are founded on clear principles. The second truth is that the Government are doing a great deal more, through the Bill, to help those who are in real need. Thirdly, the Bill shows that the Government are still busy reversing the Socialist excesses of the post-war years.
  Clause 4 proposes that parents should be asked to make a bigger contribution towards their children's education. For me, that is another important step towards revitalising the concept of the family in this country. At present, there is blanket help for all children of divorced or separated parents, which has two effects. First, it makes it easier for a parent to walk out on a child and secondly, it undermines the role of parenthood. Those two effects lead in themselves to a further undermining of the family unit. Clause 4 has nothing to do with financial savings; money is not the issue being raised. Clause 4 seeks to encourage family life and stresses that parenthood is a matter of great responsibility, so people who can afford to do so must be encouraged and required to make a contribution to their children. I am reassured to see that, when such help cannot be afforded, there are provisions to make alternative arrangements through Government help.
  The second issue with which I want to deal is covered by clauses 6 to 10. They have been discussed in detail and deal with changes in unemployment benefit and income support. The clauses address circumstances that the great majority of people in this country feel are unjust as they stand. Let us consider those who retire—I stress the word retire—early with a pension. Such people do not need and should not expect as much help as someone who is genuinely wholly unemployed. Let us also consider those who are not really seeking a job or are moonlighting. Such people exist, whatever the Opposition say, and do not need or deserve as much help as those who are desperate to find work and are doing everything they can. I shall respect the Opposition when they speak from their own experience.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman can sit down. He talked about speaking from experience. I have been unemployed many times in my life—
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Not enough.
  Mr. Heffer: It is clear that Conservative Members have never experienced the humiliation of being out of work, losing their dignity and believing ultimately that they themselves, rather than the system, are responsible for unemployment. The system is responsible, so we have a responsibility to all those who are more unfortunate than ourselves.
  Mr. Wilshire: I am very happy to speak from direct experience. In my constituency—which is just as valid an example as the other 649—a total of 934 people were unemployed when I checked yesterday, and there were 1,200 vacancies. Given those circumstances, the Government are absolutely right to act. My experience is just as valid as that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I make no apology. The circumstances to which I refer apply in a growing number of constituences. We have to ask why all those people are unemployed when there are more vacancies than there are people seeking work.
  The third issue about which I wish to speak briefly is the recovery of payments when damages are awarded. This is dealt with in clause 18. Like others, I have been approached by the CBI—
  Mr Leighton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wilshire: No, I will not. I am conscious of the time. I have been approached by the CBI—
  Mr. Leighton rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is not giving way.
  Mr. Wilshire: It seems to me that if the CBI is against something we are probably justified in being in favour of it. But taxpayers' money should not be used to subsidise negligence, and double recovery of damages is wrong. I ask myself who is speaking against this, and I reply that it is those who would have to pay. The answer to them is simple: if they are not negligent, they will not have to pay anything.
  Two-thirds of the Bill is relatively minor and deserves the support of us all. The remaining six issues are wholly in tune with public opinion and a sensible concept of a social security system. Anyone who votes against these measures will be ignoring the wishes of the overwhelming majority in the country. As I said at the outset, if Opposition Members will not believe me, let them read the opinion polls.
  9.16 pm
  Ms. Clare Short: I wish to confine my remarks to the core of the Bill. We all know that the Bill is about the new tests on availability for work. The tests move on from availability for work to actively seeking work, and are linked with the new provision that people must take a job at any level of income. That is the core; the rest of the Bill contains bits of reforms of one kind or another that were added on once that central strategic move had been made.
  I object strongly and deeply to the style of the debate. The quality of our democracy has declined gravely and worryingly in recent years, and the quality of debate in the House is at such a low level that if most people in the

  777
  country who confront the issues that we discuss were to hear it our institutions would be brought into grave disrepute.
  It is plain that Tory Members have received some kind of handout from Conservative Central Office. One after another—often they have not all been in the Chamber at the same time—they have churned out the same remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who has obviously read the material concerned, gave some examples.
  The line that Conservative Members have been taking is the "big lie" tactic. One after another they have tried to say that the Bill is all about reforming our social security system, which at present allows the minority who scrounge and defraud the system to get away with it. They say that they are imposing constraints to stop that, and that the Labour party is in favour of scroungers. They have said that over and over tonight, and have constantly challenged us to say that we are not in favour of scroungers.
  If there were some level of objective rationality with which we had to comply in the Chamber, such junk would not be allowed. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who spoke for the alliance or the Democrats—I am sorry that I cannot keep up with the labels—put on record the existing framework of law. I do not know whether Conservative Members are at all interested, but the framework in the 1975 Act, which is the basic framework that has been in place in the post-war social security settlement, imposed on everyone a duty to seek work and to accept jobs that were offered. If they did not accept jobs that were offered, they had to take training. That framework used to be agreed between the parties and was part of Britain's post-war settlement.
  Since 1979, under this new-Right Thatcherite regime, there has been a considerable tightening up on availability for work. There has been a tough new questionnaire. People have to prove that they are instantly available to start work and that they do not have dependants for whom they have to care. In my constituency, as a result of the collapse in the west midlands after 1979, many men started picking up their children from school, giving them tea and so on—something that they never used to do in the past. They say that one of the few enjoyments that have come from losing the job that they did for 20 or 30 years is seeing more of their children. If such people cannot make arrangements overnight to accommodate their children or their elderly parents, they are not available for work. People have to prove that they are willing to travel further and to accept lower wages. That tightening up has taken place under the Government.
  Then the restart scheme was introduced along with another massive questionnaire. People were called in every six months. There was a menu of so-called opportunities, job clubs, schemes that did not lead to jobs and such a series of offers. People received letters saying that their benefit would be stopped unless they attended their restart interviews. Surveys show that the majority of people who go through that process think that they have to join a job club, community programme or employment training scheme or lose their benefit. All that is in place now.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire read out the tribunal's interpretation of availability for work as "actively seeking work"; a person must take positive measures to seek work. All that is in place and thousands of people have had their money questioned. The unemployment benefit of 500,000 people has been called
  778
  into question because they were not available for work. Between July 1987 and June 1988, a total of 173,268 claims for unemployment benefit were referred because of doubts about availability. The figures have gone up and up as the Government introduced their stringent tests.
  People are hounded now on availability for work in an unsavoury and nasty way. Most end up going in and out of rotten schemes, job clubs, short-term work, low-paid jobs, being laid off, or going into a scheme and out of a scheme. That is the reality for large numbers of people in Britain. So do not let this Chamber descend to such a level that the big lie is repeated time and again. Conservative Members pretend that everyone is in prosperous work and that only the scroungers will be threatened by the Bill. That is false. If we are to discuss new legislation, let us discuss it accurately.
  If Tory Members do not know that the line that they are putting across is false, the people in need in their constituencies do not go to them. Some Tory Members could not have made the speeches that they made tonight if they had seen the kind of people that Labour Members see regularly in their constituencies. Either they know that their line is false or they do not help the people in need in their constituencies. There is poverty and low pay throughout Britain. Things are better in the south-east than in the rest of the country, but there is plenty of poverty and low pay in the south-east as well.
  Why do we have the Bill? Is it just one of those nasty, knee jerk, Sun-level, Mr. Murdoch promises that have to be made at the Tory party conference, which is where the Bill was promised? We know that the Secretary of State's reputation was in difficulty at that time. We know that he had been ill, and we are sorry about that, but he came up with this promise to catch the scroungers. Is it just the result of prejudice and nastiness or is there a strategy underlying it?
  Part of the Bill is the result of prejudice and nastiness, but there is a strategy underlying it. It is a serious strategy which affects Britain's whole labour market. Since the Government took power they have set about systematically dismantling a series of minimum protections—many put in place by Winston Churchill, who is supposedly the Prime Minister's hero—so that we did not have competition through ever-cheapening wages, the bad. employer throwing out the worst, and so on, in a downward spiral.
  A series of historical protections that have existed for many years in our country have been deliberately and. systematically removed by the Government in order to encourage low pay which, they say, is better than unemployment. However, we know that areas of high unemployment have many people on low pay. The Government have just promised to look again at the very existence of the wages councils and to demolish yet another piece of protection. They have been enormously successful.
  Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
  Ms. Short: I have been sitting in the Chamber all day. I will not speak for too long, but I want to make my speech. I will not take messages from my own Whip or from you, Mr. Speaker, to prevent me making the simple points I want to make. I have sat in the Chamber for a

  779
  significant number of hours. This is not a game to me. I really mean this. It is about real people's lives and the future of our country. I want to put my points on record.
  The Government's strategy to dismantle the protection for low-paid workers has been supremely successful. We have more low-paid workers in our country than ever before. There has been an enormous growth in the number of low-paid workers. That is one of the major new economic records of the Government, who claim that they have created such monumental prosperity.
  We now have 9·4 million workers—40 per cent. of those in work—who are paid less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold, at which we are all supposed to aim as a minimum. That means that that proportion of our people struggle between dependency on benefits and such low-paid work that they still live in poverty. They often find themselves out of work again because of the insecure conditions. That is the reality for nearly half our population.
  The Bill and the further threat to the wages councils mean that even more significant numbers of people will live in poverty. The Government say, "Never mind, family credit is available. You can be subsidised if you are low paid." The problem is that only one third of those entitled take up the benefit. What is that subsidy? Apart from the poverty and lack of dignity, it is fantastically inefficient economically. That is a big benefit subsidy that goes to inefficient employers who pay low wages, seek to compete through a low wage strategy and do not invest or train. There is no future for that sort of economy post-1992.
  The Government's strategy not only damages the interests of many people and their dignity in life but is massively dangerous to the future of our economy. With low-paid work, no training, high turnover of labour, no investment and a low-paid economy, we will not survive post-1992. The Government's strategy-the core of the Bill-is for more low pay, using the social security system to frighten people into accepting any old low-paid job. That is bad for people. There is no dignity and justice in it and it is bad for the economy.
  I deeply regret that our country has sunk so low that such a Bill should come before the House and be debated at such a low level with the poor quality of the speeches made by Conservative Members.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: It is a pleasure although a daunting task to follow the impassioned and uniquely well-informed contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short).
  We are grateful to have drawn the support of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and some guarded comments from one Conservative Member over what we believe is one of the principal errors of the Bill. In clause 2, there is a subtle but massive shift in wealth, again in the wrong direction. An aging society with expensive medical needs is about to cut the Government's contribution to national insurance. That has been in place since 1911. The long-term cumulative effect will be as iniquitous and unjust as the income tax handouts to the super-rich in the 1988 Budget.
  In 1945, the levels were set at 40 per cent. paid by the employer, 40 per cent. by the employee and 20 per cent. by
  780
  the Government. That was virtually intact in 1979. It would have amounted to £5·3 billion; that is the equivalent of the vast amount that is about to be moved as a burden from taxpayers to national insurance payers. It represents a further erosion of the hope of a fair, progressive taxation of equitable contributions on the basis of ability to pay.
  A substantial redistribution has taken place already, moving the tax obligation from the wealthy to the less well-off taxpayer. By lessening the taxes paid by the rich, the more articulate and the influential, the Government have successfully fostered the illusion that they have reduced taxes generally. The truth is that, while in 1978–79 the proportion of GDP raised from taxes was 34 per cent., it now stands at 38 per cent.
  The income tax cuts have been enjoyed by the higher paid, but for most people the reductions have been wiped out by increases in national insurance and VAT. National insurance payments are the least progressive contributions, hitting low earners as soon as their wages reach the princely sum of £41 a week, while top salary earners escape lightly with a flat-rate contribution. We are witnessing a further twist in the spiral that leads to the poverty of the unemployed and adds to the poverty of those on average wages and those in low-wage employment.
  When Labour left office in 1979, Treasury contributions stood at 18 per cent. Almost annually the Tories have cut it to its present level of 5 per cent., while increasing the contributions that employees have to pay, from 6·5 per cent. to 9 per cent. The Government are hugging and congratulating themselves with joy at this prospect. But while they will be pocketing what the amount would have been had they maintained the rate—£5·3 billion that money, if we look at it another way, has been picked directly from the pockets of the pensioners and those on benefit because the level has not been maintained in real terms in the way it should have been maintained. One can see that that £5·3 billion is very near to the sum out of which the Government have cheated the pensioners over the years by severing the link between earnings and pensions. That stands at £6·3 billion.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind rose—
  Mr. Flynn: There is not enough time for me to give way. That money has been taken precisely from the deserving.
  The "actively seeking work" rule has, rightly, received much attention in the debate. It is another piece of irrelevant malice exhumed from its putrid sepulchre. That has been done because baiting the unemployed is a favourite Tory sport. How Conservative Members roared their approval at the Tory party conference when they were promised that new barriers would be erected for the unemployed to scale. They would have been frozen into mute, white-faced shock if a crackdown on income tax evasion had been threatened. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), have asked why the honest taxpayer should suffer the welfare cheat. Let us put it the other way round and ask why the claims of the honest claimant should be cut by the cheating tax dodger.
  Mr. Burns rose—
  Mr. Flynn: No, I will not give way.
  Those who cheat and abuse the system should be punished and pursued, and evidence has been given that

  781
  when in government, Labour brought many people to book—far more proportionately than are being brought to book now.
  But who are the real scroungers? That, I believe, is what the hon. Member for Chelmsford would like to know. The estimates given to the Public Accounts Committee showed that 20 prosecutions were made against individuals for making false returns of income tax or false claims for personal allowances. The cost of income tax fraud is estimated at £5 billion. The cost of dole fraud is estimated at £500 million and the number of prosecutions for that has totalled 14,000, a ratio of one individual pursued through the courts for tax fraud for every 700 prosecuted for welfare deception—one prosecution for every £35,000 fiddled in dole compared with one prosecution for every £25 million fiddled in tax. There is an unanswerable case for better targeting on income tax cheats.
  The hon. Member for Chelmsford rejoiced in the fact that there will be more inspectors to hound those who are cheating on the dole. No one disagrees with that pursuit. It is wrong that such cheating should be happening. But we ask for some fairness and even-handedness. There should be some attempt to deal with those who are robbing the country of very large sums of money through income tax evasion.
  We have heard a great deal about the Conservative approach to assessing those who are cheating. The most enlightened figure that we have heard comes from the expert opinion quoted by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, who said: "The man on the Clapham omnibus could tell her". That is a populist belief. But who will assess those who are actively seeking jobs? We know that the present laws insist that unemployed people have to make positive efforts to seek work. Those laws have existed for many years. They have been enforced vigorously and harshly through strict availability testing. We know that the Government must be planning something even worse than that.
  We do not have to look in a crystal ball when we have graphic reports of what happened when the availability to work test in another form—the "genuinely seeking work" test—was enforced in the 1920s. Mr. John Hilton, an assistant secretary at the Ministry of Labour, made a tour to discover how the test was working. He went to labour exchanges and saw people being interrogated. They were asked, "When did you look for a job?" and they gave a litany of firms such as, "This week I went to Hatfields, to Gibbons and to Davies." They were asked, "Where did you go on Tuesday?" and, "What does the manager look like? Is he tall? Has he a moustache?" According to John Hilton, if the information given was true, every person would have been applying for those jobs 10 times a week. It would have meant that firms in Merthyr and in Sheffield would have had one person calling every minute of every day. The system encouraged those who could tell the tale. Those who were deceiving were successful and those who told the truth were punished. If this measure is introduced, it will have precisely the same effect.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) eloquently pointed out the weaknesses in the statistics in "The London Labour Market" report. We should look to other statistics. A report by Harris Research used a much larger sample and showed that 73 per cent. of unemployed people sampled had looked for work in the previous week and 87 per cent. had looked for work in the four weeks prior to interview. The unemployed
  782
  in the London labour market survey were not questioned in depth about why they were not looking for work, but we know that those groups are mostly the quarterly unemployed who have had enough. They have reached the point where they can take it no more. We seek some assurances on this matter. In areas where the jobs famine is really chronic, the discouraged unemployed will be coerced into the endless charade of seeking jobs that pobably do not exist.
  We have heard about the job clubs. They have made a valuable contribution in increasing the self-confidence of workers, pointing them in new directions and breaking down isolation. But if we take the magic of the job club and use the analysis published in the midlands, where only 134 job entries resulted from 30,000 speculative job applications, what kind of active job searching would we need to achieve the Government's target in London of 140,000 job entries? It would require 500,000 speculative visits to produce 6 per cent. of those jobs; 3,276,000 applications for advertised vacancies to produce 52 per cent. of those jobs; 4 million speculative telephone calls to produce another 17 per cent.; and 7,800,000 speculative letters to produce the other 25 per cent. of those jobs. That will not happen and cannot happen. We will not see that blizzard of job applications, that deluge of written letters and that bedlam of telephone calls which, in the Government's view, will create jobs. It cannot happen. However, we will see an endless procession of unemployed people having the sting of rejection added to the daily insult of unemployment that they face.
  We have asked—we hope that we shall have a reply during the debate—about the comment of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) that the Bill will be interpreted sensitively. Opposition Members do not share that confidence, especially because of the way in which restart and other measures have been introduced.
  However, there are some timely clauses and some sensible clauses that we are happy to support. There has been an accusation that we are clinging to the shibboleths of the 1930s, but the Government are taking us back to the 1920s and beyond. The Government have claimed that similar measures are in force in Eire, Australia, and New Zealand. We have checked and although I do not have time to go into details now, it is clear that as far as we know there are no such provisions in any of those countries.
  The Bill will be seen as an unnecessary and pernicious attempt to reassemble part of the cruel dark world of the past. Parts of the Bill have been conceived in prejudice, ignorance and malice. It has been prompted by a brutal populism. It is unworthy of the statute book of a civilised country. The Bill should be consigned to where it belongs—the dustbin of history.
  9.41 pm
  The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on his first Front Bench appearance as an Opposition Social Security spokesman. His eloquence was impressive—his argument not quite so. I shall deal with some of the points that he put forward later. We welcome him to his new responsibilities.
  The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) described the Bill as a "curate's egg", presumably acknowledging that it is good in parts, as did the hon.

  783
  Member for Newport, West. I prefer to describe it as an hors d'oeuvre with a variety of flavours, some appealing to all hon. Members but some appealing only to a few, or to Conservative Members only.
  The Bill contains a considerable number of clauses, as does any Social Security Bill which tidy previous legislation or are merely technical amendments to the existing law. I make no complaint that those who have spoken for the Opposition have most frequently concentrated on those clauses with which they most disagree. That is why we are here.
  However, I think all hon. Members warmly welcome one clause—and several have done so. I refer to the proposal to increase from 75 to 80 the age limit for receipt of mobility allowance. The House knows that, in the context of the OPCS survey into the extent, nature and circumstances of disabled people in this country, we are reviewing the whole structure of benefits for disabled people. If we had not taken this measure, the first people would have ceased to received mobility allowance in 1989. Obviously, that had to be avoided. The entire benefit will of course be reviewed in the context of the OPCS reports. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) drew particular attention to that. As I have said, we must await the outcome of the survey.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) acknowledged the benefits of that benefit but urged us to pursue a take-up campaign. Obviously, I want to encourage the maximum take-up of any benefit available. It is worth noting in passing that in numbers, since 1978–79 when 95,000 people were receiving mobility allowance, until the current year when 540,000 people are receiving it, we have seen a sixfold increase in the numbers of claimants with a 500 per cent. increase in expenditure on this important and well-targeted benefit.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) set out the principles that she hoped would guide the evolution of the social security system. It is important to emphasise that no social security system can ever be set in concrete for a lengthy period. Society is dynamic and changes, and the social security system must change too.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne drew particular attention to the need for social security law for liable relatives to come into line with family law. She urged us, too, to do more to get absent fathers, who were liable to support their children, to provide that support. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) made the same point. I believe that it is a sensible and responsible way for the law to operate. I emphasise that no one will go down the route suggested in an early-day motion of pressing mothers into pursuing fathers to make the payment themselves. The practice of the Department of Social Security is to attempt to obtain the support for these children by sensible administrative measures, which is the path which we shall continue to pursue. Of course, if a voluntary arrangement is possible, that can often be the quickest and simplest way to achieve that support. However, no one will go down the route of pressing mothers in circumstances which could put them in, perhaps physical, and certainly emotional, danger.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) pointed out the looming shortage of manpower and skills and the need to motivate people to
  784
  seek employment. We shall return to that provision in this Bill, but it is worth saying that, by the development of in-work benefits, by increases in tax thresholds at the lower end and by tax levels, the Government have made a significant contribution in this area already.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), speaking, as he said, for the first time from the freedom of the Back Benches, drew attention to the links between the possibility of social security advance and the economic performance of the country. We are spending a massive £50 billion-plus on social security, which has only been possible because of the successful economic performance of the Government's policies. My hon. Friend, too, mentioned liable relatives and the mobility allowance. He welcomed what we were able to do here and supported the employment clauses, to which I shall return.
  Mr. Corbyn: As the hon. Gentleman is talking about the great prosperity of this country, will he explain why tens of thousands of people have been denied any benefit under the restart scheme and many people have been denied any benefit under his social security regime? Should not that prosperity ensure that every family has a home and a reasonable income with which to maintain themselves?
  Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman made that comment earlier and I shall deal with it when I come to those particular points. I must say that the successful economy was only made possible because at the beginning of our period of Government, we ensured that public expenditure was under control. That should be contrasted with what happened under the Labour Government when—in the words of Joel Barnett—the Labour Government spent the first two years spending money that they did not have.
  Three areas of this Bill aroused controversy in the debate. The first was touched on by the hon. Member for Derby, South, who said that the proposals for the recovery of benefit from awards for personal injury had been opposed by those whom we consulted. I acknowledge that. Of course, those are the people who are operating the present system and I am not surprised that they raised doubts about this principle. However, I believe that the change that we are making in this area—by moving to recovery of those benefits from awards for personal injury —rests on two clear and indisputable principles. There should be no double compensation for the same injury, which is absolutely clear and has been supported by the courts consistently in recent years. Secondly, the taxpayer has no duty to subsidise those responsible, or their insurers, where an injury occurs.
  I believe, too, that the costs on industry have been exaggerated in that area.
  Let us consider employment costs rather than insurance premiums. A typical firm with about 1,000 employees might experience an increase of between 0·14 and 0·28 per cent. as a result of the changes. I believe that that burden can be sensibly borne by industry and commerce in the interests of achieving the two clear indisputable principles that I mentioned previously.
  The decision to remove the Treasury supplement to the national insurance fund also drew some controversial comment. That move was welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) but opposed by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). It is important to establish the facts. The current rate of

  785
  supplement from the Treasury to the national insurance fund is 5 per cent. At the start, in 1948, that supplement was 33 per cent., but the move has been inexorably downwards in the intervening years. The current yield is some £1·6 billion and in the coming year it is estimated at £1·75 billion. The fund's income in the year 1988–89 will be £29·1 billion and that will produce a surplus of £2·7 billion. The end of the year balance will be about £9·9 billion, equivalent to some 20 weeks' benefit expenditure—about the same number of weeks' expenditure as existed in the last year of the Labour Government.
  In essence, recent developments and the growth of the fund has meant that the Treasury supplement is no longer necessary to sustain the fund. It was necessary in 1948 to balance the books because the old flat-rate contributions had to be set at a level low enough to be affordable by all. Now that the contributions themselves are earnings-related, that situation has changed.
  What is possible now and what was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde, is logical and has been desirable all along. We can pay contributory benefits with contributions—that is equal to about £26 billion of benefit expenditure—and leave the taxpayer to pick up the bill for the non-contributory and income-related benefits amounting to about £20 billion.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that the increase in the national insurance contribution fund reflects the fact that people are earning more? An increase in earnings is bringing in more money. The Minister, however, is only protecting benefits, and the discrepancy is unfair,.
  Mr. Scott: I do not believe that it is unfair, and if I had time I would debate this matter with the hon. Gentleman. We have fulfilled our pledge to protect benefits against inflation. Earnings-generated income into the fund has meant that the Treasury supplement is no longer necessary.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde asked about the long term—Keynes had a word to say about that—and if demographic changes make a change in the pattern necessary, it will be for the Government of the day to establish the most sensible way in which to deal with that change.
  The most controversial and the most discussed aspect of our proposals relates to the employment clauses and the proposal that people should be actively seeking, and not merely available for work. The present basic conditions for unemployment benefit are that a person must be physically capable of work and available for it. Our proposal is to introduce the additional condition that a person must also show that he is actively seeking work. I believe that that is common sense and that it is widely supported in the country.
  There is a clear split across the Floor of the House on this matter. I believe, however, that most people not only support our proposal, but believe that that is how the system operates at the moment. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire appeared to be under that illusion. He mentioned the decision on R(U)5/80 and he advanced that as evidence of the existing situation.
  That judgment referred to the need to take active steps, but, since then, further decisions have defined more closely what is an active step. In one example a claimant had attended a jobcentre, had not even left his name and
  786
  address, and had gone away. The commissioners held, however, that that was sufficient to confirm his declaration that he was available and actively seeking work. That is nonsense, but that claimant had no obligation to do any more.
  The other point that the hon. Gentleman raised was whether what we were proposing in this clause was a move towards workfare. I have three words to say about that: no, no and no. Our object is to encourage people into real jobs, not to force them into non-jobs. That is, and that remains, our conclusion.
  Mr. Frank Field: When I raised this earlier, the Secretary of State nodded his head in agreement, and it would be useful to have it on the record. Are we right in thinking that, under the new rules, claimants will not be forced into jobs which pay them less than benefit? In other words, are the Government holding the Joseph line, which was precisely that?
  Mr. Scott: If I may say so, commissioners' decisions have for many years past, under Governments of both persuasions, decided that it is legitimate for people to have to take a job which pays below the level of benefit they have been receiving. Under both Governments the commissioners have made this decision, so we are not changing this. What this Government have done, by the development of family credit, by our alterations to tax thresholds and other measures, is to make it almost impossible for anybody to be better off in benefit than in work.
  Mr. Field: So the message we can take to our constituencies is that, thanks to all these marvellous changes the Government have made, people will not find themselves in the position of having to take a job which pays less than benefit?
  Mr. Scott: I think the hon. Gentleman should read what I said in Hansard very carefully, and take it from there.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—it was a timely intervention by him—talked about a con tract between the individual and the state. It is a fanciful concept, if I may say so, as he went on to say, to hold that the role of the state in this contract is to present the unemployed with a job. It seems to me that the unemployed themselves have a duty laid upon them to go out and actively seek work. What we can do as a Government is create a climate in which job opportunities expand, and we have created more job opportunities in the last 10 years in this country than any other country in Europe. We can encourage people to avail themselves o that opportunity, as we are doing in this Bill, and we can provide support services such as client advisers, counselling for the unemployed, job clubs, restart and employment training—now costing about £1·4 billion a year, and of high quality.
  I believe too that as a Government we can make a contribution in moving jobs away from the areas of the country where the employment situation is tight and flourishing and away to the less developed parts of the United Kingdom. I very much hope that we will be able to do that, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will lend his support to us as a Government when some of the Luddites

  787
  in the London Labour party oppose it when we begin to move jobs in the social security system out of central London.
  The hon. Member for Derby, South said that other countries did not have the provisions that we are putting forward. If I may, let me just tell the hon. Lady before I sit down what happens in Australia. In Australia, unemployment claimants have to register continuously with the Commonwealth employment service; they have actively to look for work; all claimants have to send fortnightly details of activity to their regional office; a claimant about whom there is a doubt as to whether he is making a real effort to find work must complete a work intention form, a questionnaire about his intentions and availability. If doubt still remains, a work effort certificate is issued by the mobile review team requiring claimants to provide signatures of employers he has approached. That is at least as tough as, and in my view tougher, than the proposals in this Bill.
  I believe there is general support for what we are doing through the introduction of this clause and the clauses that are associated with it, and I believe that only the most perverse interpretation could describe this as punishment rather than encouragement of the unemployed into jobs. I believe this will encourage self-reliance and independence on the part of people in this country, and I make no apologies at all to the hon. Gentleman for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) for making that a major thrust of this policy.
  Most people actively seek work. We are talking not about the majority of unemployed people who are actively seeking work but about the minority of people who are not actively seeking work. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) gave a clear example. Even the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) had to admit that a minority of people exploit the system. Genuine claimants have nothing to fear from our proposals. I believe that they will be welcomed by the country as a whole, and I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 230.

  Division No. 28]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Alexander, Richard

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Boswell, Tim

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Amos, Alan

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bowis, John

  Ashby, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Atkinson, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bright, Graham

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Bendall, Vivian

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Burns, Simon

  Benyon, W.

  Burt, Alistair

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Butler, Chris

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Butterfill, John

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  788

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cash, William

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hayward, Robert

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heddle, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hill, James

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Conway, Derek

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Holt, Richard

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Howard, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Howarth, Alan (Start'd-on-A)

  Cran, James

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Critchley, Julian

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Curry, David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Hunt, John (Wirral W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Devlin, Tim

  Irvine, Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Irving, Charles

  Dicks, Terry

  Jack, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jackson, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Janman, Tim

  Dover, Den

  Jessel, Toby

  Dunn, Bob

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Durant, Tony

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Eggar, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Key, Robert

  Evennett, David

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Fallon, Michael

  Knapman, Roger

  Favell, Tony

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Knowles, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Knox, David

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lang, Ian

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Latham, Michael

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lawerence, Ivan

  Forman, Nigel

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Forth, Eric

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lightbown, David

  Franks, Cecil

  Lilley, Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  French, Douglas

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Gale, Roger

  Lord, Michael

  Gardiner, George

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  McCrindle, Robert

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Gorst, John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gow, Ian

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Maples, John

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Marland, Paul

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gregory, Conal

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mates, Michael

  Grist, Ian

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Ground, Patrick

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Grylls, Michael

  Mellor, David

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mills, Iain

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hannam, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Harris, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  789

  Moss, Malcolm

  Sumberg, David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mudd, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Needham, Richard

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Neubert, Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thorne, Neil

  Norris, Steve

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thurnham, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Paice, James

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Tracey, Richard

  Pawsey, James

  Tredinnick, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Trippier, David

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Portillo, Michael

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Price, Sir David

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Redwood, John

  Ward, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Watts, John

  Rost, Peter

  Wheeler, John

  Rowe, Andrew

  Whitney, Ray

  Ryder, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wilshire, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sims, Roger

  Wolfson, Mark

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wood, Timothy

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  Speller, Tony

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mr. David Maclean and

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mr. Tom Sackville.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Caborn, Richard

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Alton, David

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Anderson, Donald

  Canavan, Dennis

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cartwright, John

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clay, Bob

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clelland, David

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Cohen, Harry

  Barron, Kevin

  Coleman, Donald

  Battle, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Corbett, Robin

  Beggs, Roy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beith, A. J.

  Cousins, Jim

  Bell, Stuart

  Cox, Tom

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Crowther, Stan

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Cryer, Bob

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cummings, John

  Blair, Tony

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Blunkett, David

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Boateng, Paul

  Dalyell, Tam

  Boyes, Roland

  Darling, Alistair

  Bradley, Keith

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Dixon, Don

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Dobson, Frank

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Doran, Frank

  Buchan, Norman

  Douglas, Dick

  Buckley, George J.

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  790

  Eadie, Alexander

  Martlew, Eric

  Eastham, Ken

  Maxton, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Meacher, Michael

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Meale, Alan

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Michael, Alun

  Fearn, Ronald

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Fisher, Mark

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Flannery, Martin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Flynn, Paul

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morley, Elliott

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Foster, Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Foulkes, George

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Fraser, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Fyfe, Maria

  Murphy, Paul

  Galbraith, Sam

  Nellist, Dave

  Galloway, George

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  O'Brien, William

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Gordon, Mildred

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Gould, Bryan

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Parry, Robert

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Patchett, Terry

  Grocott, Bruce

  Pendry, Tom

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Haynes, Frank

  Prescott, John

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Henderson, Doug

  Redmond, Martin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Reid, Dr John

  Holland, Stuart

  Richardson, Jo

  Home Robertson, John

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Howells, Geraint

  Rogers, Allan

  Hoyle, Doug

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Illsley, Eric

  Salmond, Alex

  Ingram, Adam

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Janner, Greville

  Sheerman, Barry

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Short, Clare

  Kilfedder, James

  Sillars, Jim

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lambie, David

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

  Lamond, James

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Snape, Peter

  Leighton, Ron

  Soley, Clive

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lewis, Terry

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Litherland, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Livsey, Richard

  Stott, Roger

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Strang, Gavin

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Straw, Jack

  McAllion, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  McCartney, Ian

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  McCusker, Harold

  Turner, Dennis

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Vaz, Keith

  McFall, John

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Wall, Pat

  McKelvey, William

  Wallace, James

  McLeish, Henry

  Walley, Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Wareing, Robert N.

  McWilliam, John

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Madden, Max

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mallon, Seamus

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Marek, Dr John

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wilson, Brian

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Winnick, David

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  791

  Wray, Jimmy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths and

  Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of Mr. Neil Kinnock relating to Social Security may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock, or for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Fallon]

  SOCIAL SECURITY BILL [MONEY]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security Bill it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (i) any expenses incurred under the Act by a Minister of the Crown;

  (ii) any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act;

  (b) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Scott.]

  Cold Weather Payments
  Motion made and question proposed,
  That the Social Fund Cold Weather Payments (General) Amendment Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988, No. 1908), dated 2nd November 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd November in the last Session of Parliament, be revoked.—[Mrs. Beckett.]
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: With our customary generosity and magnanimity, it is a pleasure to congratulate the Government on adopting two of the improvements that we suggested to the severe weather payment scheme that we suggested, and on removing some of the—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Right hon. and hon. Members beyond the Bar should either enter the Chamber or leave quietly.
  Mr. Flynn: With this measure, the Government have removed one of the scheme's more demented features, whereby the seven-day qualifying period had to start on a Monday. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said last year that, unfortunately, in the past the frost had proved incapable of grasping the administrative convenience of starting any cold snap at the beginning of a working week. Are we perhaps experiencing a few flakes of Government generosity? Alas, no. The Government are propelled more by baser motives—particularly the crucial embarrassment factor.
  In our last debate on social services, the House was treated to the announcement of the LEB money, or the Lawson embarrassment bonus. Money that was not available three weeks earlier, at the time of the Autumn Statement, or of the uprating statement, was suddenly found. All the arguments on the side of compassion, justice and fairness failed—but the purse strings snapped open to save the face of a vain and crumbling Chancellor. That was a valuable lesson for us all. Tonight, perhaps we will hear again about the winter premiums, because they were rejected by a previous Minister on the ground that he would be embarrassed if he had to increase the payments to pensioners in the autumn and then reduce them later, in the spring.
  Many deserving groups throughout the country are praying that the Chancellor will devote another unattributable briefing to their cause, witnessed only by 10 journalists and a silent tape recorder. Many past decisions have been affected by the embarrassment factor. Perhaps one day there will be a scientific treatise on what happens as soon as the embarrassment quotient reaches a certain level and triggers Government action.
  When the cold weather payment scheme was put to the test in 1986–87, it collapsed under the weight of its own complexity and absurdity. It is claimed that last winter it worked well—but it was not put to a severe test then. Tonight, the House is considering a scheme that remains wretched and ineffective. The miserly payment is still stuck at £5, despite soaring fuel costs and before electricity privatisation and the dreaded nuclear tax.
  The average amount paid for heat and light by pensioners on the basic pension is £8 a week throughout the year and more than £16 a week throughout the winter months. There is no compensation for losses suffered by the elderly, the disabled and young families—losses which have been caused by the Government, principally by

  793
  abolishing heating additions that the elderly and people with children automatically receive under supplementary benefits. The Government will have taken £11·05 a week from all pensioners and £17·50 a week from couples by next April by severing the link between earnings and pensions. Instead of paying out automatically, they have chosen again to persist in forcing everyone to claim, thereby wasting money and reducing take-up. Last time there were claims on a significant scale, in the winter of 1986–87, 500,000 people out of a total of 1,400,000 who were entitled to claim did not. The cost of advertising the scheme in 1987 was the same as the severe weather payments to 82,800 people.
  Why not change the system to an automatic pay-out? I was told in an answer from the Minister about the social security settlement that all the necessary details were available, except the information about whether the recipients possessed sums of £500. That problem could be eliminated by raising the limit above the rather disagreeable level of £500, the sum that many elderly people possess as funeral money. It should be raised to £3,000—that is the simple answer. Many people would then be given the extra money automatically and simply.
  We could do with another examination of the local temperature figures which have been the subject of so much ridicule. The pay-out should be national or regional. In this context, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are treated as nations. That was what happened in 1987, when the Secretary of State decided to ignore his scheme and to declare a national trigger. A national system would mean a slight increase in the numbers receiving the benefit, but the administrative costs would plummet and take-up would rise to 100 per cent. Such a system would be simpler and cheaper and would reach those in greatest peril.
  For peril it is. Each British winter, 40,000 people die because they are cold as well as old. The message from the Government to vulnerable people should be: turn up the heating when the bitter weather starts—your extra payment is guaranteed. In Britain, the death rate among the over-60s rises by 20 per cent. in the winter, as compared with the summer, and the death rate for children under one year old is 40 per cent. higher. These differences do not occur in Canada, Sweden or Norway, although those countries have far more severe winters.
  We know that there is no scientifically accepted causal link between winter deaths and the cold, and that the matter is now under investigation, but we should not be guilty of avoiding the obvious explanation, which is that we, like New Zealand, which has a pattern of winter deaths similar to ours, have exceptionally unpredictable weather. To these unpredictable changes we need a response that is entirely reliable and predictable.
  The recent report by the King's Fund Research Institute, based on World Health Organisation figures, found that men over 65 can now expect to live longer in 20 other countries, including Sri Lanka and Uruguay, than in Britain; and that women of the same age have a higher life expectancy in 16 other countries, including Greece and Spain. The poor showing in Britain is blamed on severe poverty and disadvantage among a large minority.
  Our task is to convince those who are at risk that they have nothing to worry about when severe weather hits them. Fuel poverty is, sadly, just one symptom of general poverty. Many families and individuals are being cruelly hit by the cumulative effects of the neglected basic pension, of the losses of housing benefit, which has been cut by £600
  794
  million, and of the problems of repaying budget or crisis loans. People are now finding that their additional bills are not covered because their benefits are frozen by transitional payments.
  The "keep well, keep warm" campaign message, which could have been useful, was eclipsed, or rather obliterated, when a junior Minister patronisingly told the old to dress up like Mother Hubbard. The Government's message should have been that they would guarantee extra payments, but that unfortunate statement by the Minister showed that the Government do not understand or care, and that people are on their own. Of course, the Government proved in the Budget that they care for some people. There was a tax handout to Sir Ralph Halpern of £4,728 a week, which over a year is the price of severe weather payments for 49,171 people. The Government do care for the old and the cold, but they care 49,000 times as much for the super-rich.
  We have frequently quoted the figure that, under the Labour Government, basic pensions increased in real terms by 20 per cent., whereas under this Government, basic pensions have increased by a mere 2 per cent. From a new look at the figures, we have discovered that the pensioners who are worse off have had no increase in income at all in real terms. A pensioner on income support now receives, in real terms, £1 less than in 1979. If we make comparisons between pensioners who are over 80 and the disabled now and then—even those who enjoy the higher pensioner premium—we find that the same difference exists. Those pensioners in greatest need have suffered a loss in income in real terms of £1 a week.
  That scheme is crude and does not take into account fuel costs, which vary widely. Not all homes are adequately efficient thermally and not all people enjoy the same health. The elderly, the disabled and those young families will feel the cold coming in the next few weeks and are wondering what their reaction will be. Will the Government make another attempt to hold down the cost of benefit by discouraging people, or will we hear from the Government tonight suggestions for really improving the scheme? If we do not, fuel poverty will intensify in depth and extent.
  I have had letters from constituents about the matter, as I am sure many other hon. Members have. One letter says:
  "Yes, I have central heating"—
  many elderly people enjoy central heating now—
  "but I took a drop in income in April and with inflation, which doubled the drop, I cannot afford to put the heating on."
  Unless the Government have a serious policy—rather than one that is mainly ornamental—to tackle the great winter cull caused by fuel poverty, there will be even more deaths in the future. We look forward to hearing about the Government's new policies.
  10.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who has had a busy evening, on his skilful speech. He wisely said little about the amendment regulations against which the Opposition are praying, except to take credit for them, rather eccentrically. However, his approval is welcome. No one would have known from his speech, which inveighed against the Government for parsimony, that the

  795
  last Labour Government had no effective scheme for giving extra help to the least well-off in times of severe weather.
  The regulations extend to more people the provisions contained in the regulations laid before the House on 7 October. As the hon. Gentleman has said so little about them, the House may find it helpful if I spend a few minutes describing what they do. The amendment regulations, coupled with the earlier regulations, make extra cash available to vulnerable people receiving income support, who have less than £500 capital, to help them to pay their heating bills during any very cold spells this winter.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Why do the Government insist on continuing with the £500 limit?
  Mr. Lloyd: Because we wish to direct the help to those with the most limited means. That is the fairest way of doing it. Those with more capital have a cushion with which to meet any extra payments. Does the hon. Lady deny that that helps to direct the scheme to those who need it most?
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Minister must know, as do all hon. Members who hold constituency surgeries, that old people keep £500 against their funeral costs, and hold it sacrosanct. That £500 disqualifies them from receiving the severe weather payments that he is trying—as we are all trying—to enable them to receive.
  Mr. Lloyd: It does not disqualify them. They may disqualify themselves if they hold that view, but most do not. They have the resources; we are directing the scheme towards those who do not. We are continuing that additional help—which the Government have provided in one form or another for the last few years, but which their Labour predecessor did not match—for those members of society most likely to worry about using extra heating during any spell of unusually cold winter weather.
  The help, of course, is over and above the provision made via income support for normal heating expenses. Indeed, all the money paid out in previous years as heating additions—£417 million in the year ending last March—has been included in the income support allowances and premiums. That £417 million, as I am sure that the hon. Member for Newport, West knows, is some 55 per cent. more in real terms than his party was paying out in heating additions in 1978–79.
  What is more, the heating additions that the Labour Government did pay failed to reach some 30 per cent. of pensioners on supplementary benefit. Whether that was because they did not qualify or because they could not find their way through the byzantine regulations the hon. Member for Newport, West may like to tell us when he winds up for the Opposition. What I think that he cannot tell us is that that 30 per cent. did not include many who need extra assistance in exceptionally cold weather. Nor can he deny that since last April that £417 million is being redirected automatically through the premiums to all in the vulnerable groups on income support.
  The new regulations bring forward and significantly extend the scheme that was operated successfully—
  Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Minister confirm that the paragraph that he has just read to the House itself confirms—albeit in the subtext—that what the Government did to heating additions last April was abolish them in their entirety?
  Mr. Lloyd: No. What they did was include them in another form in the premiums that went automatically to the vulnerable groups. The hon. Gentleman knows, as do all his hon. Friends who have truly studied the matter, that the various additions did not always reach those whom they were intended to reach and who would have benefited from them, because they were complex and because they operated under various rules. Those who received them would have had them back through the various premiums.
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I am sorry to challenge the Minister again, but he has said twice that no such scheme of payments existed under the previous Labour Government. If he looks back, he will discover that a scheme—a better scheme—did exist under that Government. The only justification for his statement, which I have also heard the Prime Minister make—although I accept that the matter may not have been explained to him in its entirety—is that the present Government redefined the scheme as one that operated only in exceptionally severe weather, to reduce its scope. That is the only justification for saying that the scheme is unique. It is actually a worse scheme than the one operated by his predecessor.
  Mr. Lloyd: What the hon. Lady has not told us is what that scheme was. Perhaps she or one of her colleagues will do so. As far as I know—I look forward to hearing from Opposition Members—in times of particularly severe weather the scheme gave insubstantial amounts to those who were most vulnerable.
  Mrs. Beckett: Yes. Payments were made under the single payment regulations when there was prolonged severe weather.
  Mr. Lloyd: That scheme did exist. That is why I said that there was no effective scheme, not that there was no scheme at all. As the hon. Lady knows, payments for exceptionally severe weather were negligible. If she can give me figures that demonstrate otherwise, I shall be very interested to hear them. But I chose my words carefully, and I think that they will stand up to close examination, in relation both to what happens under our scheme and what happened when the Opposition were in power.
  Mr. Andrew Bowden: As my hon. Friend will know, I have not always agreed with the Government's policy on pensioners. But, in fairness to my hon. Friend—and I wish to congratulate the Government on these measures—is it not a fact that 10 years ago we were spending approximately £100 million a year on all forms of heating additions, whereas in the last financial year we spent well in excess of £400 million? That must be a positive step forward, although there is still a great deal more to be done.
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right in the first three quarters of his statement and he can make a good case for the last quarter, which no doubt he will do when he makes his speech.
  The new regulations link entitlement to the income support pensioner premiums, thereby allowing men and

  797
  women aged 60 to 64 to qualify for the first time. They also provide for people receiving a disability premium, or families which include a child entitled to a child disability premium to qualify, affording continued provision for those most vulnerable because of ill health.
  We have deliberately kept the arrangements as simple as possible by linking entitlement to these straightforward criteria. This has the advantage of making the rules easy for people to understand and for our local offices to operate. It also has an added advantage, as income support makes no distinction—unlike supplementary benefit—between householders and non-householders. Consequently, under the new regulations non-householders on income support will qualify for help for the first time.
  Mr. James Wallace: I appreciate what the Minister said about simplicity, because it is on the grounds of alleged lack of simplicity that he has never been sympathetic to the question I have put many times about the wind chill factor. If the Minister has difficulty in trying to cope with meteorological data, would it not be simpler to designate various areas of the country that have a record of more severe weather and allow higher increments for the payments in those areas?
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not think so. The shape of the scheme is such that in areas of the country with more severe weather the trigger will be activated more often. Therefore, there will be more payments. The scheme is sensitive to the areas of the country with, on average, colder weather than elsewhere.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: My constituency rests in the Pennines, and our weather station is in Leeds. Many of the communities that house elderly people and families are well above the snow line and the Leeds weather centre does not reflect that cold weather. Wind chill is relevant when one is on a housing estate on the top of a hill in the Pennines, and Leeds is lower down.
  Mr. Lloyd: I cannot confess to knowing the hon. Lady's constituency well enough—
  Mrs. Mahon: The Minister should know.
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that I should. There are 63 weather stations throughout the country and they were chosen to give the best representation for the area they serve. I heard what the hon. Lady said, and I shall take note of her point. I will be in touch with her at a later date. I cannot rebut her point at the Disptach Box now.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister reflect on the fact that it is possible to assess the wind chill factor for any point in the country? It is done in other countries, including the United States and many eastern European countries where winters are very cold. Can he not simply instruct his officials in the Department that henceforth the wind chill factor as well as the ordinary temperature should be the deciding factors in whether the trigger is activated? Simply using the temperature clearly understates the cold weather in which many elderly people suffer.
  Mr. Lloyd: The best guide to temperature and the need for extra fuel use is the air temperature, not the wind chill. That is an added complication which could make it much more difficult to determine how payments should be made,
  798
  without being any fairer. In many respects it would be less fair, because wind chill affects differently the top and bottom of a building and varies according to the direction in which a building faces. If one were to operate that system fairly, as I am sure the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) would, it would have to be far more complicated than he suggested and, ultimately, it would be less fair. I am certain that the air temperature is the best guide.
  The hon. Member for Newport, West wants to put in place of this simple but responsive and fair scheme a much more wide-ranging winter premium which, if I understood him aright, should be paid regardless of whether the winter is cold or mild and regardless of whether the individual lives in an area that is experiencing the worst of the winter or an area that is faring comparatively well.
  I fear that such a proposal would not be seen to be meeting the particular cold weather need, because such a premium would quickly come to be regarded as part of normal benefit. Inevitably, those people suffering the worst of any winter weather would claim—on grounds of common equity, wind chill or some other factor—some additional benefit in recognition of their special need for extra heating.
  Such calls would be entirely logical. They are met now by the provision that we are debating but which the hon. Member for Newport, West wants to change and which, technically, he is praying against. Moreover, the introduction of a winter premium would, as he rightly remarked, cause considerable administrative difficulty, because provision for only part of the year would oblige large numbers of claimants to float on and then float off benefit—hardly the sort of simplification of the system that we have tried to achieve through the social security reforms.
  There is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman would have great difficulty in explaining to claimants why their benefit was being reduced each April, just when benefit rates for others were being increased, especially to those on solid fuel who stock up for winter during the summer and pay the bills then.
  Mr. Flynn: I mentioned a winter premium only to illustrate the embarrassing problems that the Government face. I regret that the Minister is not treating this matter with the seriousness it deserves. There are 40,000 extra deaths in the winter. We have made a number of suggestions to the Minister. This matter is of great importance and it deserves a better response from him, rather than the political point-scoring in which he is now engaging.
  Mr. Lloyd: The point-scoring has come from Opposition Members. The bills come in after the payments have been made. The hon. Gentleman said he mentioned the winter premium in passing, as it were. Perhaps I am taking the issue too seriously by replying to it. Certainly I am taking it seriously because I appreciate that, as an idea, it has superficial attraction to people other than those who think carefully about what it would imply.
  The changes that we are making are all beneficial and practical. They double the potential number of payments that might be made under the scheme this year as compared with that which operated last year. As a result, we would expect to pay out a potential maximum of £10

  799
  million in a single week this winter should the whole country experience very cold weather, as opposed to a cost of £4·7 million under the same regulations last year.
  Those changes also ensure that arrangements for making claims this winter will continue to be straightforward. I believe that if there are many more claims, they can be met administratively most efficiently, contrary to the suspicions that the hon. Member for Newport, West has voiced. Notices will be placed in local newspapers telling people whenever a weather station records temperatures that trigger payments. The notices will include a simple application form which may be completed and sent to the local office. The simplicity of that is illustrated by the fact that, once a payment has been made as a result of such a claim, no further claim is necessary for the rest of the winter and payments will automatically be made for any subsequent spells of cold weather.
  Mr. David Winnick: The Minister did not seem to appreciate in his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) the point that we are making, which is that, even in the sort of weather we have been having this winter—not freezing—large numbers of pensioners and others are finding it almost impossible adequately to heat their accommodation because they do not have sufficient money. That certainly applies to those on income support and those living at the poverty or near-poverty level.
  Mr. Lloyd: We debated those points in the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate just before Christmas. I do not want to debate them again, but I stress that income support levels are set so that they are sufficient to meet normal heating costs. We are now discussing extra costs in exceptional weather. That is what the scheme is designed for; it does it well and efficiently.
  As well as making those substantial improvements, we are promoting the scheme widely in co-operation with a number of voluntary bodies. The hon. Member for Newport, West mentioned the "keep warm, keep well" campaign which we are organising with Help the Aged, Neighbourhood Energy Action and Age Concern. The campaign is to increase public awareness about the need for people to take the proper precautions to keep warm during very cold weather. It is a mark of the success of the initiative—however attention was drawn to it—that the subject has already generated such public debate so early in the winter.
  We have taken the opportunity to tell people about the social fund cold weather payments in the publicity which has been given to the "keep warm, keep well" campaign in England and Wales and the "keep warm this winter" campaign in Scotland.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the very worrying problem of excess winter mortality. Excess winter mortality has shown a welcome decline during the past 30 years. If he draws political lessons from those statistics, perhaps he would like to comment on the fact that there was an upward movement during the last Labour Government, but the downward trend has been resumed and is continuing. However, the number of excess deaths—some 35,000 each year—is still far too high. We are very pleased that the Medical Research Council is undertaking a study to report to the Government where it
  800
  would be worth while for additional research to be carried out so that the problem can be understood and effectively tackled.
  Clearly, it is not just a matter of money, although that might be the case if one compared the amount spent on heating and conditions under the last Labour Government with what is spent now. Some of the research shows that if one compares the mortality rates among elderly people in accommodation where there is full central heating and there is no penalty if the heating is on all the time with those who have to watch their fuel costs more carefully and sharply, there is no difference in mortality. It is perfectly clear that some problems arise when elderly people go out not dressed warmly enough for the winter.
  I make no apology for saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) was right to suggest that one thing that elderly people could do in their own interests was to dress up warmly for the winter. It is a great pity that Opposition Members jeered and scoffed at that, helping to lose the important message that she was conveying.
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: Does the Minister agree that dressing up warmly is also a question of money, and that a really good warm winter coat is very expensive? Is is not ironic that councils are trying hard to install central heating, but some pensioners with central heating are still huddled over their gas ovens in the kitchen because they are afraid of the bills? Would it not make more sense for the Government's campaign if pensioners knew that when the temperature and the wind chill factor —which should also be taken into account—triggers off a very cold spell, they should automatically get payment for every day?
  If a bank can calculate interest on a daily basis, surely the Government can calculate payment for cold weather on a daily basis. If a pensioner lays out money for a cold spell that lasts six days and gets nothing back, he or she runs into debt. That is what they are afraid of. They should not have to be pauperised by savings of as little as £500. Any Government who are really serious about pensioners' health and mortality rates should take that into account.
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Lady has made several points and will no doubt make them again if she joins in the debate. In answer to her first point, many elderly people can dress much more warmly than they think with the clothes that they already have. Although I agree that a new coat can be quite expensive, not everybody necessarily needs to wear new clothes to keep warm.
  Mrs. Mahon: Must the elderly use jumble sales, then?
  Mr. Lloyd: Well, many people do. I am a great attender of second-hand clothes sales for charities in my constituency. One can get very good bargains at them.
  Mr. Winnick: For Tory Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Lloyd: Yes, and for anybody else who cares to go.
  Mr. Wallace rose—
  Mr. Lloyd: Before I conclude, I shall give way again, because I have given way to other hon. Members.
  Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know that time is getting on. However, I have been puzzling for some time about in what possible way the inclusion of the wind chill factor could make the system

  801
  less fair. Surely the Minister is not suggesting that it could produce a situation where people who qualify under the existing scheme would not qualify if the wind chill factor were taken into account. For many people the wind chill factor has a real effect—making their homes and lives colder. It is real and measurable, so at the very least, will the Minister say that he will look into the matter? That would be one small concession, but we would appreciate it far more if he were willing to take that factor fully into account.
  Mr. Lloyd: I did look into that and can only repeat that the most significant factor in all this is air temperature, not wind chill. That is why we have not included the wind chill factor—although the administrative problems are very real as well.
  The regulations are generous, and make the payments more widely available. They are more sensitive to sudden changes in temperature than were last year's arrangements, and they offer real help to those most at risk. I therefore commend them to the House.
  10.52 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Many of us who had hoped that we would see a change of attitude from the Minister must be extremely disappointed by his remarks. Although we recommended the changes that come about in this statutory instrument, some of his remarks were appalling and insulting to the elderly and the handicapped in our community. The idea that our elderly population —people who have worked all their lives, earning a decent living and trying to save for their old age—should somehow be condemned to the second-hand shops for their winter woolies is despicable from a Government Department, and I am extremely distressed by it.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I am sure that the hon. Lady will readily concede that many elderly people have to shop in second-hand shops and, because they have lived through the thirties, forties, fifties and sixties, have a history of shopping in such shops to find warm clothes. The hon. Lady, myself and many other hon. Members, have visited elderly people who sit huddled around one-bar fires dressed in such clothes. Is that what the Minister seeks to perpetuate?
  Mrs. Ewing: I am in total agreement with my hon. Friend. As one who has canvassed over the years in various inner cities as well as rural areas, I have come across many such instances and, sadly, I do not find that the numbers are declining. It is a terrible condemnation of our society that, in the latter part of the 20th century, people should still live in such circumstances.
  The Government are tinkering around the edges of a very real problem and are not taking full cognizance of the effects of their own legislation. Trying to score political points in this issue is a false move on their part. It would be much better if we saw a radical approach to trying to safeguard our elderly, weak and handicapped.
  We welcome the alteration of the seven-day regulation, because it was ludicrous to expect weather conditions to fit into a neat regular pattern. We very much welcome that, and we appreciate, too, the fact that we shall now see families with children up to the age of five included in the regulations, because that will take account of all the under-school-age children.
  Nonetheless, there are major criticisms. One of the reasons for the prayer is to give us a real opportunity to lay before the Government the Opposition's deep concerns — and, I believe, those of some Conservative Members—about how we deal with our climatic conditions. I believe, for example, that the £5 payment takes no account of rising fuel costs. The notional fuel element, which is included in the old housing benefit regulations, indicated a minimum of £8·80 per week to take account of fuel costs to keep a house warm and to ensure that there were adequate supplies of hot water and cooking facilities. The £5 payment obviously comes nowhere near meeting those needs.
  Likewise, the £500 capital limit, about which I intervened during the Under-Secretary's earlier comments, is seen by many people as an insult to the independence and the dignity of many pensioners who have saved that sum of money as a way of meeting their funeral costs. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they are trying to target, because they are missing the target. If they
  804
  were to move the £500 limit up substantially, we might then accept that they were trying to target effectively. However, the limit of £500 savings is a minimum sum. It is a sum which nowadays means nothing to most people, but to the pensioners £500 often represents their life savings from their poor wages.
  I am from a family where my mother took out the penny-a-week Prudential insurance policy to save for her funeral, so that she would not feel that in death she would be a burden to her family. That may seem to us strange, but it is the reality in which many elderly people find themselves. To set the limit at £500 is to deny the efforts that those people have made to save over the years to ensure that they give their family—in death as well as in life—the kind of opportunities they did not have. They do not want to be a burden in death, and the £500 limit is a gross insult.
  I reject, too, the idea that there should be a regressive claim for severe weather payments. What we need is a progressive attitude, which ensures that the payments are there before the cold weather arrives. When the first frosts come or the first snow falls, we must ensure that people can turn on their fires, or put extra coal on their fires, or switch on their gas heating, or use whatever their source of fuel may be, and not have to worry about whether they will be able to meet the bill at the end of the day. We would especially like to see the regressive aspect of the claim removed.
  The Under-Secretary spoke about 63 places of measurement of temperature for severe weather payments. I represent a constituency which contains Tomintoul, the highest village in Scotland, and the whole area of the Braes of Glenlivet, which are perhaps better known to many people as a source of the golden liquid of Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Inner warmth."] These are very cold areas. While hon. Members joke about the inner warmth, I assure them that the outer cold in those areas is especially severe.
  I point out to the House that the measurement of the temperatures in those areas are not taken at Aviemore, which would be the logical place, but on the coastline, where the temperatures are, naturally, much warmer. We must look at the 63 places of measurement—a point made,
  too, by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon)—if we are to take account of the real climatic conditions in which many people find themselves.
  These regulations also do not take account of the realities of the climatic conditions. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) mentioned the wind chill factor. The Under-Secretary has said that we only need to worry about exceptional as opposed to normal conditions. Normal conditions must be taken into account, because the prevailing climatic conditions are significant to people's health during the winter months.
  Scotland accounts for 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom population, but 25 per cent. of deaths from hypothermia are recorded in Scotland. That reflects the effects of Scotland's prevailing weather conditions, the wind chill factor, the dampness and so on. People's health is affected by such weather and it is unnecessary for them to suffer the severe weather conditions that are the subject of this debate, and thus become ill. The Government have failed to take account of those prevailing weather conditions.
  We in the SNP have suggested that there should be an overall cold climate allowance that would take account of

  805
  the climatic conditions from the north of the United Kingdom to the south. Tapering payments should be made during the winter months to all those who receive income support, to pensioners and to the handicapped. We believe that that is the best way forward.
  In Glasgow it is 20 per cent. more expensive to heat a house than in Bristol; in Aberdeen it is 30 per cent. more expensive. Sometimes such figures underestimate the problems. Recently the Department of Energy published "Degree Days" figures which suggested that a house in Aberdeen would need 50 per cent. more heat to achieve the same average internal heat as a house in Bristol.
  A cold climate allowance that took into account the varying climatic conditions from north to south would ensure that people need not worry about heating their homes and would ensure that they were not left in a ridiculous situation.
  I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak and my final plea is that the Government consider the standing charges imposed by the gas and electricity boards. I met an elderly widower at a recent surgery—I shall not give his name—and his basic charge for electricity in a quarter was 83p. One wonders how on earth a pensioner had such a basic charge. His standing charge, however, was £8·44. I asked him what he did with his days to try to keep warm. He told me that he walked around a supermarket, he went into a cafe for a cup of tea and stayed there for many hours. That was his alternative to sitting at home and having to put on an electric fire, which he might not be able to afford. The Government should take up the removal of the standing charges directly with the boards, and they should do so forthwith, because it is important.
  If an automatic allowance was given to all pensioners and those with handicapped relatives within their families, the Government could achieve major savings. I noted that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was here earlier. I hope that he was not here to carry out a penny-pinching exercise. We impose burdens on our Health Service by allowing people to develop illnesses such as bronchitis and other chest diseases that are associated with winter cold. Often, such diseases result in death. Major savings to the Health Service could be achieved if people were not placed in circumstances where they are prey to such diseases.
  I believe that we have a moral obligation to speak out, given that, compared with the rest of Europe, we have the highest number of deaths as a result of cold-related illnesses during the winter months. That is a terrible condemnation of our present system, and all sides of the House should sincerely fight against it.
  11.4 pm
  Mr. Richard Holt: Three things, I think, are in juxtaposition. First, I have the opportunity yet again to explain to hon. Members and others where Langbaurgh is. Secondly, it is actually two months after this affair should have first been debated, and one has to thank God that during the two months we have not had cold weather. Thirdly, it actually identifies and epitomises the way in which bureaucracy runs Governments, whichever party is in power, because the research notes provided by the Library tell me that there are no data available on the frequency and amounts paid during the period of the last
  806
  Labour Government. They have not even kept the records, so whether they paid any or not is a matter which the Library certainly does not know about.
  I wanted to catch your eye this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would have sought to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker two months ago, although the debate finished in the early hours of the morning, and one would not have been very popular getting up and speaking at 3 am on the cold weather payments and keeping colleagues here. Langbaurgh is a marvellous place. Few people know where it is. Few people besides those from this House who ventured there are aware that Langbaurgh is in the north-east of England.
  One lot of people who apparently do know where it is are those responsible for drawing up the lists of the areas which will be conditioned by the cold weather should it come about, but it is not straightforward for the whole of Langbaurgh; it is split. I cannot understand how one can justify the fact that, in an area as small as one's constituency, people on one side of the road can have additional payments because it is jolly cold and people on the other side of the road cannot because it is not quite so jolly cold.
  The Government have got themselves hooked—one might say something a little ruder about something twisted —on RAF cold weather points for choosing weather stations. Why choose Leeming for Langbaurgh? Why choose Whitby for Langbaurgh? Both are considerably further south than Langbaurgh. Would it not have been better to choose somewhere further north? We might have had the natural benefit of the fact that it is normally colder in the north than in the south, but it did not fit the bureaucratic mind; bureaucracy has to be satisfied.
  I had a look to see how this expressed itself in the north of England generally. I find that an area way up into Northumberland is covered by the RAF station at Leeming. Let anyone try to tell the good people of Northumberland that the temperatures and weather up there are exactly the same as the temperatures and weather down in RAF Leeming.
  Of course, if one reads the regulations very carefully, one sees that the Government pride themselves on having moved away from the Monday-to-Sunday scenario to a seven-day rolling scenario; but there is that little sting in the tail—that if any one day in the average period under review counts as exceptionally cold, and then becomes slightly warmer, it then does not count. There might be five very cold days, then two days which happen to take the average temperature up a little bit, followed by another five days of very cold weather. Over 12 days, my constituents will have had extremely cold weather. RAF Leeming may have had two days when it was not quite so cold, but no one gains any benefit.
  I wonder what kudos the Government expect to gain from this, because they are gradually, slowly, inexorably being dragged through the bureaucratic mess to a common-sense solution. And what is that common-sense solution? I will tell my hon. Friend. Last year, it was darn cold in this country, cold almost everywhere, to the point that even in this place it was freezing cold. Every Member on every side said to the Minister, "You cannot live with these regulations. You have got to give the cold weather payment." What happened? The Minister gave it. Despite all the rules and regulations, the pressure from hon. Members on all sides of the House made him change his mind.

  807
  The regulations came into force in 1985. They were amended in 1986 and 1987. They should have been amended in 1988; they are about to be amended in 1989. Eventually, however, the Government will recognise the reality of the world outside this place and say to themselves, "We intend to live no longer according to what the bureaucrats say; we shall live in the real world, where Members of Parliament are to be found."
  We realise that 90 per cent. of civil servants are to be found throughout the country—Customs and Excise officers, those who work in Department of Social Security offices and all the others—but all the policy advisers and policy makers live in the south of England. They never go to the north of England; they do not understand about the north of England. Consequently, they devise regulations that will never affect them.
  The regulations are an improvement: seven days, on a rolling basis, instead of being based on Monday to Sunday, is better; children under five instead of children under two is better, and zero deg instead of minus 1·5 deg is better. So why not face up to the responsibilities of office and say that, when it is cold in this country, it is cold all over the country, instead of seeking to say, as these pettifogging, bureaucratically led regulations say, that lists of parishes shall be identified—sometimes two houses and a pub?
  Somebody has taken thousands of hours of bureaucratic time drawing up these lists. When I asked whether I could be provided with a map, the official reply was that no map was available but that the Department had a map that was not in a form that could be photocopied. If the map is not in such a form, I have to ask: what the hell form is it in? Why cannot hon. Members have a look at it and show it to their constituents?
  My hon. Friend the Minister, who read his civil servants' brief so beautifully, said that our constituents will know when the cold weather trigger applies to them. Poppycock. They will not know when the trigger applies to them. Does the Minister expect each of my constituents in one half of my constituency who fall into this category to phone RAF Leeming or, if they live in the other half of my constituency, to phone RAF Whitby and say, "I think I have a right to put in a claim"? That is bureaucratic nonsense. It is time that the Government faced up to this responsibility and recognised that, when exceptionally cold weather occurs, we do not have to be told by a junior ex-Minister to put on an extra vest; we do it for ourselves. We know when exceptionally severe weather occurs.
  Why, therefore, are we even debating the regulations this evening? They are an improvement, but would it not have been far better if the Government had adopted a more generous attitude, although not in terms of money? It will depend on the weather. Even the Treasury cannot control the weather.
  The amount of money that has been spent on cold weather payments each year has been increased from £2 million to £5 million and then to £11 million. If we tried to find that amount in the small print of the annual outturn figures, I bet that we should spend hours in the Library trying to find it.
  One wonders how much money the Government have set aside for the cold weather payment. Is it £10 million, is it £20 million, or is it £200 million? Who knows? I can
  808
  guarantee two things: the Treasury will have it lower than it should be and the Minister responsible will not have a clue what it should be.
  Why do the Government not face up to reality and say to themselves, "Cold weather is an exceptional thing; we do not want the elderly, the sick and children to die because of an inconvenience"? I must make a personal plea for my constituency. I notice that, among the categories so far excluded, are the long-term unemployed, of whom I have too many, with children who are over five years of age. One of the worst categories in which one can find oneself in this country is that of people who are trapped as long-term unemployed and have growing children who are over five. No provision is made for them.
  That is an aside from the thrust of my main argument —that the scheme should be simpler and more generous in that there should be no pettifogging regulations tied to parishes. We should look at Scotland and perhaps divide it east-west and north-south. I do not know too much about Scotland, but I can tell my hon. Friend the Minister that, if it is cold in Newcastle, it is cold in Hartlepool and Langbaurgh. The elderly do not feel any difference if it is 0·9 deg cold or 1·1 deg cold; in either case, it is cold. We should take a broader brush. I promise the House that the Government will reconsider the regulations before many moons have passed. They will be forced to do so by power from the Back Benches.
  Few Back Benchers are present at this time of night, and few will read my speech in Hansard; I would not ask them to do that, even as a punishment. I may have put the case in a slightly light-hearted way because I have often found that that is the best way to get one's point across, but these regulations are tight, bureaucratic and nonsense. I urge my hon. Friend to take the plaudits for what the Government have done. This provision is more generous and better than any previous Government have done. We have not received enough praise for what we have done in this context, but, if there had been a small move further forward, we would not have had this debate this evening. We could all have gone home half an hour ago, thankful that the Government's generosity has been recognised.
  11.17 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Wray: Surely the Minister cannot convince us that this scheme has been a success. It is sad and disappointing that a Minister of his calibre should tell us to advise our constituents to go to jumble sales. I shall advise my constituents to go to jumble sales when I know to which jumble sales the Prime Minister sends her clothes.
  The days of the army and navy stores are all well past. I was embarrassed going to school as a Japanese general; we do not want to go back to those days. It is nonsense to impose this £500 limit. We all know that it takes £1,000 and more to bury a pensioner. Pensioners live in this world without dignity and they do not want to die without it, but that is what will happen as a result of this crude scheme.
  How can the Minister say that the scheme is a success when 40,000 people die from cold and hypothermia? The scheme cannot be a success when half a million people do not file a claim. There is considerable concern at the moment because, since the change in the social security system, people have become more vulnerable. The system of transitional payments has not been taken up. Some people who applied months ago have received no

  809
  payments. If people do not claim, they do not get paid. In deprived areas, such as my constituency of Provan, surely they should not have to sit down on a winter's day and fill in a form to get a miserable £5 a week. The £5 payment should be doubled at least.
  The people who receive the benefit are the most vulnerable in society. They are on the margins of supplementary benefit. Why, then, is the Minister not compassionate and why does he not include pensioners who are receiving housing benefit and are on the margins for supplementary benefit? The Government may say that they do not know the numbers involved, but in the early 1980s one of the biggest authorities in Scotland, Strathclyde, made them well aware of that. A fuel poverty committee was set up and during one of our coldest winters it ran around distributing barometers to pensioners so that they did not die of hypothermia.
  Mr. Holt: Thermometers.
  Mr. Wray: I could not afford a barometer, but obviously the hon. Gentleman may know about them.
  We should set up a special committee to look into cold weather payments and, instead of asking people to fill in forms, we should say that if it is cold enough, they qualify, and give them the payments.
  11.21 pm
  Mr. Andrew Bowden: To feel cold and to be cold is always unpleasant, and that must be true for the elderly. A significant number of pensioners find it difficult to keep their homes warm. There are many reasons for that and they are not all related to money or to what is available through the present system. But every estimate and survey consistently reveals that about 50 per cent. of our pensioners are living in under-heated homes, so we must accept, as I know my hon. Friend the Minister does, that there is a real problem.
  It is a pity that during this debate there has not been a more generous response from the Opposition about what has been achieved in the past 10 years because we have taken a substantial step forward compared with the 1970s. To that extent I warmly congratulate the Government on the major improvements in the heating cost provisions, but there is still a great deal to be done. With full computerisation now in the process of coming into operation for identifying the financial position of our 10 million pensioners, we should be able to bring into place systems which will act much more efficiently and ensure that those who need additional resources but who are not claiming them, receive them.
  Tonight nobody has commented on the 1 million or so pensioners who are not claiming income support when they could do so. Because of that those people lose out on heating additions. Can the Minister tell the House that, when the system is fully in place, his Department will be able to identify all those who receive only the basic pension and should be claiming income support—[HoN. MEMBERS: "It has."]—more clearly and specifically than now?
  If that is the case—and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments—we are obligated to ensure that people receive not just heating additions but income support, and to find out why 1 million of them have not been claiming it. In that way, we shall ensure that those at the very lowest end of the scale, who currently receive only
  810
  a basic pension, will also be given income support and heating additions, and will benefit under the new measure before the House.
  The time is coming when we must think in terms of automatic payments. I give full credit to the Government for the progress that has been made. In past years, one had to claim for every specific period for which one might be entitled to heating benefit. Now, one claims only once. which ensures that payments will automatically be made for the rest of the year, as and when the appropriate terms are met. But automatic payments should continue not just for one year but for the year after also, so that those entitled to payments will continue receiving them, even if they forget to claim again. That will steadily eliminate the number not in receipt of their full entitlements.
  I strongly support the appeals made by a number of hon. Members in respect of the existing £500 limit. I say to my hon. Friend that it is not good enough. The wartime generation of pensioners in particular have saved and put aside a sum of money for their funerals—and they will go without food, heating and clothing rather than touch those savings. Many of them incorrectly believe that, if they cannot pay for their funeral, they will have a pauper's burial.
  Only a few months ago, an elderly constituent well into her eighties told me that she will never touch her £500 savings because she believes if she dies in Brighton without that money to ensure that she will be properly buried—"to give me the right send off," she said—she will be put in a cardboard box. I eventually managed to convince her that that is not true, but for every case that we hear about, there are 100 more who believe the same. Those pensioners insist on keeping £500 aside, but they are placed in an unfair situation as a result, in respect of their entitlement to cold weather payments.
  I beg the Minister to reconsider that aspect as soon as possible and to twist the arm of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is no longer in the Chamber, but we understand the pressures on all Ministers. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will twist my right hon. Friend's arm severely, to see whether he can at least raise the savings limit from £500 to £1,000, which will be a good start to increasing the sum still higher in the future.
  We must never be satisfied until there is 100 per cent. take-up of social security entitlements, and until every pensioner has a warm and comfortable home.
  11.28 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am always grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), because his record of speaking up in the House for pensioners' rights is well known. I also have the pleasure of serving under him on the all-party pensions committee. I respond to his opening remarks by acknowledging that these are welcome changes, as other right hon. and hon. Members will also recognise. However, as the hon. Member for Kemptown said later, much more can be done.
  The additional resources that the changes make available are not very significant. I was interested to hear the Under-Secretary say that the amount devoted to severe weather payments, if calculated on a national basis, is

  811
  increased from £4·7 million to £10 million. What rate of take-up does the Department presume in arriving at that figure?
  At any rate, much more can and should be done. The Government have the power by regulation—not a difficult thing in this place—to increase the size of the groups who qualify, and the range of climatic conditions that allow cold weather payments to be made. They should use that power more generously than they have in the past. Present income support levels are not adequate to cope with extended severe weather. That has been agreed on both sides of the House.
  Statistics have been passed to and fro across the Chamber about the impact of severe weather, particularly on pensioners. Hon. Members have spoken about the unacceptable numbers of deaths from hypothermia. I agree, but many of our pensioners, especially those of the war generation, also find their life-styles restricted by the severe weather in a way that leads to a loss of dignity and many other problems. Those in the lowest 20 per cent. income group had to increase the proportion of disposable income that they devote to heating from 11 to 14 per cent. between 1979 and 1985—a significant increase.
  Finally, I come to one or two improvements that could be made. The Government could easily reduce the seven-day qualifying period to three days. That would double the size of the eligible group. The Minister should bear that in mind as a possible future improvement to the scheme. I endorse the arguments that have been made for automatic payments. There should be better temperature monitoring, too. It is possible for ordinary mortals to measure temperature; we do not need meteorological experts to do it. Local offices of the DHSS should be able to do it independently, and to make the scheme more sophisticated by including, for example, wind chill factors. The Department should give that careful consideration.
  As the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) reminded the House, the Minister has a residual power, which he used last year, which he should exercise more liberally to declare severe weather payment periods. He should be prepared to use it, and to tell the House of his intention to do so.
  As has been said, £5 is inadequate. When will it be uprated? The payment has stayed at that amount for a number of years and its value has been eroded by increases in the retail prices index. I agree, too, that the level of capital disregard is too low, at £500. The hon. Member for Kemptown was right to make an eloquent plea that it should be raised immediately to £1,000. That is the only fair way in which to deal with people who suffer real hardship and to provide for heating costs without eating into their nest eggs for funeral bills. The Government should do more, which is not to say that I do not welcome the fine print in the regulations.
  11.33 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The debate has rightly focused on the pressures on the elderly during the winter. The Government's record of helping vulnerable groups such as the elderly with heating their homes is lamentable. Not one Conservative Back Bencher was able to commend the Government's record unreservedly.
  812
  The regulations help few of the 14,700 senior citizens in my constituency. One of those pensioners, Mr. Ian Christie, who died last weekend, sad to say, was a tireless worker for the elderly, and he would have been the first to remind the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary that £5 is a miserly sum. Just to keep pace with the 15 per cent. increase in the price of electricity that the Government have forced on consumers in the 13-month period that the debate covers, the £5 payment would have had to be increased to £5·75 a week. It has not been increased at all. The average fuel bills in my constituency are at least £16 a week and they often rise to as much as £30 a week. The £5 payment is quite inadequate to provide even minimal levels of heat for elderly people and it is an insult to suggest that it could. It is even less than the £5·55 weekly payments to hundreds of thousands of pensioners and others that the Government abolished last April.
  The Opposition will not vote against the measure, because it incorporates two valuable Labour party amendments. However, the Under-Secretary has severely provoked us with his reference to elderly people being encouraged to go shopping for second-hand clothes. The plain truth is that the Government have abolished any help with payments to such elderly people with clothing and grants.
  Mr. Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Griffiths: No. The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time for himself. I can say to him and his colleagues that I am proud of what the last Labour Government did for the elderly. I am proud of the electricity discount scheme which, in one week beginning 22 January 1979, paid £5 not only to a select group of claimants, but to all claimants. If that £5 were uprated for inflation, it would be worth almost double that amount. The matter did not rest there. Claimants whose bill exceeded £20 received for the quarter 25 per cent. of the extra payment made under the electricity discount scheme. That is the record of the Labour Government, which I am proud to defend.
  It is time that the Government recognised the problem of hypothermia. It is time they introduced a proper scheme that would allow people to heat their homes, and it is time that they stopped freezing allowances for the poor to bolster the incomes of the rich.
  11.38 pm
  Mr. Flynn: By leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to dwell too much on the political battle that has been joined. However, it seems extraordinary that the Library does not possess details of the electricity discount scheme, under which £45 million a year was spent in 1979. It is entirely wrong to say that there were no cold weather payments under Labour, although that has often been repeated by the Government. It is simply untrue. The Supplementary Benefits Commission guidance for 1977 makes it clear that
  "a lump sum payment can be made to help with the debt where there has been serious illness or prolonged severe weather leading to fuel consumption greater than normal."
  So there were schemes.
  However, the Government have ignored the main thrust of our argument, that fuel poverty is only one small part of general poverty. Tonight, we are talking only about a minuscule payment of £5—or perhaps £10—a year. There was boasting about the Government spending £400 million in additional payments at a time when, by severing

  813
  the link between earnings and pensions, they had robbed the pensioners not of £400 million, but of the enormous sum of £3 billion. That sum will run at £6·3 billion by next April. For the tiny amount of £10, we must take into account the £11 that is lost every week of the year by single pensioners and the £17·40 that is lost by pensioner couples.
  The points made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) are well understood. The system in the past was automatic. We have asked the Minister in a series of questions why that should not apply again. It makes so much sense. Why waste payments of £87,000 on advertising alone when all the information except one piece is already held on the computers in the Department? There is no need to go through a pile of files. The details can be flagged up on the computer, and the payment then sent out. The only information that the computers do not have is on those who have a capital sum of £500. They have information on those with a capital sum of £3,000, however, and the difference between the two is not very great.
  As the hon. Member for Kemptown rightly pointed out, the nest egg that many pensioners have is very precious and important. It is wasteful and cruel that their allowances should be deducted because of that. The whole scheme of fivers and tenners is pathetic, paltry and ineffectual. As the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and many Opposition Members have said, the scheme is basically unworkable: it is far too complicated, and when put to a real test it collapsed under the weight of public ridicule of its complexity and all the contradictions within it.
  As has been said, the wind chill factor is crucial. A public inauguration ceremony for an American president was cancelled, not because of the temperature but because of a combination of temperature and wind chill factor.
  Sadly, the Minister's response tonight has been atrocious, but there have been constructive suggestions. Every hon. Member has emphasised the seriousness of the problem. We have listened in despair to a defence of the ill-judged comment of a junior Minister. It is still not understood that she told people to wear woolly bonnets when they went to bed to make them look fools while everyone else had comfortable central heating in their houses. The point about that statement is that it was patronising, sending pensioners in need the message: "We don't understand you and we don't really care. You are on your own." Tonight we have heard a repetition of that statement from this Minister, who answers that, although the scheme is paltry, wasteful and indefensible, what the old must do is go out and get clothing from jumble sales.
  11.41 pm
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: By leave of the House, I will reply to the debate. I was interested in the way that the hon Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) finished his speech. He started by claiming credit for changes that he said he welcomed, but during the evening he began an archaeological exercise to try to dig up a scheme that could be said to have operated under the last Labour Government, which brought special payments to vulnerable groups in times of really cold weather. In so far as he managed to disinter one, it seemed to me much more complicated and more difficult to follow and claim than the present one. Perhaps it was automatic, but only to some; not all fell into the correct category. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do a little more work on that, because Conservative Members do not understand what the scheme is for which he is trying to take credit. It seems that he discovered it himself only this evening.
  Several Opposition Members made much of the fact that they do not consider a payment of £5 per week sufficient to meet fuel costs during spells of very cold weather. But the £5 is not meant to cover the entire cost of fuel. The help provided by the regulations is over and above the provision made via income support for normal heating expenses. The best estimates suggest that the average household spends about £11 a week throughout the year on fuel, light and power, of which about half represents heating costs. The extra £5 therefore provides very real help to vulnerable people with extra costs during cold spells.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) was in some confusion about what happened when the scheme was changed before. It is not just that the Minister changed his mind and decided to declare a general payment. The regulations were changed. They were changed so that the trigger would be activated when the temperature fell to 0 deg whereas previously it had been activated at minus 1·5 deg. Contrary to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), the Minister has no power to alter the regulations at will. The regulations are as they appear on the Order Paper and I hope that the House will not pray against them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh also seemed to be suggesting that there should be the same payment—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business).
  Question put and negatived.

  Amusement Arcades
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gorel-Jones.]
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the gambling addiction that can affect young people who play amusement-with-prizes machines. I am pleased to have support from hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) who, I hope, will have the opportunity to intervene during the short debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for attending the debate and for his courtesy in receiving a delegation from Norwich on this subject last summer. We have also had further discussions since then.
  The Eastern Evening News in Norwich has been running a series of strongly written and effective articles on the extent and nature of the addiction in Norwich and the surrounding area and the misery that can be suffered by families. The newspaper has referred to horror stories such as the mother at her wit's end who said that she was afraid her son might kill, the teenager who slashed his throat with a broken bottle to mask his shame over his addiction, and the woman who sobbed and said she still loved her husband but had to throw him out because of his gambling. Such stories have come to the fore in Norwich and elsewhere. This is a serious matter.
  Although there have been many calls for reform of the Gaming Act 1968, I raise the issue again because I am convinced from interviews and research conducted in Norwich that the problem is real and serious. Arcade addiction is widespread nationally and has been the subject of much attention in the national press and on television. The experience of Mrs. Cindy Elliff in Norwich is typical. When speaking about her son, Simon, she said:
  "Simon's personality changed … he changed into a sullen, mean and aggressive person… it was like living with a drug addict … you wouldn't see him for three or four days until he'd turn up filthy dirty and smelly, white and drawn because he'd had nothing to eat during the period he'd been away … he got funds wherever he could illegally. He has put the whole family in debt over this".
  Disturbingly, I have had several similar tales from other parts of the country. Therefore, this problem is not associated just with Norwich or my constituency. It is a national problem. there is a story about a killing in Gwent which was associated with the problem and about a young boy, from the area close to that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown, who committed suicide. There are stories from all over the country about the problems facing families.
  Time does not allow me to quote from the many surveys that have been conducted, but a picture of truancy and deviant behaviour emerges. The trouble with surveys is that they finish up as statistics and we all know what can be done with those. I prefer case histories, and I have heard many of those. Norwich social workers have described behaviour ranging from borrowing money to child prostitution. Many cases go unreported because families, not surprisingly, wish to protect their children. A child psychiatrist in Norwich confirmed that the problem is widespread; she said that it is better to reduce the
  816
  opportunities for children to develop the gambling addiction than to treat them afterwards. After all, the same argument applies to alcohol or any other addiction.
  The question we must debate tonight is whether a change in the law is called for. I believe it is, and I hope the Minister will discuss this, not only tonight but in future, and will keep the question of a possible tightening of the law under review and will keep an open mind on this matter.
  Mr. Andrew Bowden: As the amusement trade has itself said that there should be legislation, that should have great influence on the Government in introducing a Bill. Until legislation is introduced, it is vital—I know that this is the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale)—that there should be the closest co-operation between the industry and local authorities in each area in operating voluntary control schemes.
  Mr. Thompson: I agree, and there is increasing, sensible and well-thought-out pressure for a tightening of the law and for such legislation. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) in his place. I am aware of his keen interest in this subject.
  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie (Glasgow, Pollock): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when somebody under the age of 18 is found gambling in an amusement arcade, the owner of the premises should be held responsible, that a financial penalty should be imposed on him and that, should he continue to allow people under 18 to gamble on his premises, his licence should be revoked?
  Mr. Thompson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I am aware that he has a Bill of his own that he intends to present to the House. His thinking is along similar lines to mine and many others.
  Some local authorities have expressed concern, and a dialogue with the Home Office has clarified their powers to an extent. Although amusement-with-prizes machines can be removed from cafés, fish and chip shops and so on, attempts to stop the spread of arcades have met with remarkably little success. Under schedule 9 to the 1968 Act, operators must apply for permits to local authorities, and planning permission must also be obtained from them. If either is refused, the applicant is entitled to appeal, and of course planning control cannot take moral considerations into account.
  In a recent written question, the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority refusals of permission to open amusement arcades had been overturned on appeal by his Department. Replying, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), said that, of 304 planning appeals involving amusement arcades decided since January 1984, the earliest date from which such information was available, 203 had been allowed. Those figures make the point more effectively than anything I might say.
  Under the leadership of Westminster Councillor Robert Davis, more than 80 authorities have joined the Amusement Arcade Action Group, which was set up in 1983 to campaign for a change in the law. Many of them have wisely used the Home Office advice given in 1969, which states that an authority can refuse a permit on

  817
  grounds of social considerations. But this advice cannot be used in the courts, so many appeals result in victory for arcade owners.
  Westminster city council has been ingenious in using its powers more effectively. Indeed, it is interesting to note that Brighton borough council is also pursuing a policy of zoning in the allocation of permits. In my area, Norwich city council is also concerned about the issue. So far, it has confined its energies to calling for a change in the law, but it too is striving to use its powers more effectively. I hope that the Minister will comment on that and add further advice for local authorities in my area.
  Recent attempts to change the law include the Amusement Arcades Bill in 1983, introduced into the other place by Lord Campbell of Alloway; an attempt in 1984 to insert a clause into the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act; and attempts to amend the Criminal Justice Act 1988. All those attempts failed. Lord Campbell's Bill would have refused access to those under 16 unless they were accompanied by an adult, and extended local authority powers to impose conditions on arcades. It is interesting that that Bill passed through all its stages in the House of Lords, again demonstrating the pressure that exists for a reform and for a tightening of the law.
  I acknowledge the fact that the British Amusement Catering Trade Association has introduced a code which instructs owners to prohibit entry to inland arcades to those under 16. This week I hope to meet representatives of that organisation to discuss it further. But it is voluntary and easily can be ignored. Certainly parents in Norwich have challenged the effectiveness of the code. In a survey of 119 arcades conducted in 1984, Westminster city council found that only 55 per cent. were actually members of that trade association.
  Recently, the Home Office research and planning unit published a study entitled, "Amusement Machines, Delinquency and Dependency", which is very critical of many earlier reports and surveys. It concluded:
  "there does not seem to be any substantial evidence to support the notion that young people are generally at risk of becoming dependent on playing machines".
  It must be clear from my remarks that I am not sure that the Home Office has reached the right judgment. The pressure for change is greater than the Home Office judge it to be at the moment. I hope that this debate is part of the process of consultation for which the Home Office is anxious and which my hon. Friend the Minister will speak about when he replies to the debate.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will also be willing to discuss the change in the law to which I have referred before, but I stress again the importance of keeping it under review. In a letter to me last summer, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the present powers of local authorities are substantial. He pointed to the procedure of the planning and licensing stage and reminded me of local authority powers. However, recent cases in Norwich and other parts of the country make a strong case for a change in the law.
  Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollock (Mr. Dunnachie), I am considering possible changes which might be achieved via a suitably drafted Bill. One option would be to strengthen the law so as to incorporate Home Office guidance as contained in the 1969 circular, although I gather that it would be difficult to draft. Other approaches involve an age limit, either at 16 or, as has been
  818
  suggested earlier today, at 18, for example the proposed amendments to the Criminal Justice Act 1988. There could be an age limit imposed nationally or discretionary powers could be given to local authorities to impose such a limit.
  Given that the seriousness of arcade addiction varies between different locations and that different interpretations are put on the evidence available, I favour the second approach. The industry itself accepts the need to ban children from arcades. That is why there is a voluntary ban in inland arcades therefore they have nothing to fear from the tightening of the law being suggested.
  I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for listening to my remarks. I hope that the Home Office will recognise that there is a great deal of concern about arcade addiction and the distress experienced by many young people and their families. I hope that he will accept the case for a tightening of the law on gambling and that I shall have the opportunity to discuss it with him further. I assure him that there is real distress among young people and their families as a result of this addiction. I strongly believe that prevention is better than cure.
  11.53 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) for once again contributing to the debate on an important subject of considerable concern to the House and to those outside, and for making sure that it is kept at the forefront of our minds. I was glad to hear the brief intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kempton (Mr. Bowden) and to note what was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollock (Mr. Dunnachie), who presented his own Bill on the matter earlier today. I also note the presence in the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) who has a long-standing concern over these issues.
  This debate does two things. First, it gives me a chance to respond to the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North that we need to keep the law in this area under review—and, of course, we do so constantly. Indeed, a little less than six months ago, on 28 July 1988 we made a statement to this House reporting on the research conducted by the Home Office and setting out a set of measures for the House to consider. The second useful purpose of the debate is that it allows me to report to the House on the not inconsiderable progress that has been made in less than six months in this area. I am sure that that will be of interest to hon. Members of all parties.
  I should say at the outset that I share the concern about the individual named cases which my hon. Friend has drawn to the attention of the House. I am familiar with some already and have met the mother of one of the cases to which my hon. Friend referred. I remember with pleasure meeting the delegation that he brought from Norwich last summer.
  However, that recognition of the seriousness of some cases should not detract from the Government's general approach to the problems associated with the excessive playing of amusement machines by young people. Whatever else the Home Office research did—it was backed up by independent research from the Gaming Board for Great Britain—it did not produce evidence of widespread addiction; it produced evidence of some addiction.

  819
  I hope that the measures that we are already taking will provide practical assistance both in Norwich and in the rest of the country to help those who are addicted and, more importantly—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North—to try to prevent those who might fall into addiction from becoming addicted in due course. As my hon. Friend observed, prevention is better than cure in this case.
  As the House is well aware of the background to this issue, it would be otiose for me to go over it. That applies especially to the research into various cases, as my hon. Friend has already drawn attention to that. Therefore, I can begin by remarking that there are two areas in which action has been taking place since the statement of 28 July. The first concerns the existing law, which is complex—of that there can be no doubt. However, it is not necessarily ineffective law. One problem is that it is not used effectively or to the full and that is something that we want to try to put right. It is evident to us in the Home Office that not all local authorities are using their present powers effectively. We decided that our first priority must be to draw their existing powers to the attention of local authorities. We did so by issuing a circular in November to emphasise the importance to be attached to that point.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North has specifically asked me to comment on those powers, it may be helpful if I summarise the position briefly. The various provisions are contained in the Gaming Act 1968. The control to be exercised by local authorities hinges on the permits that are required under that Act for premises with amusements-with-prizes slot machines, or AWPs as they are known in the trade.
  Broadly, premises with AWP machines fall into two main categories: those where the machines are incidental to the main business, such as cafés or fish and chip shops; and arcades and other such amusement places themselves. In neither case can a condition such as an age limit be put on the use of machines, but in premises other than arcades a local authority's powers—I choose my words carefully —are in other respects draconian. In particular, they can, by resolution, ban such machines from some altogether.
  In some cases in England—I cannot speak with such authority for Scotland—when delegations from local district councils have come to see me, it has been startling to discover that they were unaware of the extent of their powers.
  Where there is no such resolution in force, the grant or the renewal of a permit is, of course, at local authorities' discretion. Some authorities already impose such bans, and I understand that Norwich city council is one of those. Our circular should bring those options clearly to the attention of all local authorities. It is a matter for local decision, which is important, because local councillors understand the local context of social problems, and, where appropriate, they can provide a wide measure of control over premises where children and young adults might otherwise have easy access to such machines in a completely unsupervised environment, such as in a fish and chip shop in a shopping parade.
  A local authority's powers over the issue of permits for an amusement arcade might not be quite so sweeping for other premises, but they are nonetheless substantial. I continue to feel that a number of local authorities, in
  820
  England at least, do not appreciate the range of powers that are open to them, or, if they appreciate them, they do not use them.
  An important point is that, when an amusement arcade gets going, two separate and unrelated processes must be observed. There is the planning process under planning legislation and the permit process under gaming legislation. In law, local authorities must consider each case on its merits as appropriate, because an entire business may be at stake. However, they have discretion as to whether or not to grant a permit, which is unaffected by the fact that planning permission may previously have been granted to set up an amusement arcade in those premises. It does not flow from the fact that planning permission has been given that a new permit will be granted. A permit can be refused, and there is, of course, appeal to the Crown court against the local authority's decision.
  Although no criteria for the exercise of a local authority's decision are laid down in the Gaming Act 1968, the implication is that, in considering an application, an authority should take careful account of the social considerations that apply in that particular area, such as the numbers of arcades already in existence—I believe that there are four in my hon. Friend's city of Norwich—and whether those arcades are judged to be over-frequented by children and by young adults. That was the advice given back in 1969 in the circular to which my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Norwich, North referred—although, as he rightly pointed out, it has no statutory force. Giving it statutory force is one of the options to which my hon. Friend is addressing his mind.
  Nevertheless, we have no evidence that, where local authorities have provided a proper case on these grounds, the courts have taken a different view. Search as hard as we may, we have not found that to be the case. We feel that these powers still strike the right balance for the regulation of arcades. I believe that there is no evidence of a need to specify the grounds for refusal of a permit in statute, or that the present law is inadequate for its purpose.
  Another area where the local authorities can already act under present legislation is in the regulation of amusement arcades, especially in their opening hours under byelaws. I can again report to the House that we are having good discussions with local authorities and trade associations about the drawing up of model byelaws to be, made available to local authorities to regulate the opening hours of amusement arcades.
  I said that there were two main areas for action. The second is the question of how to warn young people and their parents of the possible hazards of the excessive use of amusement machines and how best to deal with the small number who actually turn out to be at risk. Following the announcement on 28 July 1988, before Christmas we wrote to all interested parties. We wrote to the local authority associations, to those concerned with education and youth services and to a wide range of other organisations inside and outside the industry.
  We have made various suggestions in the consultation letter, which is a public document, and I dare say that my hon. Friend has had the chance to look at it. We have said that we believe that there is scope for much better liaison between local organisations such as the police, social services, the voluntary sector and amusement arcade proprietors to try to overcome possible misunderstandings

  821
  and differences in the local environment where they occur. I repeat that I believe that, often, such problems are best dealt within the local context.
  We have already received a good number of extremely helpful and constructive replies from those whom we are consulting and shortly we hope to begin a round of discussions with them with a view to develop ideas further and to turn them into reality.
  We are also considering the possibility that further guidance, including advice for parents, should be prominently displayed near the entrances to all arcades and possibly to other premises that have amusement machines that offer prizes. That idea will need to be discussed further with the British Amusement Catering Trades Association and other interested organisations. I know that the former association is keen to participate in the process and it already has established local liaison arrangements in several areas to try to deal with the problem. I was interested to learn that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North will meet that association later this week to discuss the matter further.
  At the start of my speech I said that the measures that we announced on 28 July were those currently considered to be appropriate to deal with the situation. Tonight I have taken the opportunity to report to the House the number of steps that we have taken to try to turn the hopes outlined in the July 1988 statement into reality. Tonight's debate serves a useful purpose over and above putting forward particular courses of action.
  Mr. Bowden: I hesitate to accuse my hon. Friend of complacency. He has said that the problem is not widespread, but how does one define widespread? Is it not a fact that, sadly, a significant number of young people are spending large sums of money each week on such machines? A significant number of young people are also missing school as a result of that addiction. It is a serious problem and legislation will be needed sooner or later.
  Mr. Patten: I am glad that my hon. Friend did not accuse me of complacency. I have never been accused of being complacent at the Dispatch Box, and I should hate to lose my record. I am glad that my hon. Friend drew back from that dreadful suggestion.
  When we began the process of looking at how to respond to the public pressure, north and south of the border, about this issue, we had an open mind as to whether playing such machines was leading to large-scale addiction. For that reason, we gave the Home Office research and planning unit, which has an international reputation for its research excellence, a completely open brief to visit the highways and byways, the amusement arcades, the fish-and-chip shops and other places with such machines, to obtain the facts for us. If that unit had come back and said that there was a major problem, our reaction would have been different. However, it said—its view was reinforced by a further independent examination by the Gaming Board's own professional inspectors—that the number of cases of addiction was limited and did not merit immediate legislation.
  I repeat to my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North and for Kemptown that we shall keep the need for legislation under review. Tonight I wanted to report to the House the considerable progress that we have already made in the six months since the July statement.
  Tonight's debate is valuable because part of the solution to the problem may be found in increasing public awareness of the problem and how to deal with it. Tonight's discussion can only help to bring the matter to public attention again and to stimulate discussion and interest to good effect. For that reason, I was glad to be present to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.