HL Deb 25 July 1977 vol 386 cc824-53

Lord BANKS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what policies they propose to implement to ensure that the elderly, the sick and disabled and the low-income families are adequately protected against the cold during the coming winter. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am asking this Question tonight because I feel that the subject is very important and also because I feel that it is vitally important to consider it before the winter is upon us, so that we can make certain that adequate provision will be made in time. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have indicated their intention to take part in this short debate.

The House will be aware of the nature and extent of the problem. Help the Aged stated recently: Over 2 million people live in temperatures that would bring instant prosecution if they occurred in factories or offices They also asserted that, at a conservative estimate, 700,000 pensioners risk hypothermia every winter. The Right to Fuel campaign, which is backed by 20 national organisations, has pointed out how, since 1974, fuel prices have been rising faster than the retail price index. In the period from January 1974 to May 1976, for example, electricity prices increased at nearly double the rate of prices generally, and general fuel costs rose 50 per cent. faster than prices generally.

The poorest householders spend on average 13 per cent. of their income on fuel, compared to only 4 per cent. at the top end of the scale. They are more likely to live in draughty and uninsulated housing and to have inefficient heating appliances. People who are retired, unemployed or sick, or who are looking after young children, need more warmth for more hours of more weeks in every year. So poor people need extra fuel; they spend a high proportion of their income on fuel, but most of them actually use less than the average amount of fuel. A survey by the National Consumer Council last year showed that, of poor consumers—that is, those with an income less than 20 per cent. above the supplementary benefit level—71 per cent. use less electricity than average and 64 per cent. use less gas; 42 per cent. of households use less than 50 per cent. of the average amount of electricity and 38 per cent. use less than 50 per cent. of the average amount of gas. Disconnections increased from 155,000 in 1974–75 to 178,000 in 1975–76.

My first question is, what is to be the Government's policy towards disconnections? In February 1976, the Secretary of State for Energy announced that pensioner households would not be disconnected during the winter months. Does that remain the policy of the Government for the coming winter, and have they any plans to extend this policy to other disadvantaged groups in the community? The committee chaired by Mr. Gordon Oakes, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, of which the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, was the first chairman, recommended the total abolition of the powers of disconnection of domestic consumers. A similar recommendation was made by the National Consumer Council in their report Paying for Fuel, which was published in September, 1976. That report was commissioned by the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection.

My second question is whether the Government, in the light of these reports, have any plans to implement their recommendations in relation to the withdrawal of the power to disconnect. The National Consumer Council have calculated that if as many as three times the number of consumers currently disconnected had to be taken to court instead, the cost would mean an increase of less than 1 per cent. on all bills. The Government will no doubt say that they consider the code of conduct to be a satisfactory answer to the problem of disconnections.

Fourteen days' grace, or such other period as may be regarded as necessary or reasonable, is allowed before disconnection if' the person upon whom the household depends is on supplementary benefit; if the family are in receipt of family income supplement; if the breadwinner is unemployed; or if there is a child under the age of 5 in the household. The difficulty about this is that the person concerned has to declare that he comes within these categories, and it is not always clear to people that this is what they are supposed to do; the instructions are not always such that in all cases they can easily and immediately understand. When deductions from supplementary benefit are made in order to pay arrears for fuel bills incurred by those who are receiving this benefit, the individuals concerned have no say as to the amount that is going to be paid, which may be quite substantial.

The question I want to ask the Government is, who decides what is a reasonable period and who exactly assesses the income position of the household? Is it the fuel boards which do that, since they issue the code of conduct? Clearly, when income is small and very stretched a "pay as you go" system is greatly to be preferred. What are the Government and the fuel boards doing to increase the availability of coin slot meters, which the code of practice says will be available in certain cases? And what is being done to produce token operated meters as a safeguard against theft and to install them in substantial numbers? I know that the Government have plans in this respect, but I want to be assured as to their adequacy and urgency. Are the fuel boards being encouraged to permit even weekly payment systems and methods of spreading the cost over the year so that the heavy cost in the winter months can be spread throughout the rest of the year? The widest availability of different options will help to meet differing circumstances. Is the code of practice being adhered to in this respect?

The problems encountered over fuel for the poor households raise the question of the adequacy of social security benefits. The notional amount included in supplementary benefit for heating and hot water is £2.80. Last year, again according to the National Consumer Council, two-thirds of supplementary benefit claimants spent more than the notional amount, and over one-third were given an extra heating addition—a weekly discretionary increase—which was available in exceptional cases. Since 57 per cent. of the pensioners on supplementary benefit now receive this exceptional extra, it is no longer particularly exceptional. Do not the Government feel that these amounts should be looked at again?

Then there is the question of the electricity discount scheme which I understand is to be repeated again in the coming winter, by means of which 25 per cent. of one quarter's bill may be remitted in certain circumstances. Many people, however, consider that the scheme was not a success, since less than half of the money allocated was taken up. Are the Government contemplating extending the scheme to other fuels? Next there is the problem of insulation and the conservation of heat. There are, I believe, 7 million uninsulated houses with accessible lofts in this country—nearly half the number of houses in that category. However, I shall not pursue that point any further because I believe that my noble friend Lord Grey has questions which he intends to ask in connection with it.

I have been disturbed to read in the newspapers in the last few days of the shortage of coal supplies which has been prophesied for next winter. I am wondering whether the noble Lord who is to reply has any information about that report and also whether he has any information regarding the way in which a shortage might affect the categories of people whom we are especially considering this evening. I shall listen with great interest to the explanation of the Government's plans which is to be given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I am quite sure that he appreciates, as the House will appreciate, that this is a serious human problem requiring to be tackled in a positive and vigorous manner.

7.20 p.m.

Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL

My Lords, this debate is timely, in the sense that we want to be sure that the Government are thinking and acting now to prevent potential disaster in the winter-time. Indeed, that was the purpose of a debate I initiated in the middle of a heat-wave in June 1976, and the theme I was then trying to put over was prevention. I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Banks: he managed to introduce his debate in ten minutes and I see that I took rather over half an hour on that other occasion. I shall try to avoid repeating myself since I then raised most of the issues which I think should be raised again this evening.

I wonder whether the Government really have taken on board the message inherent in the rising price of fuel combined with an ageing population, low incomes from unemployment and the slump in the housing industry. Before we go further, we had better have a quick look at the hypothermia statistics, which are rather confusing because I see that in another place in June 1977 the figures for deaths from hypothermia were still given as very low: 16 in 1974, 25 in 1975, and they said the figures were not available as yet for 1976. On the other hand, a recent report, in February 1977, from the Supplementary Benefits Commission, who visited 1,000 people, said that 10 per cent of those they visited were at risk of suffering from hypothermia. If we extrapolate that figure over the 9 million or so old age pensioners in this country, we come back to a figure in excess of 700,000, which I believe was the figure mentioned by the noble Lord, and certainly a figure which has been put forward before by Help the Aged. It is as well to recognise that we are dealing with an enormously wide bracket, although I recognise also that in the one case we are speaking of actual identifiable deaths, whereas in the other we are speaking about those who are potentially at risk.

It seems to me that the main approach of the Government is still to make available more public money for discharging heating bills and preventing disconnections and so on. In principle, that is an approach which concerns me. The greater objection is that not only are we condoning waste, but in the process it seems to me that we are making a rod for our own backs. The cost shortfall of heating will continue to rise as the prices rise unless incomes rise, and it is very unlikely that they will rise in harmony with the increase in cost. So the cost of lopping off the crisis peaks will continue to increase.

But if we went about the matter the other way and had a programme of draught prevention and a down-to-earth insulation programme for at least one room in each house, then gradually over a period of time we would reduce the outlay needed to keep some semblance of human condition for those people to live in during the winter. The Oxford Area Health Authority, who have been active in this field over a number of years, reckon that some of the more obvious insulation costs could be recovered in as little a period as one year. Certainly if a given household is going to receive something like £40 in their heating allowance that is the kind of figure which would, in fact, buy a substantial degree of insulation, anyway in one room of a house, and I am not trying to set our sights too high. It seems to me that this would be particularly attainable if we took advantage of the large number of volunteers who are working in this area and also derive some benefit from the job creation schemes.

Age Concern mentioned in May 1977 a really remarkable figure, if, indeed, it is true, and I hope the noble Lord may be able to tell us. Talking about the improvement grants which are available for insulation, they point out that one now can get improvement grants for insulation alone, without other things, and then they produce the really staggering comment: It is regrettable that in the first two years of this operation only two authorities have applied for such a grant—each making a single application. Can it really be true that this is the total impact of this scheme? I find it hard to believe; but if so, it shows that this particular scheme is apparently a total flop.

The mention of volunteers brings me to the problem mentioned by all the authorities in this field; namely, the identification of need and the promulgation of information about help which may be available for remedial action. Help the Aged have recently pointed out that 34 per cent. of those they studied are visited less than once a week by their relatives or by officials. If We had a corps of volunteers going round to identify the people and to advise them as to what might be done, would we not be killing a number of birds with one stone? This would lead on, I hope, to some sort of local task force who could use these local authority grants in a way they are apparently not being used at the moment. In this way we should be getting to grips with and reducing the problem rather than continuing simply to pour money into the atmosphere in trying to keep up the heat level.

If, indeed, the Government have made new policies and taken action, then I think one has to say that their publicity has been remarkably ineffective. I have a slightly different figure from that given by the noble Lord, Lord Banks: I understand that something like one-eighth of those eligible for grants have in fact taken them up; that one-quarter of the £25 million—that is about £8 million—of the scheme has been used and this has cost £1 million to administer. Mr. David Donnison, of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, in the report to which I have already referred, said: Three-quarters of the supplementary pensioners in our sample were unaware that they could get extra financial help towards their heating costs. Clearly, there is a major problem here.

I do not know whether it comes in the immediate ambit of the scheme, but clearly the Government deserve credit for their Good Neighbour scheme. I am also aware that the Department of Energy has produced a booklet which, in fact, was largely based on the work of the booklet produced by the Oxford Area Health Authority, Help Yourself to Warmth. But local authorities are hardly the people—indeed, it would not be effective to distribute this to the old age pensioners themselves. Would it not be better to make sure that those who visit the elderly in their homes have the information available, so as to put it over to the pensioners in a way they can understand. Would it not be better to use the home helps, the health visitors, the GPs, social workers, district nurses, and Meals-on-Wheels deliverers?

The noble Lord, Lord Banks, has already referred to the rather melancholy point that it is, unfortunately, the low income groups who are most likely to live in poorly insulated houses equipped with the least efficient means of heating. I suggest that, sooner or later, we have got to get down to tackling this problem at the roots. I believe that even in our present straitened circumstances we would find that this would be money well spent, that many willing helpers would assist the Government to achieve a very worth while return from measures of this kind, rather than simply carrying on using stopgap measures to treat the symptoms of the disease, which I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us is not the sum total of the Government's policy at the present time.

7.32 p.m.

Lord COLLISON

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting down this Unstarred Question because it gives us an opportunity of thinking about this very difficult problem which we face as a nation over the years. Tragically, if we have a hard winter some people, maybe a large number of people, are certainly going to die of hypothermia, or, if not recorded as such on the medical certificate, from an illness which has been generated or exaggerated by coldness. Hypothermia is an insidious illness. It does not affect only those on low incomes, either. Old people do not realise that they are too cold, and unless someone is able to help them, explain to them, then there is a danger of death by hypothermia, even if the persons concerned, and there have been some, have enough money to provide themselves with fuel.

I left the Supplementary Benefits Commission in October 1975. When I was the Chairman of the Commission I made it a point of spending a great deal of time out of London meeting the office staffs up and down the country, and visiting the claimants. I must have visited thousands in my time, and I can confirm what has been said by the two noble Lords who have preceded me. It is a fact that many low income earners and people on supplementary benefits and pensioners do live in the worst type of property, and it would cost not £1, £2, £3, £4, £5 a week to keep those properties warm; it is virtually impossible to do so unless something is done about restructuring. I left the Commission, as I said, in October 1975, and it was in that year that on my visits I realised that a new problem was developing. At that time we were told by people in our offices that claimants who hitherto had been sufficiently wise and able to put aside monies to pay their fuel bills suddenly found that there had been a tremendous increase in costs and the money they had put aside was not in fact sufficient to cover them. The Commission had to do something to help them, and we did. We made exceptional needs payments to help them over that particular hurdle, and we hoped that it would be the only hurdle. But, of course, as we all know, it was just the beginning of a tremendous increase in costs, and the problem therefore remains with us.

This evening I am going to concentrate, if I may, upon what I consider to be one vital aspect of this problem, one vital means whereby we may be able to do much more to put it right, but without which we cannot. Of course, it is known that the Supplementary Benefits Commission do give help in a number of directions. First and perhaps foremost on the cash side—the heating additions I have already mentioned, which go on top of the basic supplementary benefit rates, and will with other State benefits go up next November by 14 per cent, well before the really hard weather hits us. This should help. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that the number of heating additions have doubled or more in the last three years. There are now over 1 million beneficiaries who get them. The lump sum exceptional needs payments help towards fuel bills when, for example, we get a sudden onset of very severe weather and the heating costs jump. We are able—I say "we" still; it is an instinct; the Commission are able—to help them meet the quarter's Bill. The Commission can also help with the replacement of heating equipment which is not working properly, and indeed it can and does help with regard to clothing, blankets and so on. The Commission can also—insulation has been mentioned—help with simple insulation materials, and it is true that a few pounds spent on insulation, the exclusion of drafts and so on, can do a great deal to improve the temperature of a room—and I agree it could perhaps be just one room. Then there are the arrangements the Commission has made with the fuel authorities; with them they have agreed that beneficiaries are not cut off if part of their benefit is passed directly to the Board, plus a figure of 50p to pay off arrears. I do appreciate what the noble Lord has said, that the accelerating costs may make the payment back difficult, but I will leave that kind of technical point to my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell. The point I am making is that there are a lot of people who have been helped by the Commission, including those who find it difficult to organise their finances.

When one has the experience of meeting people in need it is so difficult to condemn, and I think that some people condemn too easily and too soon. Mismanagement is certainly there in some cases. Let me say at once that my experience is that the vast majority of Supplementary Benefits Commission beneficiaries are people with dignity who wish to get along without undue aid from the State, only taking what they need. But, of course, you do meet those who cannot do this, who mismanage or perhaps even do what some people consider worse—and I suppose it is worse—spend money on the wrong things: instead of on food and clothing on drink. However, in view of my experience, I find it hard to condemn. I always want to know what has happened and what has made people behave like that. I suppose that it is proper that one should have a sense of compassion.

I should like to take this opportunity to say that the Supplementary Benefits Commission staff and the staff of the welfare departments of the local authorities have a most difficult job. The staff of the Supplementary Benefits Commission often find themselves in hostile situations. We have all heard about scroungers. There are some scroungers, but not many. On one day the staff of the Supplementary Benefits Commission may open the newspapers and find that they are being charged with being over-generous or with giving away and squandering public money and not having concern for the public purse. The next day they may open the newspapers and find that they are charged with being hard, brutal and not seeking to understand the problems of the unmarried mother and so on. They are in a crossfire.

This is the first time I have spoken about supplementary benefits in your Lordships' Chamber and I should like to put on record my own appreciation of the officers of all levels of the Commission and the welfare staff who undertake this difficult task.

Mention has been made of the electricty discount scheme which I understand is to be continued. I think that it can justly be said that real efforts are being made by the Government, not only through the Commission but in other ways, to ensure that people, especially the old, do not suffer from the cold.

That would be fine if the aid which the Government are willing to channel in and which the people of this country were willing to channel in through welfare departments and the Supplementary Benefits Commission, reached all the people who need help. However, it does not work like that. Mention has already been made of Professor Donnison, who succeeded me as chairman of the Commission. In his introduction to the Commission's new handbook, he writes: More of those entitled to supplementary benefits are now coming forward to claim it. That is fine.

But there is still too much ignorance, anxiety and hostility about the scheme. It is the failure of people to know about and claim what is available to them on which I wish to concentrate the rest of my remarks. Clearly the local authorities, the Government and the Commission must make every effort to publicise what they are doing and what they can do. As regards the Commission, during my association with it, we started the handbook and that is now continuing. It is a simply worded statement of what the Commission does, what it can do and which claimants are entitled to benefit. There is a multiplicity of leaflets. Supplementary Benefits Commission's Notes and News are published at regular intervals, mainly for social workers. However, all that will never do the job completely.

I agree that the supplementary benefits scheme is extremely complex and that there are great difficulties about it. It is good to know that, at present, my right honourable friend David Ennals has announced that a review to revise the scheme and to make it more simple, is in progress and I wish him every success. However, I am convinced that, unless more people do more to help publicise to those who need help what help is available to them, then what the Government and the local authorities are trying to do will not reach all the people concerned.

Help the Aged has been mentioned twice before. That group has stated that it believes that 45,000 old people will die of cold this winter. It goes on to say: The terrible truth is that thousands of these deaths are unnecessary. Thousands of our old people who die every winter could survive and enjoy future summers if only we looked after them. I emphasise "we". What do we mean by "we"? We mean you and I; we mean the citizens of this country in the street; we mean those who are good neighbours. I very much welcome the Good Neighbour scheme that was introduced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I know that there is a responsibility not only upon us but the people of this country as a whole. We should be able to give advice even if we do not know the ins and outs of the supplementaty benefits scheme. I hope that people will want to know enough about it to encourage them to go to the local social security office or, if they are incapacitated, to know how to go about arranging for visits. Who will know about the old who are cold if they have no friends and relations unless their neighbours, the people in their streets and villages, take the trouble to visit them, take them under their wing and keep an eye on them?

The success of the Good Neighbour scheme and of the work done by organisations like Help the Aged and others has been quite remarkable. That satisfies me that the willingness and the desire to help is present if it can be triggered. That is why it is so important that these aspects should be voiced. The Government are willing to do so much. The Supplementary Benefits Commission already spends millions of pounds.

However, we all know that, although the situation is improving greatly, some get through the meshes of the nets. It is not good enough to think that because the Government act and the Supplementary Benefits Commission is present, it is their responsibility, and that, if there is a failure, it is their failure. On the contrary, what is done by the Government through the scheme can only be part of an overall social responsibility which lies upon us all. If people respond to that, I do not think that even then we shall cover every single person who needs help in terms of money, medicine or anything else, but we shall go very much further towards ensuring that there is good and pretty well complete coverage.

7.50 p.m.

Earl GREY

My Lords, every winter there arises the problem of caring for the elderly, the infirm and those in the lower income bracket. As the noble Lord, Lord Collison, pointed out, the responsibility should not rest with the Government alone. Those of us who are fortunate enough, in spite of crippling inflation which faces us all, to manage to have a comfortable, well-fed winter, should be aware and play our part. We have all at some time suffered from the cold and known how inconvenient and discomforting it can be. We treat it as a nuisance and know that as soon as we are at home we shall be warm and comfortable.

But what of the people who view each coming winter with absolute dread and fear? It is a prospect in 1977 that should never arise. We are living in a Welfare State that decrees that no one should go without and exist below a basic level. I agree with my noble friend Lord Banks, who says that the debate must take place now and not when the cold weather and conditions of hardship are with us. I hope that the Government and the responsible bodies take note and act now on the suggestions that are being put to the House today.

Since March 1974 to my knowledge, we have had a total of 10 Budgets and mini-Budgets designed to provide the answer to our economic problems. And what is the result? The cost of living is at a record level while the standard of living has declined. And who are the main sufferers?—the old age pensioners, the widows and the low income earners. They feel that they are forgotten; there are no unions to fight for them. Many sympathetic noises are made concerning them but never enough positive action is taken.

What can we do to alleviate the problem? The Electricity and Gas Boards have part of the answer. It was recently announced that the Gas Boards made a profit of £35 million. That is welcoming news, but it is due to the fact that over the last three years gas prices have increased by 57 per cent. When that was made public there was a demand for a rebate, as has been promised by the telephone services. While that demand was rejected, cannot an exception be made in the case of the needy?

The breakdown of the figures in the Electricity Council is even more revealing, with a price increase during the last three years of 119 per cent.—that is, 40 per cent. a year. For 1975–76 salaries and related costs and consumer services totalled £3,190 million, while administration and general expenses, which include television and other forms of advertising, totalled £3,694 million. Why spend a fortune encouraging the public to use gas or electricity when in most cases one has no choice and both are nationalised?

Think Electric—It helps you in more ways than you think", so the slogan goes. It makes me think, and seriously ask the question: Will the Gas and Electricity Councils, by making reductions in tariffs and giving concessions to the needy throughout the winter, show that they have thought? The publicity gained by this action and good deed would benefit the Boards and the consumers much more effectively than wasted money on advertising.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, has mentioned pretty strongly insulation and the problems concerned with the local councils. I should like to return to this subject because it is an important matter. A voluntary organisation called Friends of the Earth has been striving extremely hard to assist those requiring help by appealing to the Government to carry out various programmes, such as a national insulation project to conserve energy. Mr. David Green of that organisation this month has written to the Prime Minister urging the Government to act. Included in the proposals put forward are that: The Government give priority to the insulation of the homes of the elderly and disabled people by encouraging the employment of local task forces to carry out such work under any Government measures to alleviate youth unemployment. That organisation urges that: The Government take steps to advertise to those on low incomes what grants and other incentives are available for insulating their houses. The Government encourage the fuel boards, oil and coal industries to make available easy-payment methods for insulation e.g. saving schemes, regular instalments payable through the usual accounts system etc. These practical suggestions are endorsed by many other groups, such as have been mentioned this evening, including Help the Aged, the National Council of Social Services and the National Consumer Council. Can the Government say what actions can be implemented in this area? Through the activities of these groups many deprived people have good cause to be grateful for the benefit that they have received. Long may the good works continue. The time for action is now. Let us hope that the time is not wasted. It is the concern of us all.

7.55 p.m.

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, has reminded us, the last time we discussed this specific subject was just over a year ago when it was raised by many noble Lords during a debate on a Motion put down by the noble Lord himself on the needs of the elderly. As the noble Lord has said, it is timely that it should be raised again now by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. Perhaps we should make it, both here and in another place, an annual or more frequent event, until there is no question of anyone being denied domestic fuel supplies and adequate protection against the cold.

Shortly before our debate last June, the Department of Energy published the report of an Informal Inquiry into Payment and Selection Methods for Gas and Electricity Bills, to which reference has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. The report pointed out that these fuels are provided by statutory monopolies with: a clearly defined duty to adopt methods of payment … which suit the circumstances and convenience of every type of consumer, particularly in view of the fact that: the sharp rise in fuel prices has presented many families with a difficult and immediate problem. The report identified the groups most adversly affected as those about which we are talking this evening.

The report summarised 17 main recommendations. I shall not list them, but they were all aimed at easing the problem of payment for the disadvantaged groups which we are discussing today. As today's Unstarred Question specifically asks what policies the Government propose to implement to ensure that these groups are adequately protected, I, too, should like to ask my noble friend the Minister—as has the noble Lord, Lord Banks—whether he can tell us which of the recommendations in the report have been taken up and will be implemented during the coming winter. I appreciate that the fuel Boards already offer a variety of methods of payment, but I should like to know whether they have agreed upon: a common code of payment methods, which was one of the recommendations. Are they and the Government satisfied that "payment schemes" have been and are being "more widely publicised", which was another of the report's recommendations?

At the time of the publication of the report I felt that its recommendation that: the power to disconnect supply to domestic consumers should be withdrawn would present the Boards with major problems so far as simply recalcitrant payers with adequate means were concerned, and that this recommendation tended to be so attractive a story to the media that it obscured the many other recommendations and observations contained in the report. However, that does not mean that I believe the Boards should have the right to disconnect or threaten disconnection across the board. There can be no question of monopoly suppliers of gas and electricity being allowed to inflict this hardship on those who genuinely face difficulties in meeting today's vastly increased fuel bills.

I do not wish to take up the time of the House by covering ground that has already been fully explored. The point of this debate is to draw attention to this very real problem for those who face it, and to ensure, well before the onset of next winter, that the Government have the policies to deal with it. Every possible action must be taken to prevent suffering, physical or mental, because the problem is two-edged. Removing the fear of disconnection, for example, will not prevent many people in financial difficulty from worrying to such an extent—and I am thinking particularly of old age pensioners—about the size of the bill that ultimately has to be paid by someone, that they would simply reduce their use of fuel to dangerous levels. I hope that when my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell replies he can reassure us that everything possible is being done to get this message across, and that action will be taken to alleviate the fears that undoubtedly exist and that can lead to tragedy.

The Government, quite rightly, decided that the fuel industries should charge realistic prices. But, having done so, they have the responsibility to ensure that the elderly, the sick and disabled and low-income families do not suffer as a result. In the case of any excess profits that the Boards may have accumulated recently, perhaps instead of these being generally shared out they could be used to help resolve this problem.

I hope, therefore, that during the past year the closest liaison has been established between the fuel boards, the Department of Health and Social Security services, the Supplementary Benefit Commission and local authorities, and the many individual groups and associations concerned with these special problems, to make sure that cases of hardship are quickly identified and properly dealt with. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that this is the situation.

There is another aspect of protection against the cold which is of major importance, and that is home insulation, to which several noble Lords have already referred. Last year, in his reply to the debate on behalf of the Government, my noble friend Lord Kirkhill stated that the Government were aware of the importance of house insulation and were taking steps to help old people enjoy the benefits of good insulation in the context of their programme for bringing the country's housing stock up to standard. He referred to roof insulation in council houses attracting Government subsidy when installed in the interests of an elderly or disabled occupant, and said that this would be emphasised in a forthcoming circular on subsidy for local authority house improvement in the public sector. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, has already mentioned this. I am sure that we shall all be interested to hear more about what has been done in this respect if the Minister is able to provide the information.

Not only is proper insulation of prime importance in achieving higher temperatures in the home at lower cost but it is also a vital part of energy saving generally, and on both grounds it should have a high priority. When we launched the energy conservation programme with the "Save It" campaign in 1975 the principle items that were concentrated upon heavily in the early stages of the domestic side of the campaign were draught-proofing, hot-water tank jackets, and loft insulation. There were good reasons for doing so—and there still are—for all three are lacking in the accommodation, the homes, of the people least able to pay for the heat that is being wasted.

The initial cost for the Government of tank jackets and roof insulation for those who cannot afford the capital outlay may seem high, but is it? Does it not make economic sense? An unlagged hot-water tank, heated by an electric immersion heater, is likely to waste up to about £1.25 worth of heat every week. A jacket 75 to 80 millimetres thick costs about £6, and can be fitted in a matter of minutes. It will pay for itself in terms of savings within about five weeks. And it will go on making savings on the individual's and the nation's heating bill—savings which will become more significant with each rise in fuel prices.

If we take the case of loft insulation of the 125 millimetre thickness recommended for elderly people's heating standards by the Department of the Environment, applied, for the same of example, to a semi-detached bungalow with a roof area of 40 square metres, the cost of installation would be about £55. The cost of heating the bungalow to the full "Old People's" standard of 21 degrees celsius throughout, if it were not insulated, would be about £210 a year. With insulation that figure would be reduced to about £160 a year. That is a saving of £50 in a year, for the single cost of £55 for carrying out the insulation.

If we assume heating to be the lower minimum heating standards of 16 degrees Celsius in living areas and 10 degrees in bedrooms for the same bungalow, the cost of heating it uninsulated would be about £86 a year, whereas with insulation this would fall to about £61—so that there one has a saving of £25 a year. Alternatively, for the same cost—£86 a year—one could heat the home to the higher and more comfortable temperatures—21 degrees celsius in the living areas and 15 degrees in the bedrooms.

Surely, therefore, effective insulation (which I seem to have been urging in your Lordships' House for years) should be a Government priority so far as the elderly, the sick and disabled, and low income families are concerned. In every sense it is in the national interest, and the cost of carrying out the work could surely be covered by a special additional heating allowance provided over a limited period; say, £1.10p a week for a year. In national terms, the savings accruing year after year would rapidly repay the initial outlay. In fact, I believe that this should be seen as an essential part of the much wider need to raise standards of insulation of buildings generally as part of our overall energy policy, even though this is an aspect of it which falls within the ambit of the Department of the Environment rather than that of the Department of Energy. Perhaps we can take a lead from EEC countries such as Germany and France, whom at one time we led in matters of energy conservation but who now seem to be ahead of us in encouraging and giving an incentive for home insulation.

We are all aware of the importance of the Question that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has raised today. Those of us who are taking part in this debate have obviously all seen the horrifying statistics provided by Help the Aged, to which noble Lords have referred.

At a conservative estimate"— they say— 700,000 pensioners risk hypothermia every winter of whom up to 55,000—that was the average figure—could die of cold, many thousands of them unnecessarily.

It is hard to believe that it is a possibility in this society. It is a cruel and senseless state of affairs which no Government, no member of our society, can allow to continue. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, whose deep personal concern in matters such as this is known to all Members of this House, can assure us that the Government for their part—through the relevant Departments of State; the DHSS, the Department of Energy, and the Department of the Environment—have the policies, are implementing them, and intend to continue implementing them to protect those who will be most at risk during the coming winter and in all future winters.

8.8 p.m.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, let me say at the beginning that I greatly welcome this debate not only as the Minister responsible to your Lordships for answering it but also personally because the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and those who have participated in this debate tonight have raised a matter of supreme importance. I do not think we ought to use any other phrase than that. There have been, as we all know, dramatic increases in fuel prices in recent years. Everyone of us, without exception, has been affected by them. But where most of us can accommodate ourselves in some way to them we have to recognise that there is a vast army of disadvantaged people who can do precious little about it, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has selected three of them—the elderly, the sick and disabled, and families on low incomes.

In short, it is the more fortunately placed members in our society who can cope with the situation, and those who are less fortunately placed who cannot. Many of them, as we know, cannot afford to install insulation or buy a better heating system. I know from my own observations the large number who live in rented accommodation who could not get a system installed even if they could afford to pay for it—and they cannot. For some, as I say, this may be a simple choice. Some of us can spend more, or less, on heating as we like. We can switch on and switch off when we like. These are things, as my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis put so bluntly, that are denied so many people in our community. I do not think that any useful purpose can possibly be served by going into the causes of all this; we are familiar with the causes, though perhaps there is very little we can do about them in the way we should like to do.

As a country that is in our present financial position, we must recognise, that we are paying out about £11,000 million on pensions and benefits. The uprating which was announced in your Lordships' House will when it comes into effect in November, cost another £1,500 million. We are therefore faced with the problem, and we shall be faced with it for a long time to come, of too many needs chasing too little money. It is easy to talk about priorities. My sympathies are always with the aged. After all, I am getting precious near that stage myself so perhaps I have a vested interest in the subject.

Every year we face an increasing mumber of people who are living not to 65, not to 75 but to 85, and, within the next 15 to 17 years, we shall face an old age problem which, if we do the right thing by them, causes one to wonder from where the money is to come. The noble Earl, Lord Grey, said that sympathetic noises were made but he wanted to know what was being done. I know him and I do not think he really meant that.

Earl GREY

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord—

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

I have a lot to say, my Lords, and I would rather not be interrupted. We are doing more than just making sympathetic noises. It may be that a large number of people in the community should be doing more than they are doing, and, if that is the case and if that is what the noble Earl meant, then I am with him.

I wish to start by considering two points. The first is the cash help we have given. First and foremost we have greatly increased the value of social security benefits, and we must remember that, out of a population of about 55 million, over 12 million people are in receipt of benefits or help, very nearly one quarter of the population. I am not suggesting that it is a made to measure garment. I realise that often the help we are giving only fits where it touches. Nevertheless, from October 1973, when the previous Government last increased benefits—that was the last opportunity they had; this is not a criticism—to the uprating in November 1976, long-term benefit rates rose by 97 per cent. and, in the same period, prices rose by only 72 per cent. Thus, the purchasing power of long-term benefits was increased by 15 per cent.

As well as increasing benefit rates, we have widened the scope of the social security scheme and introduced several new benefits, particularly for the chronically sick and disabled, for whom we have provided more than just a modest mobility allowance, invalid care allowance and non-contributory invalidity pension. And this November we are bringing in the housewives' non-contributory invalidity pension which will provide £10.50 a week for disabled married women unable to cope with their housework. All these improvements to the social security scheme represent concrete help for the weaker social groups. In addition, we have provided considerable extra assistance directly related to helping poorer people with their fuel bills.

Since 1973, we have increased by 133 per cent. the rates of supplementary benefit heating additions, and they are going up by a further 14 per cent. in November. There will be three rates of heating addition—80p, £1.60 and £2.40 a week—but we must bear in mind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that there is contained in all supplementary benefits, throughout the whole of the year, a notional amount for heating. I think Lord Banks fixed it at £2.80, and of course that is £2.80 which is given throughout the year, when, for many months, the expense of heating is very low. For those who, in addition, have the extra heating allowance, that too goes on, not just for the autumn and winter period but throughout the year.

I believe that I am right in saying that between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. of all pensioners in receipt of supplementary benefit receive one of the three scales of heating allowance. Thus, when one adds the two together, the result is not bad. It may not be enough, but the Government must always ask themselves whether they can do more in one direction or another. Moreover, the number of heating additions has also increased; it has more than doubled in the last three years and well over one million supplementary beneficiaries now get the heating allowance.

There are other ways in which the Supplementary Benefits Commission can and does help people with their fuel costs. It has discretion to make lump-sum exceptional needs payments towards fuel bills in certain circumstances; where, for example, a period of very severe weather has led to an unusually high bill or where a claimant has perhaps not learnt to use the heating system economically. Many people find there is a process of experimentation, and, as I say, if they run into difficulties, the Commission can do something to help. In addition, the Commission can make these payments for such things as repairs or replacements of heating appliances, for clothing and blankets and for simple measures of insulation such as draught-proofing, curtains and floor coverings.

The Commission's discretion is not unlimited, as noble Lords will appreciate, and it can make lump-sum payments only in limited circumstances. Indeed, were it to make special payments to settle the bills of every claimant who got into difficulties over fuel it would both discriminate unfairly against the majority of its claimants who manage on their incomes and would cause resentment among people not entitled to such help. To limit the discretion seems quite right because we must look at the needs of individuals and satisfy ourselves that difficulties have arisen.

It is perhaps a dangerous thing to mention the Christmas bonus at this stage, but giving £10 costs £100 million a year, though that is not the deciding factor. The deciding factor is always how the Government should use the money to the best advantage, and the best advantage is to give it to those who need it. Not everybody on pension needs the £10 a week bonus—but I am straying from the subject. This has little to do with what we are talking about at present.

To help, therefore, in those cases where a lump sum payment for a fuel bill would not be justified, the Commission and the fuel authorities agreed some arrangements in February 1976. Under those arrangements people likely to suffer from hardship—namely, the elderly, the sick and the disabled, and families with young children—would not be disconnected if part of their benefit was paid directly to the fuel board to cover current consumption with a small amount, which was fixed at 50p a week, towards the arrears. This money can be so arranged that there can be a direct payment, so that while they are paying for the electricity they are consuming, they are paying so much off the arrears. Any arrears still outstanding after two years would be cleared by the Commission by means of a lump sum payment. I should like to give your Lordships some idea of the numbers helped by these arrangements in the first three months of their operation. I refer to the period in February 1976, when there were roughly 14,500 claimants who were put on direct payments, and a similar number of lump sum payments for fuel bills were made.

There is the electricity discount scheme, which my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis mentioned, and which was introduced last winter. It provided for a 25 per cent. discount off one winter quarter's electricity bill for people getting Family Income Supplement or Supplementary Benefit. As my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal announced on 15th July, a similar scheme will operate this coming winter. I accept that there was a disappointing take-up on this scheme, as I believe my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis said. We have done almost all that is humanly possible to publicise this. The matter of the entitlement of the deprived groups in the community is known to our officials, to health visitors, and to social workers, and it is surprising how well-informed on these matters are many voluntary workers in each area. We find it rather difficult to suggest what more we can do in this respect.

These, then, are the main cash measures which we have taken to help people with their fuel bills. But it is not just the size of the bill that is important; there is also the question of the method of payment. Over the last few years there has been a general trend away from coin-in-the-slot meters towards quarterly billing. For people who receive their income on a weekly basis, as most poorer people do, this causes real problems, and it means that they must budget over a 13 weeks' period, a period in which they may not have any precise idea of how much fuel they are consuming.

Again, we have taken several steps to alleviate this problem. Last December, the fuel authorities announced a code of practice on disconnections. This contains several provisions, such as budget payment plans, prepayment meters, and no disconnection of needy pensioners during the winter, which are designed to help people budget for their fuel consumption and avoid disconnections. In addition, the gas and electricity industries are now offering their customers a wide range of budget payment plans. In most areas stamps can be purchased from showrooms and used towards payment of bills. Weekly and montly payments are now widely accepted and these schemes should soon be available in all areas.

The industries have also agreed to provide in appropriate cases a prepayment meter, if it is safe and practical, and they are actively examining the possibility of meters operated by self-destroying tokens which would overcome some of the problems associated with coin meters. This was a point which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, made. I cannot take it further than that, except to say that it is not only very much in the forefront of our thinking, but, I hope, will be very much in the forefront of our activity in the not too distant future.

My Lords, I should like to turn now to consider the other side of the fuel problem, which is to ensure that people get enough heat. Here we have taken action on a number of fronts. First, we have increased provision for insulation. I have already mentioned that the Supplementary Benefits Commission can make lump sum payments for simple measures of insulation. On a much larger scale, we are using the Job Creation programme, to which the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, referred, to operate schemes for home insulation, particularly for the houses of elderly and disabled people.

Here I should like to reply to one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal. By the end of June last, 86 local authorities were involved in schemes which had resulted in over 80,000 houses being insulated at a cost of about £1 million. I am prepared to accept that this is small fry as compared with what needs to be done, but at least it shows that 86 local authorities are involved and that some tangible result is being achieved. In addition, Government subsidy is now available to help local authorities with the cost of installing roof insulation in their existing houses. Where this is done for elderly or disabled people, no other work has to be carried out in order for the grant to be payable. We have also introduced special arrangements for the private sector under the improvement grant scheme.

Secondly, we are undertaking research to determine what improvements can be made in heating arrangements for old people. The Department of the Environment, with the help of the Research Institute for Consumer Affairs, has carried out a limited number of case studies in Coventry, Wandsworth, and South Tyneside. Measures adopted included draught-proofing and insulation, additional heating appliances, and rearrangements of living areas. The accent was on simple and cheap measures which could be undertaken by volunteers or those responsible for old people. The results are now being written up and will be available in booklet form before next winter. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will, in collaboration with other Departments, consider carefully any implications for existing systems; for example, improvement grant arrangements.

A number of noble Lords have referred to a statement made by Help the Aged. I received a copy of this statement this morning, and I was told that one was being sent here in case I did not get it at home before I left, which I did not. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, quoted, quite rightly, that the statement said that over 2 million people live in temperatures which would bring instant prosecution if they occurred in factories or offices. The statement goes on to say that at a conservative estimate 700,000 pensioners risk hypothermia every winter—and many do not just risk it, they die. I do not know the basis for these figures, nor does my Department. I wish we did.

I want to draw the distinction between hypothermia, a condition in which the deep body temperature falls below 35 degrees centigrade and which requires medical treatment in hospital, and subjective feelings of cold which are often confused with it. It is obviously undesirable for old people to feel cold, but there is no firm evidence of the incidence of hypothermia among old people in the community. All we know for certain is that, out of the total number of deaths in England and Wales—and there are something like half a million people who die every year in England and Wales—hypothermia is mentioned on the death certificate as the sole or main cause in the case of less than 20 of the people who died, and the number in which it is given as a subsidiary cause is less than 500. I am not suggesting that we need not bother about 20 people, or about another 500 people. What I am saying is that, when we are looking at the problems facing us, we must keep things in the right perspective.

Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? He said he did not know where these figures came from. I suggest to him that possibly the Supplementary Benefits Commission's findings are relevant here. Unfortunately, I have sent my papers up to the Hansard office now, but I think I am right in saying that they say they visited 1,000 people and found 10 per cent. of them were potential hypothermia sufferers. I then extrapolated that to suggest that the figure could be as many as 900,000 if your take 10 per cent, of 9 million pensioners. That is a possible basis, is it not?

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, a most unreliable basis. There are ten noble Lords in the House at the moment, and if each of us underwent a very deep medical examination it might well be found that three of us suffered from a particular complaint. Would it be right to say that one third of the Members of your Lordships' House—namely, nearly 400—therefore suffered from it? This is a very dangerous way of coming to conclusions. I take the point that there are propably more people suffering from hypothermia than ought to, and more than we should be satified to know.

Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one more thing?

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

No, my Lords. I have taken 24 minutes, and I very often get into trouble for speaking too long.

I want to deal with one other matter. Help the Aged quoted another study which found hypothermia present in a higher percentage of elderly patients admitted to hospital—a higher percentage than in previous studies. This was in fact a pilot study to look at suitable research measures to examine the significance of low body temperatures in the elderly, and therefore dealt only with a small number of patients admitted to one hospital. In fact there were only 13 patients in the study who were admitted with primary hypothermia. Six of them showed factors such as refusal of services which had been offered to them; several showed an excessive consumption of alcohol; and some of them had been taken off the streets, where they had been living rough for some considerable time. Whether one ought to draw conclusions and say that the number represented 3 per cent., or something like that, and it therefore means that this is always the case, I do not know. I merely draw attention to that because I think we must be very careful about the kind of statistics we talk about and the kind of statistics that we use.

However, the noble Earl, Lord Grey, said that it was everybody's responsibility. I think it is everybody's responsibility. I think that there is a responsibility on Government to assume certain responsibilities for a person from the cradle to the grave; that is why I am on this side of your Lordships' House. I believe that fervently; but I also believe that that does not exonerate or excuse the rest of the community from playing their part, and far too few people in our community today are concerned even with the people living next door to them. My right honourable friend has launched a Good Neighbour compaign. As far as we can tell, it is doing extraordinarily well, and we shall be giving it a push this coming autumn, on its first anniversary. This is what we want to try to get across to people: that they, too, have a moral responsibility for doing something for people who live near and around them, even if the State has a responsibility for providing certain monies.

The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked me about the amount deducted under the direct payments scheme. I think that in point of fact I answered that. I think he also asked me the latest estimate of take-up for the discount scheme. My understanding is that it is 57 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, mentioned ignorance among pensioners of supplementary benefit heating additions. I think that, in my reply, I said that something like 50 and 60 per cent. of pensioners receiving supplementary benefit are in fact getting the heating allowances. Then I dealt with the statistics, if not satisfactorily to the noble Lord, certainly to my own satisfaction; and I dealt, I think, with the reasonable period for paying off arrears, which I said was 13 weeks.

In answer to one question, I cannot now remember the exact wording that my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis used but he asked me about the Government's policy as regards disconnections. I understand that the industries have voluntarily agreed not to disconnect pensioners' households between the beginning of October and the end of March unless it is clear that they have adequate financial resources. The Government have therefore deferred consideration of any changes in the law relating to disconnection until the effectiveness of the voluntary code can be judged. The operation of the code is being kept under close observation by the area electricity consultative councils, and the national and regional gas consumer councils. My noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Banks, pointed out, was himself, I believe, the first chairman of the special committee set up by the Department of Energy when he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary there, so really he should be here answering rather than myself, because he is much better informed than I am. But we cannot say (at least, I cannot say) which of the 17 recommendations in the Oakes Report have been taken up or rejected. What I am proposing to do is to look at that and let my noble friend know. I shall certainly bring the attention of my right honourable friend to the remarks which have been made this evening, because it is a matter of some emergency, as well as a matter of national urgency having regard to the fact that we are talking tonight about a number of deprived groups which have anything but a comfortable time during the winter.

In conclusion, perhaps I may say that if people outside your Lordships' House, as well as your Lordships, look at what is being done at the moment by the Government in the much wider field and by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, particularly for the aged, for the low-income groups and for the chronically sick and disabled, it will be seen that however deficient it may seem to some of us, it is a matter for which we can take some credit in having gone quite a long way, having regard to the demands on our national income and the resources that we have left for distribution to so many members in our community who are far less fortunately placed than we are ourselves.